Friday
April 8, 1988
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 268, and 271
Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
of Scheduled Wastes; Proposed Rule
-------
11742
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part* 264,265,26)3rand 271
lOSW-FR-«8-005; FHL-33OG*!
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Restrictions for First Third of
Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is'today proposing its
approach to impleme'nting the
congressipnally mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes
listed in 40 CFR 268.10. These actions
are responsive to amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Acl (RCRA). enacted in the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984.
Today's notice proposes specific
treatment standards and effective dates
for some of the so-called "First Third"
wastes. Additionally, the Agency is
proposing its approach to implementing
'the land disposal restrictions provisions
for those First Third wastes for which a
treatment standard is not set. Also
addressed in today's notice are the
Agency's proposed modifications to the
"no migration" petition process.
DATE Comments on this prcposed rule
must be submitted on or before May 23,
1988.
ADDRESSES: The public must send-an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket (S-212)
(WH-562). D.-S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M S«caet SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Place .theDocket
Number F-«8-LDR7-FFFFF on your
comments. The OSW docket is located
in the EPA RCRA Docket Room (sub-
basement), 401M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460. The docket is
open from 9:00 to 4:00, Monday through
Friday, except for public holidays. To
review docket materials, tin public must
make an appointment by calling (202)
475-9327. The public may copy a
maximum of 50 pages from any
regulatory document at no cost
Additional copies cost S.20 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact
Stephen Weil, or Mitch Kidwell. Office
of Solid Waste (WH-562B). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460, (202)
382-4770. For specific information on
BDAT/treatment standards, contact Jim
Berlow. Office of Solid Waste (WH-
565). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 382-7917. For specific
information on capacity determinations/
national variances, contact Jo-Ann
Bassi, or Linda Malcolm, Office of Solid
Waste (WH-565). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460. (202) 382-7917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Background
A. Brief Summary of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1884
(HSWA)
1. Solvents and Dioxins
2. California List Wastes
3. Scheduled Wastes
4. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
B. Summary of the Land Disposal Restric-
tions Framework
1. Regulatory Framework
2. Applicability
3. Development of 5 3004(m) Treatment
Standards
4. Application of the Toxicity Character-
istic Leaching Procedures (TCLP)
5. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Ban Effective Dates
a. Effective Dates Based on National
Capacity Determinations
b. Case-by-Case Extensions
6. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundment*
7. Dilution Prohibition
8. Storage Prohibition
9. Variance from the Treatment Stand-
ard
10. ".No Migration" Exemption
11. -Permit •• Modifications and Changes
During Interim Status
12. Treatment Standards and Effectiw
Dates for Restricted Wastes
13. The California List
n. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Proposed Approach
B. Best Demonstrated Available Technol-
ogies (BOAT)
C. Waste Analysis Requirements
D. Nationwide Variances from .the Effec-
tive Date
E. "Soft Hammer" Requirements •
F. "No Migration" Petition
III. Regulatory Approach for the First Third
Wastes
A -Determination of Treatability Groups
and Development of BOAT Treatment
Standards
1. Waste Treatability Groups
2. Demonstrated Treatment Technologies
3. Selection of Facilities for Engineering
Visits and Sampling
4. Hazardous Constituents Considered
and Selected for Regulation (BOAT
List)
S. Compliance with Performance Stand-
ards
6. Identification of BOAT
7. BOAT Treatment Standards for "De-
rived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes
a. Applicability,of BOAT to "Derived-
. From" Wastes From Treatment
Trains Generating Multiple Residues
b. Applicability of BOAT to Mixtures
and Other Derived-From Residues
8. Transfer of Treatment Standards
9. "No Land Disposal" as the Treatment
Standard
10. Waste-Specific Treatment Standards
a. KOB1—Emission Control Dust/
Sludge from the Primary Production
of Steel in Electric Furnaces
b. K062—Spent Pickle Liquor Generat-
ed by Steel Finishing Operations of
Facilities Within the Iron and Steel
industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332)
c. K016—Heavy Ends or Distillation
Residues from the Production of
Carbon Tetrachloride
K018—Heavy Ends from the Frac-
tionation in Ethyl Chloride Produ-
citon
K019—Heavy Ends from the Distilla-
tion of Ethylene Dichloride Pro-
duction
K020—Heavy Ends from the Distilla-
tion of Vinyl Chloride in Vinyl
Chloride Monomer Production
K030—Column Bottoms or Heavy
Ends from the Combined Produc-
tion of Trichloroethylene and
. Perchloroethyiene
d. K024—Distillation Bottoms from the
Production of Phthalic Anhydride
from Naphthalene
e. K103—Process Residues from Ani-
line Extraction from the Production
of Aniline
K104—Combined Wastewater
Streams Generated from Nitro-
benzene/Aniline Production
f. K071—Brine Purification Muds from
the Mercury Cell Process in Chlo-
rine Production, where Separately
Prepurified Brine is Not Used
g. K048—Dissolved Air Flotation
(DAF) Float from the Petroleum Re-
fining Industry
K049—Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
• from the Petroleum Refining In-
dustry
K050--Heat Exchanger Bundle
Cleaning Sludge from the Petrole-
um Refining Industry
K051—API Separator Sludge from
the Petroleum Refining Industry
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
11743
K052—Tank Bottoms (Leaded) from
the Petroleum Refining Industry
h. K069—Emission Control Dust/
Sludge from Secondary Lead Smelt-
Ing
i. K015—Still Bottoms from the Distil-
lation of Benzyl Chloride
J... K037—Wastewater Treatment
Sludges from the Production of Dis-
ulfoton ..•'.'•-••
k. K004—Wastewater Treatment
Sludge from the Production of Zinc
Yellow Pigments — ./•.
K008—Oven Residue from the Pro-
duction of Chrome Oxide; Green
Pigments "-'.-;
- ,',v-:K036—?Still Bottoms from Toluene
Reclamation Distillation in the
Production of Disulfoton
.K073—Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Waste from the Purification .Step
of the Diaphragm Cell Process
Using Graphite Anodes in Chlo-
rine Produciton
KlOO—Waste Leaching Solution
from Acid Leaching of Emission
Control Dust/Sludge from Second-
ary Lead Smelting
B. Testing and Recordkeeping
1. Waste Analysis
2. Notification Requirements
3. Recordkeeping Requirements for Stor-
age Facilities .
C. "Soft Hammer" Provisions
1. Applicability
2. Interpretation of Specific Terms
a. 'Treatment"
b. "Facility"
c. "Certification by Owners or Opera-
tors as well as Generators" -
3. Certification Requirements
4. Treatment of "Soft Hammer" Wastes
in Surface Impoundments
5. Retrofitting Variances ~
D. Disposal of Restricted Wastes Subject
to an Extension of the Effective Date
E. Relationship to California List Prohibi-
tions
F. Determination as to the Availability of
the Two-Year Nationwide Variance for
Solvent Wastes Which Contain Less
Than 1% Total F001-F005 Solvent Con-
stituents
G. Storage Prohibition
H. Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of
Prohibited Wastes
1. Overview . , "
Z. Requirements of "No Migration" Peti-
tions in the November 7. 1986 Final
Rule
3. Regulatory Requirements of RCRA
Sections 3004(f) and (g) November 7,
1986 Final Rule
4. Additional Requirements for "No Mi-
gration" Petitions for Surface Units
I. Proposed Approach To Comparative
Risk Assessment,
]. Determination of Alternative Capacity,
and Effective Dates for the First Third
Wastes
: 1. Quantities of Wastes Land Disposed
2. Required Alternative Capacity '
3. Capacity Currently Available and Ef-
fective Datea
4. Capacity Variances for ' "Derived-
From" and "Mixed" Wastes
S. Capacity Variances for "Soft
Hammer" Wastes
IV. Modifications to the Land .Disposal Re-
strictions Framework
A. General Waste Analysis (§ 264.13 and
1265.13)
B. Operating Record (§ 264.73 and i 265.73)
C. Purpose; Scope, and Applicability
(§268.1) ,
D. Treatment in Surface Impoundment Ex-
emption (J 268.4)
E. Case-by-Case Extensions (5 268.5)
F. "No Migration" Petitions (S 268.6)
G. Testing and Recordkeeping (§ 268.7)
H. Landfill and Surface Impoundment Re-
strictions (§ 268.8) .
I. Waste Specific Prohibitions— First Third
Wastes (I 268.33)
J. Treatment Standards (! 268.40, { 268.41,
and J 268.43) .
K. Storage Prohibition ( § 268.50)
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized-
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
C. State Implementation
VI. Effects of the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program on Other Environmental Programs
A. Discharges .Regulated Under the Clean
Water Act .
B. Discharges: Regulated Under the Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA)
C. Air .Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act
VII. Regulatory Analyses ; :
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Purpose . :'\
2. Executive Order No. 12291
3. Basic Approach/Regulatory Alterna-
tives "'..''
4. Methodology. . :
5. Results :
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act ;
C. Paperwork Reduction Act • •
D. Review of Supporting Documents
VIII. Implementation of the Part 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
IX. References ' _ '., :
X. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 264. 265.
268. and 271
L Background ^ \.\
A. Brief Summary of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 .
'
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), enacted on
November 8, 1984, require the Agency to
promulgate regulations .that restrict the
land disposal of hazardous wastes. '.':-
Specifically, the amendments specify
dates when particular groups of '
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal unless "it has been .. •
demonstrated to the Administrator, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous -
constituents from the disposal unit or
• injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous" (RCRA sections 3004
(d)(l). (e)(l). (g)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (dj(l).
(e)(l). (g)(5)). Congress established a .
separate schedule for restricting the
disposal by underground injection into
deep injection wells of solvent- and
dioxin-containing hazardous wastes and
wastes referred to collectively as
California list hazardous wastes (RCRA
section 3004{f)(2}, 42 U.S.C. 6924(f)(2)).
. The amendments also require the
' Agency to set "levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and.
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized" (RCRA
section 3004{m)(i). 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(l)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited .
and may be land disposed. The Agency
can also grant a variance from a
treatment by revising the treatment
standard for a waste through rulemaking
.. procedures. In addition, a hazardous .
waste that does not'meet the treatment
standard may be land disposed
provided the "no migration"
demonstration specified in sections 3004
(d)(l), (e)(l), and (g)(5) is.made.
For the purposes of the restrictions,
HSWA defines land disposal "to
include, but not be limited to, any :
placement of * * * hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface:impoundment, waste
pile.'injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed
formation, or underground mine or
cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.
6924{k)). '
• Although HSWA defines land
disposal to include injection wells, such
disposal of solvents, dioxins, and the
California list wastes is covered on a
'separate schedule. The disposal of such
wastes in deep-wells is subject to the
land disposal restrictions by August 8,
1988. .
The land disposal restrictions are
effective when promulgated unless the
. Administrator grants a national
variance from the statutory date and
establishes a different date (not to
-exceed, two years, beyond the statutory
:! deadline) based on "the earliest date on
. which adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity which
-------
11744
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
protect* human health and the
environment will be available" (RCRA
•CCtion 3004(h){2), 42 U.S.C. (3924{h)(2)).
In addition, the Administrator may grant
a case-by-case extension of the
statutory deadline for up to one year,
renewable once for up to one additional
year, when an applicant "demonstrates
that there is a binding contractual
commitment to construct or otherwise
provide such alternative capacity but
due to circumstances beyond the control
of such applicant such alternative
capacity cannot reasonably ibe made
available by such effective dlate" (RCRA
section 3004(h}(3). 42 U.S.C. I3924(h)(3}).
The statute also allows treatment of
hazardous wastes in surface
Impoundments that meet certain
minimum technological requirements
(certain exceptions are allowed).
Treatment in surface impoundments is
permissible provided the treatment
residues that do not meet the treatment
standard(s) (or applicable statutory
prohibition levels where no treatment
standards have been established) are
"removed for subsequent management
within one year of the entry of the waste
into the surface impoundment" (RCRA
section 3005{j)(ll){B). 42 U.S.C.
6925(JH11HB)).
In addition to prohibiting the land
disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress
also prohibited the storage of restricted
wastes unless "such storage is solely for
the purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment or disposal" (RCRA section.
3004(j), 42 U.S.C. 6924(j).
1. Solvents and Dioxins
As of November 8.1988, HSWA
prohibits the land disposal (except by
underground injection into deep wells)
of the following wastes: dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes numbered
F020, F021, FQ22, and F023; and solvent-
containing hazardous wastes numbered
FOOl. F002, F003, F004. and F005 in 40
CFR 261.31 (RCRA sections 3004{e)(l).
(e)(2). 42 U.S.C. 6924 (e){l). (e)(2)).
Effective August 8,1988, the disposal of
these Wastes into deep injection wells is
prohibited (RCRA sections 2)004 (f)[2),
(f)(3). 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2), (i)(3)). During
the period ending November 8,1988, this
prohibition does not apply to disposal of
solvent- and dioxin-contamiinated soil or
debris resulting from a response action
taken under section 104 or 108 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or a corrective
action taken under Subtitle C of RCRA
(RCRA section 3004(e}(3), 412 U.S.C.
6924(6)0)).
2. California List Wastes
As of July 8,1987, the statute prohibits
further land disposal (except by deep
well injection) of the following wastes
listed or identifed under section 3001 of
RCRA;
(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free
liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing free cyanides at
concentrations greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/1.
(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free
liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing the following metals
{or elements) or compounds of these
metals (or elements) «t concentrations
greater than or equal to those specified
below:
(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500
fflg/1;
(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd)
100 mg/1;
Jiii) chromium (VI and/or compounds (as
Cr VI)) 500 mg/1:
(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500
ing/1:
(v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20
mg/1:
(vi) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
mg/1:
(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
100 mg/1: and •
(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as Tl)
130 mg/1.
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less
than or equal to two (2.0).
(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls at
concentrations greater than or equal to
50 ppm.
(E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated
organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to .
1.000 mg/kg.
(RCRA sections 3004 (d)(l). (d)(2), 42
U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l). (d)(2)). Effective
August 8,1988. the underground
injection into deep wells of these wastes
is prohibited (RCRA sections 3004 (f)(2),
(f)(3). 42 U.S.C. 6924 (f)(2). (f)(3)). During
the period ending November 8,1988,
there is no prohibition .on the land
disposal of California list wastes that
are contaminated soil or debris resulting
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 106 of CERCLA or a
corrective action taken under Subtitle C
of RCRA (RCRA section 3004(e)(3), 42
. U.S.C. 6924(e)(3)).
3. Scheduled Wastes
The amendments required the Agency
to prepare a schedule, by November 8,
1986, for restricting the land disposal of
all hazardous wastes listed or identified
as of November 8,1984 in 40 CFR Part
261, excluding solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes and California list
wastes covered under the schedule set
by Congress. The schedule, based on a
ranking of the listed wastes that
considers their intrinsic hazard and their
volume, is to ensure that prohibitions
and treatment standards are
promulgated first for high volume
hazardous wastes with high intrinsic
hazard before standards are set for low
volume wastes with low intrinsic
hazard. The statute further requires that
these determinations be made by the
following deadlines:
(A) At least one-third of all listed
hazardous wastes by August 8,1988.
(B) At least two-thirds of all listed
hazardous wastes fey June B, 1989.
(C) All remaining listed hazardous
wastes and all hazardous wastes .
identified as of November 8,1984 by one
or more of the characteristics defined in
40 CFR Part 261 by May 8,1990.
•• If EPA fails to set a treatment
standard by the statutory deadline for
any hazardous waste in the first-third or
second-third of the schedule, the waste
may be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment provided the unit is in
compliance with the minimum
technological requirements specified in
section 3004(o) of RCRA. In addition.
prior to disposal, the generator must
certify to the Administrator that he has
investigated the availability of treatment
capacity and has determined that
disposal in such landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical
alternative to treatment currently
available to the generator. This
restriction on the use of landfills and
surface impoundments applies until EPA
sets a treatment standard for the waste.
The use of other forms ofland disposal
is not similarly restricted, and may
continue to be used for disposal of
untreated wastes until EPA promulgates
treatment standards, or until May 8,
1990, whichever is sooner. If the Agency
fails to set a treatment standard for, any
ranked hazardous waste by May 8,1990,
the waste is automatically prohibited
from land disposal unless the waste is
the subject of a successful "no
migration" demonstration (RCRA
section 3004(g), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)). In a
May 28,1986 final rule (51 FR19300),
EPA published the schedule for setting
treatment standards SOT the listed
hazardous wastes, with all wastes that
are identified as hazardous by
characteristic being ranked in the third-
third. This schedule is incorporated in 40
CFR 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12.
4. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
RCRA requires the Agency to set a
treatment standard for any hazardous
waste that is newly identified or listed
in 40 CFR Part 261 after November 8,
' 1984 within six months of the date of
identification or listing (RCRA section
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday. April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
11745
3004{g)(4). 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)).
However, the statute does not provide
for an automatic prohibition on the land
disposal of such wastes if EPA fails to
establish treatment standards within the
six-month period. • .
B. Summary of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Framework
In thjs section EPA describes, for the
readers' convenience, the existing land-
disposal regulations under 40 CFR Part
268. EPA. however, is not reopening any
of these existing rules for public
comment unless it explicitly says so ,
elsewhere in the preamble. " "
1. Regulatory Framework
On November 7,1986, EPA
promulgated a final rule (51 PR 40572)
establishing the regulatory framework
for implementing the land disposal
restrictions. Corrections to the
November 7,1986 final rule were
included in a June 4,1987 Federal
Register notice (52 PR 21010] to clarify
the Agency's approach to regulating
restricted wastes. Some changes to the
framework were made in the July 8,1987
rulemaking that prohibited certain
California list wastes (52 FR 25760). By
each statutory deadline, and in
accordance with the schedule
promulgated on May 28,1986 (51 FR
19300), the Agency must promulgate the
applicable treatment standards under
Part 268 Subpart D for each hazardous
waste. Once the treatment standards are
effective, restricted wastes may be land
disposed in a Subtitle C hazardous
waste facility if they meet the applicable
treatment standards. However, if
treatment standards are not
promulgated by the statutory and
scheduled deadlines, .such wastes are
prohibited from land disposal unless
certain demonstrations are made by
those who wish to continue land
disposal. Such demonstrations are
allowed only until May 8,1990 (when
wastes are automatically prohibited by
statute), or until EPA promulgates
treatment standards, whichever is
sooner.
After the effective dates of the
prohibitions, wastes that do not comply
with the applicable treatment standards
will be prohibited from continued
placement in land disposal units unless
a petition has been approved under
! 268.6 demonstrating that there will be
no migration of hazardous constituents
from the land disposal unit or injection'
zone for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. Also, EPA may grant an
extension to the effective date under
§ 268.5 on a case-by-case basis.
2. Applicability f
The land disposal restrictions apply
prospectively to the affected wastes. In
other words, hazardous wastes land
disposed after the effective date are
subject to the restrictions, but wastes
land disposed prior to the applicable
effective date are not required to be
removed or exhumed for treatment.
Similarly, the restrictions on storage of
affected hazardous wastes apply only to
wastes placed in storage after the
effective date of an applicable land
disposal restriction. If, however, wastes
subject to the land disposal restrictions
are removed from storage or land
disposal after the effective date, such
wastes would be subject to the
restrictions and treatment standards.
The provisions of the land disposal .
restrictions apply to wastes produced by
generators of 100 to 1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste (or greater than 1 kg of
acute hazardous waste) in a calendar
month. However, wastes produced by
generators of less than 100 kilograms of
hazardous waste (or less than 1 kg of
acute hazardous waste) per calendar
month are conditionally exempt from
RCRA regulation, including the land
disposal restrictions.
The land disposal restrictions apply to
both interim status and permitted
facilities, as well as those not regulated
under RCRA. All permitted facilities are
subject to the restrictions, regardless of
existing permit conditions. The land
disposal restrictions supersede 40 CFR
270.4(a), which currently provides that
compliance with a RCRA permit
constitutes compliance with Subtitle C.
3. Development of 5 300 4(m) Treatment
Standards
In the November 7.1986 rulemaking.
EPA promulgated a technology-based
approach to establishing treatment
standards under section 3004(m). These
treatment standards are generally based
on the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) identified for the hazadous
cqnstitutents. .
In developing the treatment
standards, EPA characterizes the wastes
and establishes treatability groups for
wastes having similar physical and
chemical properties and, thus, similar
treatability characteristics. Once, the
treatability groups are established, EPA
collects and analyzes data on identified
technologies used to treat the wastes in
each treatability group.
EPA identifies those technologies that
are "demonstrated" by full-scale
operations. The demonstrated
technologies are then evaluated to
determine whether they may be
considered "available". To be
considered "available," the Agency
determines whether the demonstra ted
technologies (1) are commercially
available, (2) do not present a clear
increase in risk to human health and the
environment when compared to land
disposal of the untreated wastes, and (3)
substantially diminish the toxicity of the
waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste;,
The performance data on the
demonstrated available technologies are
then evaluated to determine whether the
'data is representative of well-designed
and well-operated treatment systems.
Only data from well designed and
operated systems are included in
determining BDAT. The performance
data on well-designed and well-
operated demonstrated available
technologies are then statistically
analyzed to determine the performance
level representative of treatment by
BDAT.
EPA may establish treatment
standards as either a specific
technology, or as a performance level of
treatment monitored by measuring the
concentration level of the hazardous
constituents in the waste or treatment .
residual or an extract of the waste or
treatment residual. When possible, EPA
prefers to establish treatment standards
as performance levels, allowing the
regulated .community greatest flexibility
in meeting the treatment standard.
When treatment standards are set as
performance levels, the regulated
community may use any technology (not
otherwise prohibited, e.g.,' impermissible •
dilution) to treat the waste to meet the
treatment standard and is not limited to
only those technologies considered in
determining BDAT. However, when
treatment standards are expressed as
specific treatment methods, such
methods must be employed. " .
4. Application of the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
In the November 7, 1986 final rule,
EPA promulgated regulations requiring
the regulated community to use the -
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching .
Procedure (TCLP) (Part 268 Appendix I)
when developing an extract from a
restricte'd solvent ordioxin-containing
waste or treatment residual. This extract
must be analyzed to determine whether
the concentrations of hazardous1 ;
constituents meet the applicable
treatment standards (which are .
expressed in Table CCWE at 5 268.41 as
constituent levels in the TCLP extract).
EPA notes that the TCLP has only been
-------
11746
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
'promulgated for monitoring: compliance
with the treatment standards
established for the F001-F005 spent
solvent wastes and the F020-F023 and
F02&-F028 dioxin-contaminated wastes.
The TCLP was not promulgated for
monitoring compliance with the
California list restrictions.
5. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Ban Effective Dates
a. Effective Dates Based an National
Capacity Determinations. The Agency
has the authority to grant national
variances (not to exceed two years) to'
the statutory effective date based upon
* lack of adequate alternative treatment,
recovery or disposal capacity. To make
this determination, EPA considers, on a
nationwide basis, both the capacity of
alternative treatment technologies
(permitted and interim status facilities
that will be on-line by the effective date).
and the quantity of restricted wastes
generated. If adequate capacity is
available, the restriction on land
disposal of that waste goes into effect
by the statutory deadline. If there is a
significant shortage of national capacity,
EPA may establish an alternative
effective date based on the earliest date
•on which adequate capacity for
treatment, recovery or disposal that is
protective of human health and the
environment will be available.
During the period of the national
variance, the waste is not subject to the
land disposal prohibitions. However, if
the waste is land disposed, it must be
disposed in. facilities in compliance with
the minimum technological requirements
of RCRA section 3004(o) (42 U.S.C.
6924(o)). (Note: EPA is proposing in
today's notice to amend this provision to
require that where such waute is
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit, the unit must be in
compliance with the minimum
technological requirements.]
b. Case-by-Case Extensions. The
Agency will consider granting up to a 1-
year extension (renewable only once] of
a ban effective date on a caae-by-case
basis. The applicant must demonstrate
(among other things stated in § 268.5)"
that a good faith effort has been made to
locate and contract with treatment,
recovery, or disposal facilities
nationwide to manage his wastes, and
that he has entered into a binding
contractual commitment to construct or
otherwise provide alternative capacity
that cannot reasonably be made
available by the applicable effective
date due to circumstances beyond his
control. During the period of the
extension, the waste is not subject to the
land disposal prohibitions. However, if '•
the waste is land disposed, it must be
disposed in units in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements of
RCRA section 3004(o) (42 U.S.C.
6924(o)). (Note: EPA is proposing in
today's notice to amend this provision to
require that where such waste is
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit, the unit must be in
compliance with the minimum
technological requirements.)
6. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
Wastes that would otherwise be
prohibited from one or more methods of
land disposal may be treated in a
surface impoundment that meets certain
technological requirements
(§ 268.4(a)[3)) as long as treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standard (or statutory
prohibition levels where no treatment
standards are established) are removed
within one year of entry into the
impoundment and are not placed into
any other surface impoundment for
subsequent management. The owner or
operator of such an impoundment must
certify to the Regional Administrator
that the technical requirements have .
been met and must also submit a copy
of the waste analysis plan that has been
modified to provide for testing treatment
residuals in accordance with § 268.4
requirements.
As promulgated in the July 8,1987
California list final rule (52 FR 25760),
evaporation of hazardous constituents
as the principal means of treatment is
not considered treatment for the
purposes of this exemption (§ 268.4(b)).
7. Dilution Prohibition
As established in the November 7,
1986 rule, and slightly modified in the
July 8,1987 rule, dilution is prohibited as
a substitute for adequate treatment in
complying with the land disposal
restrictions. This includes dilution in
lieu of adequate treatment to meet
established treatment standards, as well
as dilution to circumvent the effective
date of a prohibition, or dilution to
otherwise avoid a prohibition (S 268.3).
However, dilution is permitted as a
necessary part of the treatment process.
8. Storage Prohibition
Storage of restricted wastes is
prohibited except Where storage is
solely for the purpose of accumulating
such quantities of wastes as are
necessary to facilitate proper treatment,
recovery, or disposal (| 268.50).
Treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities may store restricted wastes for
as long as needed, provided such-
storage is solely for this purpose.
However^ if the facility stores a
restricted waste for more than one year,
it bears the burden of proof that such
storage was solely for this purpose (no
notification of storage exceeding one
year is required). For storage of less
than one year, EPA bears the burden of
proof that such storage was not for the
sole purpose of accumulating such
quantities of wastes as are necessary to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal. The prohibition on storage
does not apply to wastes which meet the
treatment standard, wastes which have
been granted an extension to the
effective date, and wastes which .are the
subject of a "no migration" exemption
under § 268.0.
9. Variance From the Treatment
Standard
EPA established the variance from the
treatment standard to account for those
wastes which are unable to be treated to
meet the applicable treatment
standards, even if well-designed and
well-operated BDAT treatment systems
are used (S 268.44). Petitions roust
demonstrate (among other things) that
the waste is significantly different from
the wastes evaluated by EPA in
establishing the treatment standard and
that the waste cannot be treated in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standard. This variance
procedure could result in the
establishment of a new waste
treatability group and corresponding
treatment standard that would apply to
all wastes meeting the criteria of the
new waste treatability group.
10. "No Migration" Exemption
EPA will consider allowing the land
disposal of a specific untreated
restricted waste at a specific site if the
Agency determines that the applicable
land disposal method is protective of
human health and the environment
(S 268.6). For the Agency to make this
determination, a petitioner must
demonstrate (among other things) that
such disposal will not allow the
migration of hazardous constituents
from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. (RCRA section 3004(d), 42
U.S.C. 2964(d)(l)). Today's notice
includes the Agency's proposed
amendments to the "no migration"
petition requirements under 5 268.6.
11. Permit Modifications and Changes
During Interim Status
To facilitate the implementation of the
land disposal restrictions, S 270.42 was
modified in the November 7,1986 rule to
allow permitted treatment facilities
more flexibility to treat restricted
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
11747-
wastes not previously specified in their
permit Upon Federal or State approval
of a minor permit modification (under
S 270.42), treatment facilities may treat
wastes prohibited from one or more
methods of land disposal provided that
treatment is in accordance with
established treatment standards, that
handling and treatment of the restricted
wastes will not present substantially
different risks from those wastes listed
in the permit, and that no changes in the
treatment process or physical equipment
are made to accommodate these wastes.
The July 8,1987 California list final
rule allowed 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 and
containers as necessary to comply with
the land disposal restrictions. This rule
also allowed interim status facilities to
expand their operations by more than 50
percent, in terms of capital
expenditures, to treat or store restricted
wastes in tanks or containers as
necessary to comply with the land
disposal restrictions.
12. Treatment Standards and Effective .
Dates for Restricted Wastes
Treatment standards and effective
dates for restricted wastes are discussed
in detail in the November 7,1986 rule on
solvents and dioxins, and in the July 8.
1987 final rule on California list wastes.
The applicable effective dates for
restricted wastes are found at 40 CFR
Part 268 Subpart C. The applicable
treatment standards for restricted
wastes are found at 40 CFR Part 268
Subpart D.
13. The California List
EPA promulgated the land disposal
restrictions final rule for some California
list wastes on July 8,1987 (52 FR 25760).
This rule promulgated treatment
standards and corresponding effective
dates for the California list hazardous
wastes containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and most of the
California-list wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs), and codified the statutory
prohibition for certain corrosive wastes.
This rule also established methods for
determining compliance with the
prohibitions and made some
modifications (as discussed previously)
to the land disposal restrictions
framework promulgated November 7,
1986 (51. FR 40572).
No prohibition levels or treatment
standards were established for the
California list hazardous wastes
containing metals or free cyanides.
However, the statutory prohibitions took
effect on July 8,1987 by operation of the
"hammer provision" in RCRA section -~-
3004(d). A notice of data availability
and request for comment, which outlines
.the Agency's findings with respect to
establishing more stringent prohibition
levels for the metal and cyanide wastes,
was published on August 12,1987 (52 FR
29992). A final rule establishing
prohibitions for these wastes may be
forthcoming.
The California list final rule requires
that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFLT)
be used to determine whether a waste,
including a free cyanide or metal-
bearing waste, is considered to be a
liquid for purposes of the California list
land disposal restrictions. This
procedure is method 9095 in EPA
Publication No. SW-«48. 'Test Methods •
for Evaluating Solid Waste."
To determine compliance with the
statutory prohibition levels for the metal
and free cyanide wastes, EPA will
evaluate whether the PLFT filtrate
contains the prohibited constituents in
concentrations exceeding the specified
levels. However, compliance with the
HOC, PCB, and corrosive waste
prohibitions requires the analysis of the
entire waste, not a PFLT-generated
filtrate.
The California list final rule integrated
a number of TSCA PCB requirements
into the RCRA framework. This ensures
that where inconsistencies exist
between TSCA and RCRA standards,
the more stringent regulations govern.
The July 8,1987 final rule established
treatment standards as specified
technologies for California list PCB and
HOC wastes (except dilute HOC
wastewaters). All liquid and nonliquid
hazardous wastes containing HOCs
(listed in Appendix III of Part 268) in
total concentration greater than or equal
to 1,000 mg/kg, except dilute HOC
wastewaters (i.e.. primarily water
mixtures containing HOCs in
concentrations greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/1 but less than 10.000 mg/1),
must be incinerated in accordance with
the requirements of Part 264 Subpart O
or Part 265 Subpart O. However. EPA
determined that there is a nationwide
lack of incineration capacity for these
HOC wastes requiring incineration and,
therefore, granted a 2-year variance
from the treatment standard. •
Treatment standards were not
established for dilute HOS waotewaters.
Dilute HOC wastewaters need not be
incinerated, but they must be treated to
below the 1,000 mg/1 prohibition level.
Dilute HOC wastewaters were not
granted a variance and were prohibited
from land disposal as of July 8.1987.
Liquid hazardous wastes containing
PCBs at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm must be treated in
accordance with existing TSCA thermal
treatment regulations at 40 CFR Part 761.
For PCB concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm but less than 500 ppm.
incineration in accordance with the
technical requirements of 40 CFR 761.70
or burning in high efficiency boilers in
accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR 761.60 is
required. For PCB concentrations greater
than or equal to 500 ppm. incineration in
accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR 761.70 is
required. Thermal treatment for PCBs
must also be in compliance with
applicable regulations in Parts. 264,265.
and 266. No extension to the effective
date was granted.
Wastes which are contaminated soil
and debris resulting from response
actions taken under sections 104 and 106
of CERCLA or corrective actions taken
under Subtitle C of RCRA are not
subject to these restrictions until
November 8,1988.
IL Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Proposed Approach
Today's notice describes the Agency's
proposed approach to implementing-the
requirements of RCRA section 3004(g)
with respect to certain of the listed
hazardous wastes included in § 268.10.
as promulgated on May 28,1986 (51 FR
19300). Pursuant to RCRA, the Agency is
required to promulgate regulations
establishing conditions under which
these so-called "First Third" wastes may
be land disposed by the statutory
deadline of August 8,1988. August 8,
1988 is also the date by which the
Agency must make determinations
regarding the conditions under which
the F001-F005 solvents and F020-F023
and F026-F028 dioxin-containing wastes
(see 51 FR 40572), California list wastes
(see 52 FR 25760), and First Third wastes
may be land disposed by deep-well
injection. The Agency's proposed
approach to restricting the disposal of
these wastes by deep-well injection will
be addressed in a separate notice.
EPA is proposing treatment standards
for only some of the First Third wastes
in today's proposal. The Agency will
continue to analyze treatment data on
additional First Third wastes and will
publish a supplementary proposal of
treatment standards for these wastes in
the near future. However, due to the
lack of available data and the time •
constraints of the statutory schedule.
EPA does not expect to promulgate
treatment standards for all of the First
Third wastes by August 8,1988.
Therefore, in accordance with the
-------
11748 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
provisions of section 3004(g) [6], the
Agency is proposing regulations which
allow continued land disposal of First
Third wastes for which treatment
standards or extensions to the effective
date have not been established. These
so-called "soft hammer" provisions
(discussed in further detail in Section III.
C. of today's proposal) will apply until
May 8,1990 or until treatment standards
or extensions to the effective date are
promulgated, whichever is sooner. On
May 8,1990, there is an automatic
prohibition on land disposal of
hazardous wastes listed or identified
prior to the enactment ofHSWA.
Effective May 8.1990, these wastes may
be land disposed only if the waste; (a)
Meets the applicable treatment
standards; (b) is the subject of an
extension to the effective date; or (c) is
the subject of an approved "no
migration" petition.
B. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDA TJ
In today's notice, the Agency defines
the waste Ireatability groups by waste
codes and identifies the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(EDATJ for each waste code (see
Section HI. A.). Treatment standards
applicable to the specific waste code are
based on the performance levels
, achievable by the corresponding BDAT
identified for each waste code.
However, any technology not otherwise
prohibited (i.e., impermissible dilution)
may be used to meet the concentration-
based treatment standards.
Incineration is identified as BDAT for
waste codes K015, K016. K018, K019.
K020, K024. K030, K037. and K048-K052.
Chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and vacuum filtration is
identified as BDAT for K062. Solvent
extraction followed by incineration of
the extract and followed by steam
stripping and activated carbon
adsorption is BDAT for K103 and K104.
High temperature metals recovery is
BDAT for K061. For K071, acid leaching
and chemical oxidation is BDAT for
nonwastewaters, and sulfide
precipitation and filtration is BDAT for
wastewaters. Total recycle :is identified
as BDAT for K069 wastes. Also. EPA
has determined that the wastes K004.
K008. K036. K073. and KlOO are no
longer being generated and disposed.
and therefore, has not identified BDAT
for these wastes.
C, Waste Analysis Requirements
Treatment standards for organic
wastes and wastes for which
destruction technologies are
appropriate, are based on total
constituent analysis. For those wastes
for which stabilization or fixation is
appropriate, treatment standards are
based on concentrations in an extract
developed by the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (see Part 268
Appendix I).
D. Nationwide Variances From the
Effective Date
Due to-lack of sufficient alternative
capacity to treat the wastes to the
applicable treatment standards, a
national capacity variance is proposed
for several of the waste codes covered
by today's notice. This determination is
based on a comparison of the volumes
of wastes requiring treatment to the
amount of treatment capacity available
for such treatment. Although EPA does
not require BDAT technologies be used
to meet the applicable treatment
standards, capacity figures are derived
based on technologies identified as
BDAT, to ensure that adequate
treatment is available to meet the
.treatment standards.
The Agency is proposing to grant a
two-year national variance for the
following waste codes: K016. K018.
K019. K020, K024, K030. K037, K048-
K052, K061, K071. K103, and K104. No
variance is proposed for other wastes. A
more detailed discussion is found in
Section III. J. [Note: EPA has recently
conducted a survey of treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Capacity
determinations based on this new data
will be proposed and available for use
in the final rule.]
E. "Soft Hammer" Requirements
Section III. C. 3. of this notice presents
a more detailed discussion of the
certification and demonstrations a
generator (or owner or operator) is
required to make to dispose of "soft' .
hammer" wastes in landfills and surface'
impoundments. Generally, the generator
(or owner or operator) must certify that
there is no treatment that meaningfully
reduces toxicity or mobility of the waste
practically available, and that, therefore,
disposal of these wastes in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit that meets
the minimum technological requirements
of 3004(o) (double liner, leachate ' •'.
collection system, and ground water.
monitoring) is the only practical
alternative. This certification also
applies to those "soft hammer" wastes
which have been treated to reduce
toxicity or mobility and for which no
further treatment is practically
available, and thus, disposal of the
treatment residuals in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit that meets
the minimum technological requirements
is the only alternative.
F. "NoMigration"Petition
Today's notice also proposes
amendments to:40 CFR 268.6. the "no
migration" petition process (see Section
III. H.). These amendments to § 268.6
cover the demonstrations required in the
petition and certain other requirements
on the owner or operator of a'waste
management unit that is subject to a "no
migration" exemption.
III. Regulatory Approach for the First
Third Wastes,.
A. Determination of Treatabiiity Croups
and Development of BDAT Treatment
Standards
1. Waste Treatabiiity dfoups
•• For the First Third wastes, EPA used
the individual listed waste codes as the
starting point for developing treatability
waste groups. In cases where EPA
believed that wastes represented by
different codes could be treated to
similar concentrations using identical
technologies, the Agency combined the
codes into one treatability group. EPA
based its initial treatability group
decisions primarily on whether the
waste codes were generated by the
same or similar industries from similar
processes. EPA believes that such
groupings can be made even with
limited data because of the high
likelihood that characteristics affecting
treatment performance will be similar
for these different waste codes. For
example, the five waste codes pertaining
to wastes produced by petroleum
refining (K048-'K052) were combined
into a single treatability group. This
analysis resulted in 15 treatability
groups covering 24 waste codes that-are
the subject of today's proposed
rulemaking. ','
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies
As discussed in EPA's promulgated
methodology for BDAT (see November
7,1986, 51FK 40572), a technology is
considered to be demonstrated for a
particular waste if the technology
currently is in commercial operation for
treatment of that waste or a similar
waste. For most of the First Third waste
codes covered by today's proposal, EPA
identified demonstrated technologies
either through review of literature
discussing current waste treatment
practices or on the basis of information
provided by specific facilities currently
treating the waste or similar wastes.
In cases where the Agency did not
identify any facilities currently treating
.wastes represented by a, particular
waste code, EPA identified
demonstrated technologies in the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
11749
following manner. The Agency first
characterized the parameters affecting
treatment selection for the waste of
interest. EPA then compared these
parameters to other wastes for which
treatment technologies are
demonstrated; if the parameters were
similar, the Agency considered the
treatment technology also to be
demonstrated for the waste of interest.
For example, EPA considers rotary kiln
incineration a demonstrated technology
for many waste codes containing
hazardous organic constituents, high
total organic-content and high filterable
•olids regardless of whether any facility
is currently treating these wastes. The
basis for this determination is data
found in literature as well as data
generated by EPA confirming the use of
rotary kiln incineration on wastes
having the above characteristics. EPA's
rationale for determining demonstrated
technologies for each of the waste
treatability groups can be found in
Section 111. A. 10. (in the subsections for
each specific treatability group).
3. Selection of Facilities for Engineering
Visits and Sampling
In those instances where additional
data were needed to supplement the
Agency's current knowledge of
treatment performance for the
demonstrated technologies. EPA
arranged engineering visits to facilities
that treat wastes with a demonstrated
technology that potentially could be the
basis for the treatment standards. The
purpose of the engineering visits was to
confirm that candidates for sampling, in
fact, met EPA's criteria of being well-
designed facilities and that the
necessary sampling points could be
accessed. During the visit, EPA also
confirmed that the facility appeared to
be well operated, although the actual
operation that occurs during sampling is
the basis for EPA's decisions regarding
proper operation of the treatment unit
In general, the Agency considers a
well-designed facility as one that
contains all the unit operations
necessary to treat the various hazardous
constituents of the waste and any other
nonhazardous materials in the waste
that may affect treatment performance.
For example, a waste containing.
hazardous metals and a high
concentration of oil and grease would
require removal of potentially
nonhazardous oil and grease in order to
facilitate the subsequent removal of the
hazardous metals by precipitation. EPA
also places considerable emphasis on
the levels of performance the system is
designed to achieve in determining
whether to sample a particular
treatment facility, since the. facility will
seldom exceed the goals of its original
design.
In addition to ensuring that si system
is reasonably well-designed, the
engineering visit examines whether the
facility appears to be well-operated and,
just as importantly, has a measurable
way of describing the operation of the
treatment system during the time the
waste is being treated. For example,
EPA may choose not to sample a
continuous treatment system for which
an important design parameter cannot
be continuously recorded through the
use of a (trip chart. In continuous
systems, such instrumentation is
important in determining whether the
treatment system was operating within
design requirements during the period
when the waste was being treated.
In addition to the design and
operation of the treatment system, EPA
also bases its decision to sample a
facility on whether the piping layout is
such that all samples necessary to
evaluate treatment performance can be
collected. If piping is not suitable or
cannot be easily modified. EPA would
not perform a'sampling visit.
In order to select potential sites for
sampling, EPA has established a
hierarchy for conducting its engineering
visits. The hierarchy is (1) generators
treating single wastes on site; (2)
generators treating multiple wastes
together on site; (3) comercial TSDFs;
and (4) EPA in-house treatment. The
basis of this hierarchy is founded on two
concepts; (1) EPA believes, to the extent
possible, that it should try to develop
treatment standards from data produced
by treatment facilities handling only a
single waste, and (2] facilities that
routinely treat a specific waste have had
the best opportunity to optimize design
parameters. Although excellent
treatment can occur, at many facilities
that are not high in this hierarchy, EPA
has adopted this approach to avoid,
when possible, ambiguities related to
the mixing of wastes. Therefore, EPA
prefers on-site treatment facilities where
the waste of interest is treated alone or
as a major component of the waste
handled. If well-designed generator
facilities that meet EPA criteria are not
available, the Agency then looks to
commercial treatment facilities where
mixing of many wastes is generally
practiced but where extensive
optimization of treatment may have still
occurred. If no suitable TSDF facilities
are identified, EPA then conducts in-
house tests and optimizes the process
itself on a more limited basis.
EPA used a number of data bases to
determine if any generators were
treating specific wastes on site or if
there were any commercial TSDFs
treating this waste. EPA's
documentation for locating on-site
generating facilities and/or commercial
TSDFs for each waste can be found in
the Docket for today's rulemaking.
Although EPA's data bases provided
potential sites of treatment of individual
wastes, the data bases provided no data
that would preferentially support the
selection of one facility for sampling
over another. In cases where several
treatment sites appear to fall into the
•ame level of the hierarchy, EPA
selected sites for visits strictly on the
basis of what facility could most
expeditiously be visited and later
sampled if justified by the engineering
visit.
A secondary consideration involved
with the selection of technologies for
testing was the need to develop data
within an ambitious statutory deadline.
When selecting technologies to test for
performance, these deadlines required
that EPA, in some cases, select
demonstrated technologies for
performance tests based on its technical
judgment. This judgment considered the
underlying principles of operation of the
various technologies and any available
data pertaining to the performance of
these technologies on specific types of
wastes. EPA's rationale for selecting a
given demonstrated technology is
presented by a treatability group in
Section III. A. 10. of the preamble.
4. Hazardous Constituents Considered
and Selected for Regulation (BDAT List)
The target list of hazardous
constituents to be regulated for all
waste codes covered by today's rule is
referred to by the Agency as the BDAT
List. This list is derived from a
composite of 396 compounds and/or
classes of compounds that'are presented
in 40 CFR Part 261. Appendix VII and
Appendix VIII. This composite number
includes compounds selected by EPA as
representatives of some of the classes.
EPA then identified 175 of these "396 for
which EPA could not perform an
analysis of treatment performance due
to one of three reasons: (1) EPA does not
presently have an analytical method for
such constituents; (2) there are no
analytical standards available for
calibrating the test instruments; or (3)
the analytical method requires the use of
an extraction solvent in which the
compound would quickly dissociate. The
remaining 221 compounds comprise the
BDATUst.
For certain waste codes, the BDAT
List was then shortened because it was
unlikely that particular constituents
would be present. EPA's rationale for
-------
11750
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
ihortenlng the BOAT List for a given '
waste code or waste treatability group
is presented in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) developed for each
Agency sampling visit. The SAP for each
tested waste code can be found in the
On-Site Engineering Reports in the
Docket for today's rulemaking.
The specific constituents that the •
Agency selected for regulation in each
treatability group were, in general, those
found in the untreated waste j at
significant (i.e., treatable)
concentrations. EPA does nojt propose to
regulate constituents where data show
that they would be effectively managed
by regulation of other constituents (i.e.,
treatment of the regulated constituents
naturally results in the treatment of
other constituents). EPA's rationale for
the selection of regulated constituents
can be found in the BDAT background
document for the treatability group in
question.
5. Compliance with Performance
Standards
All the treatment standards proposed
in today's rule reflect performance
achieved by the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT). As such,
compliance with these standards only
requires that the treatment value be
achieved prior to land disposal; it does
not require the use of any particular
treatment technology. While dilution of
the waste as a means to comply with the
standard is prohibited, wastes that are
generated in such a way as to naturally
meet the standard can be land disposed
without treatment. With the exception of
treatment standards that prohibit any
land disposal, all treatment standards
proposed today are expressed as a
concentration level.
In today's rulemaking, EPA has used
both total constituent concentration and
TCLP analyses of the treated waste as a
measure of technology performance.
EPA's rationale for when eaidi of these
analytical tests is used is explained
below.
For all hazardous organic
constituents, EPA is basing the
treatment standards on the total
constituent concentration found in the
treated waste. EPA based its decision
on the fact that technologies exist to
destroy the various organic compounds.
Accordingly, the best measure of
performance would be the extent to
which the various organic compounds
have been destroyed or the total amount
of constituent remaining after treatment.
[NOTE: EPA's land disposal regulation
for P001-F005 spent solvents (51FR
40572) uses the TCLP value BUI
measure of performance. At tie time
that EPA promulgated the treatment
standards for F001-FOOS, useful data
were not available on total constituent
concentrations in treated residuals and,
as a result, the TCLP data was
considered to be the best measure of
performance.]
For metal constituents, EPA is using
both total constituent concentration
and/or the TCLP as the basis for
treatment standards. The total
constituent concentration is being used
when the technology basis includes a
metal recovery operation. The
underlying principle of metal recovery is
the reduction of the amount of metal in a
waste by separating the metal for
recovery; therefore, total constituent
concentration in the treated residual is
an important measure of performance
for this technology. Additionally, EPA
also believes it important that any
remaining metal in a treated residual
waste not be in a state that is easily
leachable; accordingly, EPA is also
using the TCLP as a measure of
performance. It is important to note then
for wastes where treatment standards
are based orra metal recovery process,
the facility has to comply with both the
total constituent concentration and the
TCLP prior to land disposal.
In cases where treatment standards
for metals are not based on recovery
techniques but rather on stabilization,
EPA is using the TCLP as a measure of
performance. The Agency's rationale is
that stabilization is not meant to reduce
the concentration of metal in a waste
but only chemically minimize the ability
of the metal to leach.
6. Identification of BDAT '
A detailed discussion of the Agency's
general methodology for establishing
BDAT standards is provided in EPA's
land disposal restrictions rule of
November 7.1988. 51 FR 40572. This
section discusses the specific
application of the methodology to the
First Third wastes, and, provides a
summary of some of the principal
elements of the BDAT methodology.
As a first step in the development of
BDAT-based treatment standards, EPA
screened the available treatment data
for a particular treatability group with
regard to the availability of information
describing the design and operation of
the system, the quality assurance/
quality control analyses of the data, and
the specific analytical tests used to
assess treatment performance. This
screening step is consistent with EPA's
promulgated approach in the November
7,1988 rulwnaking for F001-F005
solvents. Also, this screening step
recognizes the fact that different
performance measures may be
appropriate depending on the .
technology used (i.e.. total constituent
analysis for incineration vs. TCLP for .
stabilization] as discussed earlier. In
contrast to the F001-F005 spent solvent
rule. EPA was able to place a greater
emphasis on the design and operation of
the treatment system for the First Third
wastes because its field tests have been
modified to gather more detailed data to .
support these analyses. As discussed
earlier, the EPA field tests include data
describing the operating conditions of
the treatment unit during the time that
treatment samples were collected.
After the initial screening test, EPA
adjusted all treated data values based
on the analytical recovery values in
order to take into account analytical
interferences associated with the
chemical make-up of the treated sample.
For example, a treated residual data
point of 0.2 mg/kg with a recovery value
of 50% would be adjusted to 0.4 mg/kg.
In developing recovery data (also
referred to as accuracy data), EPA
would first analyze a waste for a
constituent and then add a known
amount of the same constituent (i.e..
spike) to the waste material. The total
amount recovered after spiking minus
the initial concentration in the sample
divided by the amount added is the
recovery value.
After adjusting the data, EPA then
averaged the performance values for the
various treatment operations and
compared the mean values using the
analysis of variance test (ANOVA), as •
described in the November 7,1986
preamble (see 51 FR 40591), to determine
if one technology performed
significantly better. EPA's decisions
regarding selection of one technology
over another that resulted from this
methodology can be found in the
"Identification of BDAT'. sections that
follow for each treatability group.
7. BDAT Treatment Standards for
"Derived-From" and "Mixed" Wastes
a. Applicability of BDAT to "Derived-
. From" Wastes From Treatment Trains
Generating Multiple Residues. In a
number of instances in this proposal, the
proposed BDAT consists of a. series of
Operations, each of which generates a
waste residue. For example, the
identified BDAT for wastes K103 and
K104 is solvent extraction, steam
stripping and activated carbon
adsorption. Each of these treatment
steps generates a waste requiring
treatment, namely a solvent-containing .
stream from solvent extraction, a
stripper overhead, and spent activated
carbon. Treatment of these wastes may ,
generate further residues: for instance,
spent activated carbon (if not
-------
•*
Federal Register f Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1980 / Proposed Rules
11751
regenerated) could be incinerated.
generating an ash and possibly a
scrubber water waste. Ultimately,
additional wastes are generated that
may require land disposal. With respect
to these wastes, the Agency wishes to
emphasize the following points:
1. All of the residues from treating the
original listed waste are likewise
considered to be the listed waste by
virtue of the derived-from rule contained
in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). Consequently, all
of the wastes generated in the course of
treatment would be prohibited from land
disposal unless they satisfy the
treatment standard or meet one of the
exceptions to the prohibition.
2. The Agency's proposed treatment
standards generally contain a
concentration level for wastewaters and
a concentration level for
nonwastewaters. These treatment
standards apply to all of the wastes
generated in treating the original
prohibited waste. Thus, all solids
generated from treating K103 and K104
would have to meet the treatment
standard for nonwastewaters. All
derived-from wastes meeting the
Agency definition of wastewater for this
rule (i.e., less than 1% total organic
carbon (TOC) and less than 1% total
solids) would have to meet the
treatment standard for wastewaters.
EPA wishes to make clear that this
approach is not meant to allow partial
treatment only to change the applicable
treatment standard. Therefore,
treatment of wastes with greater than
1% TOC (and less than 1% solids) to less
than 1% TOC does not necessarily make
the wastewater treatment standard
applicable.
The Agency has not performed tests,
in'all cases, on every waste that can
result from every part of the treatment
' train. However, the Agency's treatability
levels generally are based on treatment
of the most concentrated form of the
waste identified. Consequently, the
Agency believes that the less
concentrated wastes generated in the
course of treatment also will be able to
be treated to meet this level.
b. Applicability ofBDA T to Mixtures
and Other Derived-From Residues.
There is a further question as to the
applicability of the BDAT treatment
levels to residues generated not from
treating the waste (as discussed above),
but generated instead from other types
of management Examples are
contaminated soil or leachate that is .
derived from managing the waste. In
these cases, the mixture is still deemed
to be the listed waste, either because of
the derived-from rule, the mixture rule
(§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv)). or because the listed
waste is contained in the matrix (see,
e.g., § 261.33(d)). The prohibition for the
particular-listed waste consequently
applies to this type of waste.
The Agency believes that the majority
of these types of residues can meet the
treatment standards for the underlying
listed wastes (with the possible
exception of contaminated soil and
debris for which the Agency is currently
investigating whether it is appropriate to
establish a separate treatability
subcategorization). For the most part,
these residues will be less concentrated
than the original listed waste. The
Agency's treatability levels also make a
generous allowance for process
variability by asouming that all
treatability values used to establish the
standard are lognonnally distributed
(see 51 FR 40590-91. November 7,1988).:
The waste also might be amendable to a
relatively nonvariable form of treatment
technology such as incineration. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, the rules.
contain a treatability variance which
allows a petitioner to demonstrate that
his waste cannot be treated to the level
specified in the rule (see § 26S.44). This
provision provides a safety valve that
allows persons with unusual waste
matrices to demonstrate the
appropriateness of a different standard.
The Agency notes that to date, it has not
received any petitions under this
provision (for example, for residues
contaminated with a prohibited solvent
waste), indicating, in the Agency's view,
that the existing standards are generally
achievable.
8. Transfer of Treatment Standards
In today's notice, EPA is proposing
some treatment standards that are not
based on testing of the treatment
technology .of the specific waste subject
to the treatment standard. Instead, the
Agency determined that the constituents
present in the waste can be treated to
the same performance levels as
observed in other wastes for which EPA
has previously developed treatment
data. As stated in previous BDAT
rulemakings, EPA believes transferring
treatment performance for use in
establishing treatment standards for
untested wastes is valid technically in
cases where the untested wastes are-
generated from similar industries or
from similar processing steps. As
explained earlier in this preamble,
transfer of treatment standards to
wastes from similar .processing steps
requires little formal analysis because of
the likelihood that similar production .
processes will produce a waste matrix
with similar characteristics. However, in
the case where only the industry is
similar, EPA more closely examines the
waste characteristics prior to concluding
that the untested waste constituents can
be treated to levels associated with
tested wastes. The Agency's method for
conducting this analysis is discussed
below.
EPA's undertakes a two-step analysis
when determining whether wastes
generated by different processes within
a single industry can be treated to the
same level of performance. First, EPA
reviews the available data on those
parameters which are expected to affect
treatment selection. EPA has identified
some of the most important constituents
and other parameters needed to select
the treatment technology appropriate for
a given waste. A detailed discussion of
each analysis,- including how each
parameter was selected for each waste,
can be found in the background
document for each waste.
Second, when an individual analysis
suggests that an untested waste can be
treated with the same technology as a
waste for which treatment perfo: mance
data are already available, EPA then
analyzes a more detailed list of
constituents that represent some of the
most important waste characteristics
which the Agency believes will affect
the performance of the technology. By
examining and comparing these
characteristics, the Agency determines
whether the untested wastes will
achieve the same level of treatment as
the tested waste. Where the Agency
determines that the untested waste can
be treated as well as the tested waste,
the treatment standards can be •
transferred. A detailed discussion of this
transfer process for each waste can be-
found in the BDAT background
document for each waste or waste
treatability group.
9. "No Land Disposal" as the Treatment
Standard .
EPA is proposing "No Land Disposal"
as the treatment standard for several of
the First Third wastes. This standard is
analogous to the no discharge standard
established as BAT (best available
treatment) under the Clean Water Act's
effluent guideline program. It indicates
that after examining available data, the
Agency has identified that: (1) The
waste can be totally recycled (i.e., on-
site closed-loop recycling); (2) the waste
is not currently being land disposed; or
(3) the waste is no longer being
generated.
An alternative to establishing "No
Land Disposal"-as the treatment
standard would be to indicate that "0" is
the BDAT treatment standard (i.e..
concentration level) for hazardous
constituents. This appears to the Agency
to be a less desirable way to proceed,
-------
11752
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No, 68 /Friday, April 8; 1988 / Proposed Rules
given that the analytical limit of
detection it always greater than zero.
Because technologies exist that make
land disposal for some wastes
unnecessary, and because "0" really
means the analytic detection limit and
not truly zero. EPA believes that
specifying "No Land Disposal" as the
treatment standard is a better way of
expressing its intention.
The Agency notes further that it could
simply allow the statutory prohibition to
take effect to achieve the intended result
of no land disposal. The drawback with
this approach is that it allow* no ""
possibility of granting a variance from •
treatment standard for those wastes that
might not be amenable to the BOAT
treatment. (In the absence of a treatment
standard, a person would have to
initially petition the Agency to establish
a treatment standard for the waste, a
more cumbersome and time-consuming
process than applying for a variance
under 5 268.44.) Accordingly, the Agency
believes the best way to proceed is to
establish "No Land Disposal" as the
treatment standard where a mo
discharge treatment technology is
identified as BDAT.
10. Waste-Specific Treatment Standards
This section describes the
development of BDAT treatment
standards for all of the First Third
treatabiiity groups covered by today's
rule. It includes tables showing the
specific constituents regulated, as well
as the treatment standards.
a. K061—Emission Control Dust/Sludge
from the Primary Production of Steel
in Electric Furnaces
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K061 is
generated in the primary production of
steel in electric furnaces. The Agency
estimates that approximately 85 plants
produce steel in electric furnaces. These
facilities are primarily located in the
Eastern and North Central perts of the
United States.
The primary production of steel in
electric furnaces results in the
generation of participate emissions
which contain hazardous constituents
present in the feed materials. The
particulates captured by air pollution
control devices constitute the listed
K061 waste.
2 Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. K061 waste consists
principally of iron and zinc. In addition
to zinc, other BDAT list metals of
concern include lead of approximately
two percent and chromium ranging from
500 ppm to 10% (by weight). The water
content of the waste is approximately
IDS except where wet scrubbers are
used to generate this waste. The
demonstrated technologies that the
Agency has identified for treatment of
this waste are high temperature metals
recovery and stabilization. High
temperature metals recovery is currently
used to recover metals such as zinc and
chromium from the waste for reuse; this
technology also results in the formation
of a treated residual (i.e., slag) which
was analyzed to determine the
performance of this technology.
•Stabilization also is used directly to
reduce the teachability of the metals in
.the K081 waste that has not been
processed by metals recovery
technology. EPA tested both of these
technologies as part of the development
of treatment standards for K061.
3. Data Base. The Agency has 55 data
points for treatment of K061 wastes.
Fifteen data points are from four
facilities using high temperature metals
recovery, seven of which were collected
by EPA. Forty (40) data points represent
the use of stabilization by two facilities,
nine of which were collected by EPA.
EPA's screening of the data with
regard to the design and operation of the
treatment unit resulted in the deletion of
twelve of the fifteen data points for high
temperature metals recovery. Thirty-One
of the stabilization data values were
rejected because these data did not
reflect testing by the TCLP procedure:
the remaining nine were obtained using
the TCLP and represent proper design
and operation. Accordingly, these
twelve data points were considered in
the development of the treatment
standards for K061.
4. Identification of BDAT. BDAT for .
K061 was determined to be high
temperature metals recovery; As a
result, EPA is proposing treatment-
standards for this waste based on the
treatment residual (i.e., slag) generated
by this technology^
The Agency performed an analysis of
variance test for TCLP performance
levels achieved by high temperature
metals recovery and by stabilization.
The results show that high temperature
metals recovery provides significantly
better reduction of lead and zinc than
does stabilization, and equivalent
reductions of cadmium, chromium, and-
mercury in the TCLFs leachate. The.
Agency believes that establishing high
temperature metals recovery as BDAT is
consistent with the national policy
identified in HSWA to reduce the
amount of hazardous waste generated. '
The Agency is aware of at least four
facilities in the United States and ten in
foreign-countries that use high , >.
temperature metals recovery to treat ;
K061 waste. Therefore. EPA believes
that high temperature metals recovery is
demonstrated to treat K061. High
temperature metals recovery is judged
to be available to treat K061 waste
because (1) this treatment technology is
commercially available or can be
purchased from the proprietor; and (2)
high temperature metals recovery
provides a substantial reduction in the
level of regulated constituents described
above. :
The question of identifying BDAT for
K061 also requires some discussion of:
several other sets of EPA regulations
relating specifically to burning
hazardous wastes for materials recovery
in industrial furnaces, and relating more
generally to the issue of when secondary
materials are RCRA solid wastes under
such circumstances. The most
significant issue presented is whether
EPA may permissibly establish a BDAT
treatment standard for the slag which
results from high-temperature metal
recovery of this waste.
The initial question is whether electric
arc steel dust is a RCRA solid and
hazardous waste when it is sent to an .
industrial furnace for high temperature —
metals recovery. Under the Agency's
existing regulations, this activity is
classified as the type of recycling known
as "reclamation" because it involves
recovery of metals contained in the
electric arc furnace dust (see 40 CFR
261.1(c)(4)). Because the material is a
listed sludge, it is therefore defined as a
solid waste under § 261.2(c)(3).
The Agency believes that this is an
appropriate classification because there
is a strong element of waste treatment
• characterizing this recycling activity:
these electric arc dusts are typically
landfilled, and they are not reclaimed in
continuous, on-going processes, but
rather in processes different from steel
production (most often primary zinc
smelting or some type of secondary
•metal recovery). Storage practices
preceding reclamation of this waste also
can involve direct placement on the land,
(for instance, in open waste piles),
another indication that the electric arc
dust is a waste. Fora more detailed
discussion, see 50 FR 641 (January 4,
1985) which presents the decision
factors to determine whether sludges
and byproducts should be designated as
solid wastes when they are to be
reclaimed. EPA has recently proposed to
codify these factors, with some
modifications, in its regulations (53 FR
519 and 529, January 8,1988).
The recent opinion of the District of -
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in
American Mining Congress V..EPA (824
F. 2d 1177) does not change this
analysis. The court stated that when a
generator has a secondary material of
no further use to him which he discards
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules 11753
by giving to another person for
recycling, the material is a "discarded
material" within the meaning of RCRA
section 1004(27). An example, as used in
the opinion, is used oil given by the
original generator to a second person for
recycling (824 F. 2d at n. 14). The electric
arc furnace dust is similarly discarded
by the generator when it is no longer
useful to the original generator, is given
to another entity for recycling, and is not
recycled in the original process or even
in another steel process. Thus, it is not
the type of in-process, undiscarded
material used in on-going, continuous
processes found in the American Mining
Congress case to be an undiscarded
material (see generally, 53 FR 519.520-
521. and 522-523. January 8,1988).
It should be noted that even if the
K061 waste were not deemed to be a
waste when it is reclaimed in processes
unrelated to steel production. EPA still
could establish BOAT standards for
K061 that is being disposed, or
otherwise ensure that the waste is
recycled by high temperature metals
recovery rather than by being land
disposed. For example, the Agency
could simply prohibit land disposal of
the waste and indicate that high
temperature metals recovery is BOAT.
The Agency also could let the statutory
prohibition for the waste take effect,
which (as a practical matter) would
have the same result.
Since the Agency can require
recycling as a BOAT standard, it must
consider whether it has authority to set
treatment standards for the slag that
results from high temperature metals
recovery. The fact that K061 electric arc
dust is a solid and hazardous waste
when it it sent for high temperature
metals recovery does not end the
inquiry. The Agency has discussed in a
number of preambles the question of
whether a waste destined for material
recovery in an industrial furnace
continues to be a waste when it is
actually fed into the furnace. The issue
arises because industrial furnaces are
normally used as essential components
of industrial processes, and when they
are actually, burning secondary
materials for material recovery can be
involved in the very act of production,
an activity normally beyond the .
Agency's RCRA authority (see 50 FR
630, January 4,1985; 50 FR 49167. ;
November 24.1985: and 52 FR 16889-990.
May 6.1987). Accordingly, the Agency
has stated that, even when secondary
materials sent to be reclaimed in these
devices are wastes before they are
reclaimed; they oease to be wastes
when they are actually placed in the
industrial furnace for materials
- . . .-'-;
recovery. To retain authority over
industrial furnaces where waste
treatment is a driving element of the
reclamation activity, however, the
Agency has further stated that the
secondary material being reclaimed in
.the industrial furnace must be
"indigenous" to that furnace for-it to
cease being a waste. The Agency has
proposed to define "indigenous" to be
any material generated by the same type
of furnace in which it will be reclaimed
(see the proposed § 266.30(a). 52 FR
17034. May 8.1987). The Agency
suggested other possible alternatives in
the May 8 proposal, and commenten
suggested additional possib.ilitieo which
the Agency is now considering.
The K081 electric arc furnace dust
would be considered to be indigenous,
under the May 6 proposal described
above, to the high temperature metals
recovery furnaces used as the basis for
the proposed treatment standard. This is
because the metals recovery furnaces
are smelting furnaces, and the electric
arc furnace is also a type of smelting
furnace. Consequently, the K061 dust -
would cease to be a solid waste when it
is resmelted were the Agency to finalize
the propsoed definition of "indigenous".
This would mean that the slag produced
in the metals recovery furnace during
the resmelting of the dust would no
longer automatically be deemed to be a
hazardous waste by virtue' of the
"derived-from" rule in 40 CFR 261.2(c),
because it would no longer derive from
treatment of a listed hazardous waste
-(the K061 waste would no longer be a
hazardous waste at the moment of
burning). Thus, the slag would be a
hazardous waste only if it exhibited a
characteristic of hazardous waste.
(Depending upon the type of device
doing the smelting, and the feed
materials to that device, the slag might
also presently be excluded from
regulation as a waste from the mining,
beneficiation or processing of an ore or
mineral (see 52 FR 17012. May 8.1987).)
Under these circumstances, the Agency
probably could not set treatment
standards for the slag which does not
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste (which would be the case for all
of the slags the Agency sampled in
evaluating BDAT for this waste), since
the land disposal prohibitions apply
only to "hazardous wastes". In addition,
any prohibition for slag exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste would
take effect on May 8.1990, as a Third '
Third waste.
Thus, although the Agency has
proposed treatment standards based on
total and ieachable metal
concentrations in the slag, EPA solicits
comment on these issues with the view
that EPA will likely establish either
"total recycle" or "no land disposal" as
the treatment standard for K061 should
it determine not to set treatment
standards for the slag.
There is one further issue relating to
this waste. Electric arc furnace dust is
frequently recycled by being used as an
ingredient in fertilizers, the end result
being that the dust is placed directly on
the land when the fertilizer is applied.
Under the Agency's rules, both the
electric arc furnace dust and the
resulting waste-derived fertilizer are
hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR '
261.2(c)(l)). The recycling activity is an
example of the "use constituting
disposal" category of recycling. The
American Mining Congress opinion
does not affect the material's status as a
solid waste because the recycling
activity contains an element of discard:
it is like a form of land disposal. The
court in fact characterized a "use
constituting disposal" recycling
situation (direct reuse of a pesticide
drum as a trash can) as a type of
disposal involving solid waste (see 53
FR 521-522, January 8,1988).
EPA's rules.presently exempt the
K061-derived fertilizer from substantive
regulation. Because this exemption is
contained in Part 261. K061 waste that is
recycled in this way is also exempt from
the land disposal prohibitions (see 40
CFR 268.1). The Agency solicits
comment whether these fertilizers
should be exempt from the land disposal
prohibitions program. In choosing to
exempt the fertilizers from regulation.
the Agency indicated it was doing so
only until it could determine an
appropriate regulatory regime for the
fertilizers (50 FR 647, January 4.1985).
Since the fertilizers could contain high
concentrations of mobile toxic metals
(materials in the record of the solid
waste definition rulemaking now
incorporated into the record for this
proposed rule show high concentration
levels of lead and cadmium in some of
these waste-derived fertilizers), EPA
was certainly not crafting an exemption
based on an Agency determination that
there would be no risk from applying
these fertilizers. Consequently, the issue
now facing the Agency is whether to
continue the exemption which would
allow this waste to be recycled in a
manner arguably at odds with the
statutory land disposal prohibitions
provisions, by allowing continued
placement of untreated hazardous waste
on the land. Furthermore, the Agency
has identified another type of recycling
of this waste which does not involve
placement of the waste on the land as
-------
11754 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rulejs
the basis for BOAT, so that any
regulations which discourage use of the
electric arc furnace dust in fertilizer
would channel the waste to a (at least
arguably) more environmentally
beneficial type of recycling. The Agency
consequently solicits comment on
whether these waste-derived fertilizers
should be subject to the hind disposal
restrictions and to the treatment
standards, effective on the same date as
all other prohibitions applicable to K061.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. Thf! proposed
regulated constituents for K061 are
listed below. The Agency is proposing
that facilities must comply with both the
composition and TCLP values of slag
resulting from high temperature metals
recovery. EPA believes that both
measures of performance are necessary
to adequately reflect BDAT-type
treatment because available data show
that facilities could achieve the total
constituent concentration in the slag and
still have a high leachate value because
of poor operation of the treatment
system. The Agency is aware that
requiring the waste to meet both
measures will eliminate the possibility
of using stabilization alone to meet the
treatment standard in most, if not all,
cases. The Agency is specifically asking
for comment on the use of both
measures (as opposed to only one]. (As
discussed above, however, the Agency
also is soliciting comment on whether it
should set treatment standards for the
slag, or find an alternative regulatory
means of ensuring that treatment
residues achieve total concentration and
teachable metal concentrations
achievable by high temperature metals
recovery.)
EPA is proposing "No Land Disposal"
as the treatment standard for K061
wastewaters because the Agency is not
aware of any such waste being
generated. The establishment of such a
"treatment standard" results in the same
effect as a prohibition, only it allows for
the possibility of a variance from this
treatment standard in case such a waste
Is generated.
For K061 nonwastewalers. EPA
proposes the following treatment .
standards:
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS TOR K061
(Nomntitowatef)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K061 —Continued
(Ncnwastewater)
Constituent
lm~t
Uamey ,
7!nn
Maximum for any tingle
grab sample
Total
composition
(mo/kg)
20,300.0
0.28
24.100.0
TCtP(mg/l)
0.09
0.02
0.50
.Con*tttu«nt
Cadmium.... ., „, , ,
TottJ chromum ___J
Maximum for any single
grab cample
JoUi
COfTapOftftCO
(mg/kfl)
44.0
1790.0
TCLP(mg/D
0.1B
0.33
b. K062—Spent Pickle Liquor Generated
by Steel Finishing Operations of
Facilities Within the Iron and Steel
Industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332)
1. Industries Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K062 is
generated by the iron and steel industry
(SIC Codes 331 and 332] from steel
finishing operations. The Agency
estimates that 978 facilities have steel
finishing operations that may be
generating the listed waste K062. These
facilities are primarily located in the
Eastern and North Central portions of
the U.S.
In steel finishing operations, oxide
scale on steel products is removed with
a heated solution of concentrated acid
or acids in a process called pickling.
When the acid solution (called pickle
liquor] loses its effectiveness through
use, it is referred to as "spent". This is
the listed K062 waste.
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. K062. waste contains 4
BDAT metals at significant
concentrations, has a dissolved solids of
approximately 12 percent, and a water
content of approximately 85 percent.
The BDAT metals are chromium, nickel,
copper, and lead with approximate
respective concentrations of 7000.3000,
400. and 200 ppm. The technology that
the Agency has identified to treat this
waste consists of a preliminary step for
reduction of hexavalent chromium
followed by chemical precipitation and
some form of solids removal and
dewatering, which may include settling
and/or mechanical operations such as
vacuum filtration. The metals in the
precipitated solids may be treated by
•stabilization to reduce their teachability
or high temperature metals recovery.
A comment received on the August 12,
1987 Notice of Data Availability and
Request for Comments (52 FR 29992)
suggested that KOS2 can be treated by
high temperature metals recovery. The
Agency, therefore, in including high
temperature metals recovery as a
demonstrated technology for K062
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
request* comment on the types and
quantities of K062 wastes treated by
recovery technologies, and specifically
asks for data describing the
performance achievable by metals
recovery. Upon review of those data, the
Agency may promulgate final standards
based on metals recovery.
The specific technology that the
Agency tested for K062 consisted of
chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation with lime and sulfidp and
vacuum filtration. .
3. DataBase, (i) Wastewaters. The
Agency has collected 11 data points
from one facility using the treatment
system noted above. All 11 data points*
represent a well-designed and well-
operated treatment system and were
used in the development of treatment
' standards. The Agency has'extensive
data on wastewaters that would be
classified as K062 under the "derived
from" rule, but these data were not used.
EPA determined that these untreated
waste concentrations were considerably
lower than K062 as generated, and
therefore, not fully representative of
K062. That is, treatment standards '
based on treating these unconcentrated
residues might not be achievable for the
more concentrated K062, as generated.
(ii) Nonwastewaters. The Agency has
11 TCLP data points for nonwastewaters
(dewatered sludges) generated at the
same facility where the wastewater test
was conducted. The sludges were
generated by lime and sulfide
precipitation and dewatering the sludge
with vacuum filtration. Because all 11
data points appear to represent well-
designed and well-operated treatment,
none of the points were excluded from
the development of the treatment
standards.
4. Identification of BDAT. BDAT for
K062 was determined to be chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation and vacuum filtration. This
technology is a well demonstrated
wastewater treatment technology that is
used at numerous facilities throughout
the country. Therefore, EPA believes
that this technology is demonstrated to
treat K062 waste. The Agency has no
data for treatment of this waste using
any other technology.
This treatment technology is judged to
be available to treat K062 waste
because (1) this treatment technology is
commercially available or can be
purchased from the proprietor; and (2)
this treatment technology provides a
substantial reduction of hazardous
constituents.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The regulated
constituents for K062 and the treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater are listed below. EPA's
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 /Proposed Rules
11755
rationale for selection of the regulated
constituents is presented in the BOAT
Background Document for First Third
Wastes—K062. For reasons presented in
Section III. A. 7., the standards shown
below apply to all K062 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters with the following
exception. Under 40 CFR 261.3{c)(2)(ii).
residues generated as a result'of lime
(Ca(OH)x) treatment are not hazardous
•wastes and, therefore, any such
dewatered residues would not have to
comply with the treatment standards.
The treatment standards do apply.
however, to residues generated by other
than lime precipitation.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K062
(NONWASTEWATER)
Constituent
Metals:
Total chromium ....:....
Lead .. — .. — .
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
'
-------
11756
•Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
4. Identification of BOAT. BE
waste group K016. K018-KCI20.
determined to be rotary kiln
incineration. This technology v.
only technology for which the J
has treatment data as noted in
'previous subsection (Data Base
Agency believes, however, tha
designed and operate fluidized
incineration wil meet the BOAT
standards. While a rotary Iain
incinerator generally operates
temperatures and longer reside
times, the increased turbulence
of a fluidized bed incinerator s
allow this technology to achiev
same results. Accordingly. EPA
include fluidized bed incincrati
capacity estimates forKOlfi. KC
and K030.
Incineration is demonstrated
250 facilities and the Agency is
two facilities that use rotary ki
incineration to treat K019 wast
Therefore, the Agency believes
incineration is demonstrated tc
K019. The Agency also believe
technology is available becaus
incineration technologies are
commercially available or can
purchased from a proprietor; ai
incineration provides subslanti
reduction of the concentration
hazardous constituents. For a c
description of the reductions e:
by treatment of these wastes, r
the BDA T Background Documt
First Third Wastes— K016. KOI
K030.
5. Regulated Constituents an
Treatment Standards. Below a
the regulated constituents for £
K01&-K020. K030 and the treati
standards for wastewaters anc
nonwaslewaters. For reasons c
earlier in this preamble, the tre
itandards apply to all wastew,
nonwaslwaters classified as K
K019. K020, and/or K030.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
(Nonwtslewalejji
>ATfor
K030 was
ms the
\gency
the
:). The
a well
bed
r
at higher
nee
(mixing)
lould
ethe
L will.
on in its
I18-K020.
at over
aware of
n
e.
treat
5 this
MD
be
id" (2)
al
of organic
ietailcd
diibited
efer to
?/?/ for
8-K020.
d
re listed
C016.
nent
I
liscussed
atment
aters and
016. K018,
FOR K016
Maximum for any. single
grab sample
wontuiuem Total
composition
(mg/kn)
TKrtcNorocthene !>.96
HwieNoroberuon*....... 27.2
H*«cWoro6uU*one .... 3.44
H*xacbtococyciop«nta.
tS»oa:,.___.. „,._.....,..,. jj.44
Hwaehkxoeihin* 2.7.2
1 Not appfcabl*
TOP (mg/l)
')
..')
')
')
')
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K016
(Wnstewater)
Constituent
Tetrachloroetnene
Hexachtorooenzene
Hexachtorobutadiane .....
HaxacWofOcycfopenta-
diene.. .. _«_ .
Hwcachloroethana
Maximum tor any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.007
-0.007
TCLP (mg/l)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
' Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K018
(Nonwmatawatar)
Constituent
Chloroetnane
1,1-Dicriloroetnane
1.2-DicMoroethane
1.1.1-Tnchtoroethane....
Hexachlorobenzene
H«xachloroethane
HexacrtlorobutadienG ....
Pentachloroethanc .' — .
Maximum (or any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
27.2
27.2
5.44
5.44
TCLP (mg/l)
0)
t')
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
> Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K018
(Wastewater)
Constituent
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
1,2-Dichloro«thane _.
1.1.1-TnchtofOethane ....
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene ....
Pentachloroethane
Maximum (or any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.007
TCLP (mg/l)
('
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K019
(Nonwastewater) '
Constituent
1.2-Dichloroerhane
Tetractitofoetnane
1.1,1-Trichkxoethane ....
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ..
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
Phonanttifone....
1,2,4-Tncntofoberaerto .
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.44
27.2
5.44
5.44
18.7
TCLP (mg/l)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
1 Not applicable..
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K019
(Wastewater)
Constituent
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
1,1.1-Tricntoroemane
BJs(2-chloroethyl)emer ...
p-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
1.2.4.5-
Tatrachlorobenzene....
1.2.4-Tricniorobenzene ..
Phenanthrene
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total !
composition TCLP (mg/l)
(mg/l) i
0.006 | ' (>)
0.007 . (')
0.007 («)
0.007 ! (i) "
0.007 (>)
0.007 (i)
O.OOS (i)
0.033 («)
0.007 • (')
0.017 (>)
0.023 (•)
0.007 (')
0.007 (')
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K020
(Nonwastewater)
Constituent
1.2-Dichloroethane
1,1.2.2-
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition TCLP (mg/l)
(mg'kg) j
5.96 (')
544 ' (')
5.96 (')
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT.STANDARDS FOR K020
(Wastewater)
Constituent
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1.1.2.2-
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Maximum lor any single
grab sample
Total !
composition TCLP (mg/l)
(mg'l)
0.007 (')
0.007 (')
0.007 (')
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K030
(Nonwastewater)
Constituent
Tetrachloroethene
Hexachlorobutcdiene ....
Hexachloroeth&ne
Hexachlonopropene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroetrmne
1.2.4,5-
Tetrachlorobenzene...
1,2.4-Tnchlorobenzene .
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition TCLP (mg/l)
(mg/kg)
' 5.96 C)
5.44 C)
27.2 • C)
18.7 C)
27.2 C)
5.44 (')
13.6 C)
18.7 C)
1 Not applicable.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday, April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11757
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K030
••;"". (Wastewater) ,
^Constituent
TMrachloroethene
H«xachlorotxjtad«ne
Pvntachlcroethane
1.2.4.5-'
1JZ.*-Tnchlor obanzene ..
^Ochtorobwuene.
Maximum for any single
grab sample.
Total
composition
(mg/J) -
0.007
0.007
0.033
p.007
0.017
0.023
0.008
0.008
fCtP(mg/l).
?
1 Not applicable.
d. K024—Distillation Bottoms from the
Production of Phthalic Anhydride from
Naphthalene
1. Industries Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K024 is
generated in the production of phthalic
anhydride from naphthalene in the
organic chemical industry. The Agency
believes that only one facility produces
phthalic anhydride using naphthalene as
a feed stock.
The manufacturing process includes
the distillation of crude phthalic
anhydride which results in distillation
bottoms (heavy ends) which contain
treatable levels of organic constituents;
The distillation bottoms are the listed
waste K024.
2.,Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. The listed waste K024 has
a high organic solids concentration with
phthalic anhydride as the principal
BOAT constituent.:The demonstrated
technologies that the-Agency has
identified for treatment of this waste are
incineration technologies including
fluidized bed and rotary- kiln
incineration. Fluidized bed incineration'
and rotary kiln incineration are
destruction technologies demonstrated
for organic bearing wastes with solids
concentrations that prevent liquid
injection incineration.
The Agency tested rotary kiln
incineration for K024. EPA did not locate
any facilities using fluidized bed
incineration for K024.
3. Data-Base. i. Nonwastewaters. For
waste code K024 the Agency has
treatment data from one plant. At this
plant, the Agency has 6 data points
representing residual concentrations"
found in the ash from rotary -kiln ',.'.
incineration. These data reflect'-.' : • .
composition and TCLP analysis of
organics. '•'..•;-. , '-•-••':-•
ii. Wastewaters Generated from
Incinerator. The Agency has six
scrubber water data points which
-represent destruction of BDAT organic
compounds in the afterburner of the
rotary kiln incinerator. These data
reflect total constituent analyses.
4. Identification of BOAT, BOAT for
K024 waste was determined to be rotary
kiln incineration. This technology .was
the only technology for which the
Agency has treatment data as noted in
the previous section {Data Base).
Rotary kiln incineration is
demonstrated at over 50 facilities. The
Agency is not aware of any generator or
TSDF facilities currently using rotary
kiln incineration for treatment of K024.
However, EPA believes rotary kiln
incineration is demonstrated for K024 in
that it is being used to treat wastes
similar to K024 with regard to '
parameters affecting treatment selection
for K024; including low water content
and higlvorganic solids concentration.
EPA has confirmed this judgement by
demonstrating the actual performance
achievable when K024 was incinerated
in EPA's own in-house rotary kiln.
Rotary kiln incineration is judged to
be available to treat K024 because (1)
this technology is commercially
available and (2) rotary kiln incineration
provides a substantial reduction in the
concentration of BOAT organic
constituents present in K024 . For a
detailec|:description of the reductions
exhibited by treatment of these wastes. .
refer to the BDAT-Background
Document for First Third Wastes—
K024.
While EPA does not have
performance data for technologies other
than rotary kiln incineration, the Agency
believes that a well designed and
operated fluidized bed incinerator will
also achieve the treatment standards.
For the reasons presented in the
discussion of the K016, K018-K020, and
K030 treatability group. EPA will
consider fluidized bed incineration in its
capacity determinations.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. As noted below,
EPA is regulating phthalic acid for K024.
This constituent, although not listed as a
hazardous constituent in Part 261
Appendix VIII, is being regulated as a
surrogate for phthalic anhydride.
Phthalic anhydride is a hazardous
constituent; however, it cannot be easily ,
analyzed, in that, the analytical method
readily hydrolyzes the compound to
phthalic acid. The treatment standards
for all K024 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are presented below.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K024
CNonwastewater]
Constituent
PMhalicaeid
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
6.0
TCLP (mg/
(')
' Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS IFOR K024
: [Wastewater] '
Constituent
Phthalic acid. „„_.....„..
Maximum for any single
grab sample
- Total
composition
(mg/1)
0.08
TCLP (mg/
C>
'Not applicable. .
e. K103—Process Residues from Aniline
Extraction from the Production of
Aniline
Kl04^-Combined Wastewater
Streams Generated from Nitrobenzene/
Aniline Production
1. Industries Affected and Waste
Description. The listed wastes KI03 and
K104 are generated by production of
aniline and from the combined
production of aniline/nitrobenzene,
respectively. The Agency estimates that
six facilities in the central and eastern
states are actively involved in aniline
production which could generate K103.
Four of these facilities are actively co-
producing aniline and nitrobenzene,
which also could result in the generation
of K104 waste.
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technology. The K103 wastewater
primarily consists of water (94.7 percent)
and aniline (4.3 percent). The K104
wastewater principally consists of water
(98.7 percent), nitrobenzene (0.3
percent), and small amounts of
cyanides. For both K103 and K104
wastewater the Agency believes the
following treatment technology train is
demonstrated: solvent extraction, which
separates the organic components from
the aqueous components by exploiting
the relatively high solubilities of the
organic constituents in the particular.
solvent; steam stripping, which further
-------
11758
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
removes organlcs from the liquid phase
through volatilization; and activated
carbon adsorption, which uues carbon
granules to remove contaminants. The
solvent-containing stream from solvent
extraction potentially can be recycled to
recover nitrobenzene and aniline, or
incinerated. The cteam stripper
overheads are condensed and decanted
with the organic constituents recycled
back to the process. The spent carbon
from the activated carbon adsorption
column is sent oil-site for thermal
regeneration. While the incineration
component of this technology is not
demonstrated for K103 and K104,
available information shows that it is
demonstrated on wastes similar to the
contaminated solvent stream from
extraction. Because the solvent-
contaminated stream potentially
contains a significant amount of an
explosive compound (picric acid), EPA
is concerned that it may not be possible
to safely use incineration. Accordingly,
the Agency seeks comment regarding its
determination that the incineration
component of BOAT for K103 and K104
is demonstrated. •
Other treatment technologies which
may be applicable to K103 and K104 are
steam stripping followed by activated
carbon adsorption, and steam stripping
followed by biological treatment which
involves the use of microorganisms to
degrade organic compound!!.
The technology tested by the Agency
was the system consisting of solvent
extraction followed by steam stripping
and activated carbon adsorption. The
three-step treatment train was chosen
over applicable two-step treatment
processes because the incremental
solvent extraction step provides
additional reduction in the level of
organics.
3. Data Base. The Agency has 5 data
points for treated and untreated K103
and K104 wastes from one facility. Data
collected during the test show that one
of the 5 data points did not reflect
proper operation; therefore, this value
was not included in the calculation of
the treatment standards.
4. Identification of BOAT. BDAT for
K103 and K104 wastes was determined
to be solvent extraction followed by
steam stripping and activated carbon
adsorption. Additionally, BDAT
includes incineration of the solvent-
contaminated stream from the
extraction component of this treatment
train. The Agency is aware of at least
one facility that has used the
wastewater technology train to treat
K103 and K104. Therefore, EPA believes
that solvent extraction, followed by
•team stripping and activated carbon
adsorption is demonstrated on K103 and
K104. Additionally, these units are
widely used to treat wastes having
similar parameters affecting treatment
selection.
This three-step treatment system is
judged to be available to treat K103 and
K104 because (1) the treatment system is
commercially available; and (2) the
system provides a substantial reduction
in the K103 and K104 constituents •
described above.
S. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. Below are listed
the regulated constituents for K103 and
K104. The following treatment standards
apply to all wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. In the case of K103
and K104 nonwastewaters. the
treatment standards have been
transferred as discussed in Section ID.
A. 8. of this preamble.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K103
AND K104
CNonwaste«ater]
Constituent
Aniline
RflP7flrW._
2,3- Dirulrop hand
Nitrobenzene ._...„_„....
Phenol
Total cyanides (for
K104 only)
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
. (mg/kg)
,5.44
5.96
S.44
5.44
S.44
1.48
TOP(mg/1)
(')
> Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K103
AND K104
tWastewater]
Constituent
IrMrm ...,_ ,
2,3-Omrtrophoool
Nitrobenzene .._____.
Ptwmol
Total Cyanides (for
K104 only) _______
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total .
composition
(mg'D
0.147
4.450
0.613
0.073
1.391
2.683
TCLP(mg/l)
<')
' Not applicable.
f. K071—Brine Purification Muds from
the Mercury Cell Process in Chlorine
Production, where Separately
Prepurified Brine is Not Used
1. Industries Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K071 is
generated in chlorine production by the
mercury cell process where prepurified
brine is not used. The Agency estimates
that there are 14 facilities that use this
process and do not use prepurified brine
as a raw material. These facilities are
distributed throughout the country, with
50 percent being located in the
Southeast.
Chlorine is produced by the
electrolytic decomposition of a
saturated sodium chloride brine'
solution. The principal raw material is
the rock salt that contains impurities
that dissolve in the brine. Treatment of
• the saturated brine to remove these
impurities results in a treatment
residual, which is listed as K071.
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. K071 waste consists
primarily of sodium chloride, calcium
aulfate, and calcium carbonate; the
principal BDAT constituent of this waste
being mercury. The water content of the
waste is over 60 percent and the
filterable solids content is 20-35 percent
(for a detailed analysis of this waste
stream, see the BDAT Background
Document for First Third Wastes—
K071). The demonstrated technologies
that the Agency has identified to treat
K071 nonwastewaters are (1) a
treatment train consisting of acid
leaching followed by chemical oxidation
followed by a washing and dewatering
step for solids, (2) water washing
followed by a dewatering step, and (3]
stabilization for nonwastewaters. For
wastewaters, EPA has identified
chemical precipitation followed by
filtration. Acid leaching followed by
chemical oxidation converts the mercury
present in the waste to a soluble form,
which is separated from the solid
portion of the waste by washing and
dewatering. The solid portion is
regulated unde^-this rule as a treated
K071 waste. The filtrate is.then treated
by chemical precipitation and filtration
to remove the mercury solubilized in the
leaching and oxidation steps; the filtrate
from this step is regulated under this
rule as a treated K071 waste. The
precipitated residue, however, is
another listed waste, K106.
Of the technologies described above,
the Agency tested acid leaching and
chemical oxidation followed by
dewatering and washing, followed by
sulfide precipitation and filtration. The
Agency did not test stabilization
because it does not reduce the total
concentration of the mercury as does
acid leaching and chemical oxidation.
3. Data Base. i. Wastewaters. Jhe
Agency has three data points from one
facility on treated wastewaters. This
- facility was tested by EPA and the
treatment consisted of sulfide
precipitation followed by filtration. Data
collected during treatment show that all
treated data represent proper ope-ation;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11759
accordingly, all data were used in the
development of the standards.
ii. Nonwaslewaters. The Agency has -
44 data points from 3 facilities
representing total constituent
concentration of the treated K071
nonwastewater, 10 data points from 2
facilities representing mercury
concentrations found in the TCLP
leachate of the treated K071
nonwastewater, and 268 data points
from 3 facilities representing mercury
• concentrations in the leachate from the
Extraction Procedure (EP) test. The
Agency has 44 data points from 3
facilities providing total mercury
concentration values for treated K071
nonwastewaters. Of these 44, seven
were generated by EPA testing acid
leaching followed by chemical oxidation
and a washing and dewatering step.
EPA also generated one data point using
a technology consisting of a one-step
acid leaching process. This technology
was used to treat a waste defined as
K071, but significantly less
contaminated with mercury and also
having larger particle sizes. The 36 data
points submitted by two facilities'
represent treatment using a water wash/
dewatering process.
Of the 10 data points reflecting TCLP
analysis, eight were generated by EPA
using the treatment technologies
described above. The remaining two
data points representing TCLP analysis
were submitted by one of the facilities
using the water wash/dewatering
process mentioned above.
The 268 EP leachate data points were
submitted to EPA by three facilities
using the water wash/dewatering
process. Two of the three facilities are
the same companies that supplied the
total mercury concentration and TCLP
values for the treated K071.
EPA did not use the 268 EP data
points in the development of the
treatment standards because data
reflecting performance as measured by
the TCLP are available. The TCLP is a
better measure of evaluating BDAT in
this case because it is a more aggressive
leachate test than the EP (Extraction
Procedure). All remaining data were
consisdered using the Agency's
statistical test (ANOVA) for comparing
different treatment technologies.
4. Identification of BDAT. BDAT for
K071 was identified as acid leaching and
chemical oxidation followed by
washing/dewatering for
nonwastewaters and sulfide
precipitation followed by filtration for
wastewaters. For nonwastewaters, EPA
compared the mean value of the data
representing acid leaching and chemical
oxidation and washing/dewatering to
the mean value of the treatment data
from the water washing process. This
comparison was done using the analysis
of variance test for both the total
constituent and TCLP data. In both
instances, the acid leaching/chemical
oxidation process was shown to provide
significantly better treatment.
The BDAT treatment train for
nonwastewaters is demonstrated at two
facilities; additionally the various
treatment components are well-
demonstrated on wastes similar to K071
with regard to parameters used to select
treatment. The Agency believes that this
technology is available to treat K071
wastes because (1) this technology is
commercially available, and (2) this
technology provides substantial
reduction of hazardous constituent
concentrations.
' 5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards, Below are listed
the regulated constituents and
associated treatment standards for K071
wastewater and nonwastewater.
Facilities that land dispose of
nonwastewaters have to comply with
both the total concentration and the
TCLP value.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K071
(Nonwastewaterl
Constituent
Mer cury „.»....».......
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
4.6
TCLP (mg/l)
0.0025
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K071
[Wastewater]
Constituent
Mercury .» «..»»».«...
Maximum for any single
grab cample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.030
TCLP (mfl/l)
i
1 Not applicable.
g. K048—Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
Float from the Petroleum Refining
Industry
K049—Slop Oil Emulsion Solids from
the Petroleum Refining Industry
K050—Heat Exchanger Bundle
Cleaning Sludge from the Petroleum
Refining Industry ,, i+
K051—API Separator Sludge from the
Petroleum Refining Industry
K052—Tank Bottoms (Leaded) from
the Petroleum Refining Industry
1. Industries Affected and Waste
Descriptions. The above five listed... _.
hazardous wastes are generated by the"
petroleum refining industry. The Agency
estimates that there are 200 refineries
which may produce the listed wastes
K048 through K052. Many of these
facilities are located in the South
Central and Pacific areas of the United
States.
Petroleum refining, consists of many
unit operations, the configuration of
which depends on the refinery and the
desired finished products. Many sources
of waste exist throughout the refining
process. Treatment of these wastes in a
centralized wastewater treatment
system and other unit operations result
in the generation of the K048-K052
waste as described below:
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is used
by petroleum refineries for separating
suspended and colloidal materials from
process wastewater,. including
suspended solids and insoluble oily
wastes; The material skimmed from the
surface of a DAF unit is the listed waste
K048.
Process wastewater from refining
operations is in many cases treated in
an oil/water/solids separator where the
waste separates by gravity into a
multiphase mixture. The skimmings from
the separator are collected in a "slop oil
system," where the three phases, water,
oil. and an emulsified layer, are
separated. The emulsified layer is the
listed waste K049.
Heat exchanger bundles (tubes) from
petroleum refining operations are
periodically cleaned to remove deposits
of scale and sludge. The solids resulting
from this cleaning operation are listed -
as K050.
API separators are used in petroleum
refining operations to remove floating oil
and suspended solids from the
wastewater.. Solids that settle out of the
water are the listed waste K051.
Storage tanks which have contained
leaded petroleum products are
periodically cleaned to remove deposits.
The solids resulting from this cleaning
operation are listed as K052.
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. The K048-K052 waste
group generally contains high
percentages of water, oil, and sand and
-------
11760
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 /Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
other solidi; the concentration ranges of
these constituents vary considerably,
depending upon the particular waste.
BOAT organic and metal constituents
generally comprise less than one percent
of the waste stream. For • detailed
analysis of these wastes see the BOAT
Background Document for First Third
Wastes—K048-K052. The demonstrated
technologies that the Agency has
identified for treatment of these wastes
are: incineration technologies including
fluidized bed and rotary kiln
incineration; solvent extraction followed
by recovery or incineration oi: the
contaminated solvent; therms! drying;
and pressure filtration followed by oil
recovery from the filtrate. Those
technologies provide varying degrees of
treatment of the organic constituents
present in the waste.
Fluidized bed incineration or rotary
kiln incineration are destruction
technologies which destroy the organic
components in the waste feed. Solvent
extraction removes organic constituents
from a waste by exploiting the relatively
high solubilities of the waste
constituents in a particular solvent.
Thermal drying removes water and
volatile organics through the application
of heat. Pressure filtration mechanically
separates solids from liquids allowing
the oils in the liquid phase to be
recovered: further treatment being
required for the'wastewater stream.
All of the organic treatment
technologies generate both
nonwa stewaler and waste water
residuals that require treatment for
metals. For metals in the nonwastewater
residuals, EPA has determined
stabilization to be demonstrated.
Stabilization immobilizes the metal
constituents to minimize migration.
For metals in the wastewater
residuals, EPA has identified chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation and, finally, stabilization
of the precipitated residuals us
demonstrated technologies. These
technologies are commonly employed
for metal-containing wastewaters.
Chromium reduction reduces hexavalent
chromium to the less toxic trivalent
form. Chemical precipitation transfers
metals from the wastewater to a sludge
form suitable for stabilization.
The Agency tested fluidized bed
incineration for the K048-KOS2 waste
group. Additionally, stabilization of the
residual ash was selected for testing
because metal stabilization forms
chemical bonds or a lattice structure
that minimizes the ability of .a metal to
leach. Stabilization testing was
performed at an EPA test facility since
no commercial facilities wen; identified
performing stabilization of these wastes.
Rotary loin incineration was
. considered for testing; however, the
Agency was not aware of any generator
facilities treating these KD48-K052
wastes using a rotary kiln incinerator.
The other technologies applicable to
these wastes were not selected for
testing for the following reasons.
Solvent extraction was not tested
because it results in a residual that may
subsequently require incineration to
reduce the levels of organics in the
waste to be disposed. Even though
thermal drying operates on the same
principle as incineration (the application
of energy hi the form of heat to volatilize
organic constituents from the waste), it
would not be expected to perform better
than fluidized bed incineration since it
is operated at significantly lower
temperatures (250-550 "F versus 1200-
14OO *F). Therefore, thermal drying was
not selected for testing. Pressure
filtration physically separates solids and
liquids and would provide for the
removal of the organics in the liquid
portion of the waste but would not
remove organics present in the solids.
Therefore, pressure filtration would not
be expected to perform better than
fluidized bed incineration. Metals
recovery technologies were not tested
because the Agency was not aware at
the time of any facilities performing
metals recovery on these wastes.
3. Data Base. For wastes K048 and
K051, the Agency collected data from
one facility. These data consist of six
untreated and treated data points
representing fluidized bed incineration.
Operating data collected during the
testing of the incinerator show that the
technologies were properly operated;
accordingly, all of the above described
data were used in the development of
the treatment standards.
For wastes K048, K049, K051, and
K052 the Agency also has substantial
treatment data from industry. Most of
the data addressing BDAT organic
constituents reflect performance as
measured in the leachate from the TCLP;
EPA did not evaluate these data
.because the Agency is proposing
treatment standards based on the total
constituent concentration. These data
represent a range of demonstrated
treatment systems including solvent
extraction, thermal drying, and pressure
filtration. To the extent that total
composition data become available,
EPA will evaluate these systems prior to
promulgation.
EPA also received total composition
data from one facility representing 10
data points for residuals from solvent
extraction. EPA compered these data to
treatment .data obtained by fluidized
bed incineration and found that
fluidized bed incineration provided
significantly better treatment for most of
the constituents.
For wastes K049 and K052 the Agency
has data characterizing the constituents
of these wastes from one plant. Using
these data, EPA confirmed its judgement
that these wastes were similar to the
treated waste (because of similar
generation processes) through use of the
analyses described earlier in this section
of the preamble.
For KOSO waste, the Agency does not
have data that represents an analysis of
all BDAT organic and metal
constituents. However, the Agency does
have a limited analysis of BDAT
organics and metals from one facility.
Based on these data and information
regarding the generation of this waste,
EPA believes it would be similar in
composition to wastes K048 and K051,
and therefore, EPA transferred
treatment standards to this waste.
For metals in the incinerator ash, the
Agency has 9 treated data points
representing the amount of metals found,
in the TCLP leachate after stabilization
from one facility. Operating data
collected during this testing show that
the technology was properly operated;
accordingly, all of the data were used in
the development of the treatment
standards.,
EPA received 10 data points from
industry representing metals
stabilization. EPA did not use these data
in the development of treatment
standards for the BDAT metals because
the TCLP values in the untreated and
treated waste did not show treatment to
occur (i.e., there was no indication of
reductions in the leachate
concentrations).
Fluidized bed incineration also
generates a scrubber water stream. EPA
currently has no data on BDAT list
organics in this residual that specifically
reflects treatment of K048-K052 wastes.
The Agency does have six scrubber
water residual data points generated
from incineration of wastes that EPA
believes are similar to K048-K052
relative to the level of performance that
can be achieved. Operating data
collected during this testing show that
the technology was properly operated;
accordingly, all of the data were used in
the development and transfer of
treatment standards.
EPA does not have data that
specifically reflect metal wastewater
treatment of K048-K052. The Agency
does have performance data, however,
on wastes that it believes are
sufficiently similar to K048-K052 such
that the level of performance can be
transferred. These data consist of 11 . '
-------
?«deral Register / Vol. 53, No. 88 / Friday. April 8. 1968 / Proposed Rules
11761
untreated and treated analyses for each
of the following metals: chromium, lead
and zinc. The data were collected by
EPA from one facility using chromium
reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and, finally, vacuum
filtration. Operational data collected
during this treatment testing indicate
that the technology was properly
operated; accordingly, all of the data
were used in the development and
transfer of treatment standards.
The Agency has recently collected six
scrubber water residual samples
generated from incineration of K048
waste and is currently analyzing these
samples to determine the level of
performance achieved. Depending on
the results of these analyses, the Agency
may adjust the waste water standards
for BDAT organics and metals before
the promulgation of this rule.
* Identification of BDAT. EPA has
determined that for BDAT organics in
the K048-K052 wastes, fluidized bed
incineration achieves a level of
performance that represents treatment
by BDAT. While BDAT is not identified
as rotary kiln incineration, EPA believes
that a well-designed and well-operated
rotary kiln incinerator will achieve the
applicable treatment standards for
K048-K052, Accordingly, EPA will use
rotary kiln incineration in its estimates
of available treatment capacity. •
For metals hi the incinerator ash, EPA
has determined that stabilization using a
lime/flyash binder achieves a level of
performance that represents BDAT;
Other binders tested were cement and
kiln dust; EPA determined that use of
both of these binders resulted in less
effective treatment than the use of the
lime/flyash binder. (EPA's analysis of
these data can be found hi BDAT
background document for KM8-K052.)
For BDAT list metals in the
wastewater. EPA has identified
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation and vacuum
filtration as BDAT for metals.
Incineration followed by metal
stabilization for the nonwastewater
K048-K052 and chromium reduction
followed by chemical precipitation and
filtration for the wastewater K04S-K052
are judged to be available to treat K04S-
K052 because (1) these technologies are
commercially available, and (2) these
technologies provide substantial
reduction of both organic and metal
hazardous constituents. For a detailed
description of the reductions exhibited
by treatment of these wastes, refer to
the BDA T Background Document for
First Third Wastes—K04&-KO52.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. Below are listed
the regulated constituents for K048-K052
and the associated treatment standards.
For organic constituents, the standards
are expressed as total constituent
concentration, and for the metals, the
standards reflect concentrations in the
-leachate developed by using the TCLP.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
I NOowsstwwfl 16 r j
Constituent
B*<2-
«ttiylhexyl)phthalate..
Toluene
Chrysene
Xylene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pnenol
Cyanide _........._
Total chromium
Arsenic.. _....!..______
Copper..'. :.....
Mirkol
Selenium
V*n*fti»n
2inc :
Maximum for any tingle
grab sample
Total
Composition
(mg/kg)
4.18
3.93
084
8.54
4.18
0.84
034
0.84
1.48
(')
(')
<')
(')
(')
(')
(')
TCtP(mg/»j
•)
')
')
;>
c
<•
c
0
1.68
0.006
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
[Wastewater]
Constituent
Phenol ..
Fluorene
Toluene — «.» „_
Xylene
Naphthalene
Phenanmrene
Total chromium
Learl _
7inc
Maximum for any single grab
sample
Totaj
Composition
(mg/kg)
0.007
0,007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.2O
O037
Q4n
TCLP (mg/0
C)
.' Not applicable:
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049
[Nonwastewater]
Constituent
Benzene
Chrysene........_:
Xylene :
Toluene
Naphthalene ..._
Py«>ne ,,,.
Cyanide
Total chromium .j....
Arsenic
Maximum for any single
grabsampJe
Total
Composition
C)
(')
('»
<')
«')
0)
C)
{')
1.68
0.006
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K049 — Continued
[Nonwastewater]
Constituent
Copper ..........................
Nickel .„...-. .._„
Selenium __.
Vanadium
•r**-
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
Composition
{mg/kg)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
TCLP- (mg/l)
0.013
0.048
0.025
• 0.18
0.141
• Not apphcabto.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049
CWastewater] '
Constituent
Anthracene — __....
Xylene
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Benzene
Toluene _
Naphthalene-
Phenanthrene
Phenol _
Total chromium!....
Lead
?«r
Maximum for any single grab
sample
Total
Composition
(mg/kg)
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
TCLP img/l)
(')
—
-.
> Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
[Nonwastewater]
'Constituent
.Benzo
-------
11782
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.'68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K050—Continued
tWastewater]
Constituent
»«._.._,..„,. ,. , 1U
Maximum lor any tingle
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/xsi)
0.40
TCLP (mg/l)
ONotappfccable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
CNonwasuwater!)
Conrtituerrt .
Tpi<>f>»
CUrff»n», IMII ;1 '
XyUna ........
DHVbutyt phthatata.™.
Naphthalene
Phenanthreoe.™___.._.
PlMftftl..,.., , ,
Py»«*,,,,,,,., „,
Cyinttia,,, , lllu
Total chromium .____..
Aft^nic ,„,„
CoopW
Mri'.! .............
K*itt*m „,,,,„
Vlnlrfmrrf, „,,,,, ,, L ,
7**--,. -, ,„ , ,
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(rog/kg)
3.93
0.84
8.154
4.18
O.IM
O.IM
O.IM
1.06
1.48
{'
('
('
<'
('
(')
• (')
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
1.68
0.006*
0.013
0.048
, 0.025
0.18
0.141
'(') Not applicable,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K050
tWastawaler]
Constituent
Fluoftn* ,
Acenaphthene
ToluMW,, niii
Xy<«» .
Naphthaiene™™.
PhJMitfhran^,.,.,.. .,.„„.
Phenol... „„ „„.,,„„
Total chromium ,«™»™
lJurf
?me ,...
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composftan
- (mg/kg*
O.CO7
O.C07
O.C07
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0,20
0.037
0.40
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
«')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(<) Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
[Nonwastewatcr]
Constituent
TefcMK*.
Xytanv
n-Tjt^fJ,
Maximum for any single
griib sample.
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
3,1)3
a.!*
out
TCLP (mg/l)
f'l
6DAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K052-—Continued
INonwastewater] •'
Constituent
p-Cresol..... _._...... .„.
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene — „..
Phenol™
Cyankta..... .„_.„„„..
Total chromium
A««niC „,„„...... ,,
Copper „„__„___.
Nickel.
Salflnium „„..., ,..„„
Vanadium... ™
Zinc..._.,_....__..............
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/fcg)
0.84
0.84
0.84
054
1.48
)
)
)
)
(')
(')
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
C>
<•>
(')
1.68
0.006
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
tWastewalet]
• Constituent
Phenanthrene
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Benzene...™.................
Xytene
o-Cresol
p-Oesol „.... ......
Naphthalene
Phenol
Total chromium ;.
Lead
Zinc
Maximum for any single grab
sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.007
0.007
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
TCLP (rng/1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(')
(')
(')
(')
1 Not applicable.
h. K069—Emission Control Dust/Sludge
from Secondary Lead Smelting
7. Industries Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K069 is
generated in the secondary lead
smelting process, the Agency estimates
that 69 facilities are secondary lead
smelters. Most of these facilities are
located in the South Central and
Midwest parts of the United States.
Secondary lead smelting generates
particulate emissions which contain
hazardous constituents present in feed
materials. Metals are entrained in
furnace fumes.and are collected by air '
pollution control devices. The emission
control dust generated is the listed
waste K069.
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. K009 waste principally
consists of lead, cadmium, and
chromium. The Agency is aware of three
technologies applicable to the treatment
of K069 waste: Total recycling, high
temperature metals recovery, and ,
stabilization. Because the waste
contains recoverable quantities of lead,
it can be totally recycled as a feedstock
for resmelting. High temperature metals
recovery can be applied to recover
metal constituents from the waste.
Stabilization treatment reduces the
teachability of the metals in the waste
slag that results from resmelting.
EPA verified the use of recycling
through information requests under
RCRA section 3007. EPA did not test
other applicable technologies because
they generated residuals that still
contain some level of contamination.
3. Data Base. The Agency has data
from 7 facilities stating that total
recycling of K069 is practiced and that
K069 is not Hand disposeCj»Of nine
RCRA section 3007 letters sent to
.generators at 13 plants, seven responded
confirming the fact that total recycling is
used. Of the two others, one exports the
waste to be recycled and the other
company did not respond. A letter was
also received from the Secondary Lead
Smelters Association which stated that
total recycling of the baghouse dust is
practiced throughout the industry- and
that land disposal Of K069 does not
occur.
4. Identification ofBDA T. BDAT for
K069 is total recycling. Total recycling is
demonstrated at more than 10 facilities
and confirmed by the Secondary Lead
Smelters Association as the waste
management technique practiced
throughout the industry.
Total recycling is judged to be
available to treat K069 waste because
(1) the Agency does not have
information showing that recycling
poses a greater total risk to human
health and the environment than land
disposal; (2) it is commercially
available; and (3) this treatment
technology provided a substantial
reduction of hazardous constituents
'because it eliminates the need for land
disposal of K069.
Designating a form of recycling
technology as the basis for BOAT raises
issues analogous to those involving K061
waste. EPA will summarize its
conclusions here, subject to public
comment:
• ERA may prohibit land disposal of
K069 waste, whether or not it would be
a solid waste when recycled:
• Even under'the American Mining
Congress opinion, the K069 being
reclaimed could be viewed as a solid ,
waste, because it derives from treatment
of discarded .materials (scrap lead,
discarded batteries and the like] (see,
e.g., 824 F. 2d at 1188):
• Under the Agency's May 6,1987
proposal, KOB9 waste, however, would .
be considered to be indigenous to the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No, 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11763
•econdary lead smelting process and
therefore would cease being a waste at
the moment it is reintroduced to the
smelting furnace; and therefore,
• Any slag resulting from high
temperature metals recovery of this
waste (in a secondary lead smelter) . -
would not automatically be a hazardous
waste (i.e., the "derived from" rule
would not apply), and would be
hazardous only if it exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste
(assuming the Agency does not alter its
proposal with regard to indigenous
wastes). The Agency consequently is
not proposing a treatment standard for
the slag at this time, nor would a
prohibition necessarily apply (assuming
the slag is hazardous) until the "Final
Third" prohibition date of May 8,1990.
The proposed treatment standard for
K069 is "No Land Disposal" (see
discussion of the significance of this
treatment standard in Section A. 9.
above). Rather than simply prohibiting
the waste from land disposal, setting
this "treatment standard" achieves the
Agency's intent to prohibit the land
disposal of these wastes, while at the
same time allows for the possibility of a
variance from the treatment standard.
Should a waste be generated that is
unable to be totally recycled (e.g.. such
as a waste generated at a CERCLA site)
such a waste may be eligible for a
variance from the treatment standard. A
waste is not eligible for a variance from
the treatment standard if no treatment
standard has been established. An
interested party would have to petition
the Agency for a treatment standard, a
more cumbersome and time-consuming
process.
i. K015—Still Bottoms From the
Distillation of Benzyl Chloride " "
1. Industries Affected and Waste
Description. The Agency estimates that
three facilities produce the listed waste
K015. These facilities are located in New
Jersey and Tennessee.
Benzyl chloride is produced by the
chlorination of toluene in a reactor (or
series cf reactors). Unreacted toluene is
recycled back to the reactor, while the
reaction products containing crude
benzyl chloride are distilled. The still
bottoms are the listed waste K015.
2, Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies. K015 waste generally
contains greater than 88 percent benzal
chloride, less than 12 percent
benzotrichloride and other chlorinated
benzenes, less than 5 percent benzyl
chloride, less than 1-percent toluene,
less than 1 percent other BDAT
constituents, and less than 1 percent
water. The demonstrated technologies
that the Agency has identified for
treatment of K015 waste are liquid
injection incineration, fuel substitution,
and recovery.
The Agency tested liquid injection
incineration of K015. EPA did not locate
any facilities using fuel substitution, and
data on recovery were not available.
3. Data Base. Wastewaters Generated
From Incineration. For K015 waste, the
Agency has data from one facility. EPA
has three scrubber water data points
which represent destruction of BDAT
organic compounds by liquid injection
incineration. The data reflect total
constituent analyses; all data were used
in the development of treatment
Dtandards because EPA collected data
showing that the incinerator was
properly operated during the treatment
tests.
* Identification of BDAT. BDAT for
K015 waste is identified as liquid
injection incineration. This technology is
the only technology for which the
Agency has treatment data, as noted
above. Although only liquid injection
incineration was tested. EPA believes
that well designed and operated fuel
substitution systems can achieve the
treatment standards. Accordingly, EPA
is considering these technologies in its
capacity determinations.
Liquid injection incineration is
demonstrated at approximately 250
facilities. The Agency is not aware of
any generator or TSD facility currently
using liquid injection incineration for
treatment of K015; however, EPA
believes liquid injection incineration is
demonstrated for K015 in that the
technology is being used to treat wastes
similar to K015 with regard to
parameters affecting treatment selection
including: BTU content, filterable solids,
total organic carbon, viscosity, and
water content. EPA has confirmed its
judgment by demonstrating achievable
performance in a test burn. The Agency
also believes this technology is
available because (1) incineration
technologies are commercially available
or can be purchased from a proprietor,
and (2) incineration provides substantial
reduction of the concentration of organic
hazardous constituents. For a detailed
description of the reductions exhibited
by treatment of these wastes, refer to
the BDA TBackground Document for
First Third Wastes—K015.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. EPA is proposing
"No Land Disposal" as the treatment
standard for K015 nonwastewaters
because the Agency is unaware of any
nonwastewater residuals from the
treatment of K015. (EPA solicits
comment to the contrary.) Should such a
waste be generated in the future, such
waste may be eligible for a variance
from this tratment standard.
Below are listed the regulated
constituents for K015 and the treatment
standards for wastewater.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K015
[Wastewater]
Constituent
Anthrtcona „„„_,__„;_
Benzal chloride
Benzo (b and/or k)
fluoranthene .._...._..
Prtenanthrene
Toluene _.
Total chromium
Nickel „
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
-------
M764 Federal Register /Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
* Identification of BOAT. BDAT for
waste K037 was determined to be rotary
kiln incineration. This technology was
the only technology for which the
Agency has treatment data, as noted in
the previous subsection (Data Base).
EPA is not aware of any generator or
TSDFa currently using rotary kiln
incineration for treatment of K037.
However, EPA believes rotary kiln
incineration Is demonstrated to treat
K037 in that it is being used to treat
wastes similar to K037 with regard to
parameters affecting treatment
selection, including low water content
and high solids concentration. EPA has
confirmed this judgement by
demonstrating the actual performance
achievability when K037 was
incinerated in EPA's in-house rotary kiln
incinerator.
Rotary kiln incineration is judged to
be available to treat K037 because (1)
this technology is commercially
available or can be purchased from a
proprietor, and (2) incineration provides
substantial reduction of the
concentration of organic hazardous
constituents. For a detailed discussion
of the reductions exhibited by treatment
of this waste, refer to the BOAT
Background Document for First Third
Wastes—R037.
5 Rcytilated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The regulated
constituents for K037 and the treatment
standards for wa,stewaters and .
nomvaslcwatcrs are listed below.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FQR K037
(NONWASTEWATER) ;
Constituent
DUuHaton
tduenif ,. „,,,.
Maximum for an/ angle
gr;;b sample
Tota:
composition
<«*3/kg)
0,
20.0
TCtP (mo/0
(')
1 Not tppictlXe.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K037
(WASTEWATER} ,
Coostauert
DauHwoo
Totoeno,,____.,.
Maximum, for imy single grab
Minpto .
Total
composition
(mfl/1)
0,003
aoze
TCLP(mg/1)
(') '
k. K004—WastewaterTreatment Sludge
from the Production of Zinc Yellow
Pigments
K008—Oven Residue from the
Production of Chrome Oxide Green
Pigments
KC3S—Still Bottoms from Toluene .,
Reclamation Distillation in the
• Production of Disulfoton
K073—Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Waste from the Purification Step of
the Diaphragm Cell Process Using
Graphite Anodes in Chlorine :
Production .
KlOO—Waste Leaching Solution from
Acid Leaching of Emission Control
Dust/Sludge from Secondary Lead .
Smelting
Based on available information, the
Agency believes that these wastes are
no longer generated, and therefore, not
currently land disposed. (EPA solicits
comment to the contrary.) The Agency is
prohibiting land disposal of these
wastes. This approach ensures that
these wastes will not be land disposed
in the future.
The proposed treatment standard for
these wastes is "No Land Disposal",
allowing for the possibility that these
wastes maybe generated at a CERCLA
site and may require a variance from the
treatment standard. For a more detailed
discussion on the significance of this •
treatment standard, see Section III. A. 9.
It should also be noted that the May
28,1986 schedule for restricting the "
listed hazardous wastes from land
disposal (51 FR 19300) lists KlOO in the
final third. Therefore. KlOO was not
originally scheduled for regulation under
40 CFR Part 208 until May 8.1990.
However, because EPA has determined
that this waste is no longer generated,
the Agency has decided to accelerate
the schedule for this waste and proposes
to set the "No Land Disposal" treatment
standard for this waste by August 8.
19.88.'
B. Testing and Recordkeeping
1. Waste Analysis
The treatment standards proposed in
today's notice are expressed as either
(1) concentration levels in an extract
developed by use of the Toxiciry
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP); (2) a total composition waste
analysis; or (3) both. How these
treatment standards are measured
depends upon the technology (or
combination of technologies) identified
as BDAT for the specific waste.
Basically, for destruction (for
organics) or removal (for metals)
technologies, the Agency believes that a
total composition analysis is designed to
provide an accurate measure of the
performance of the technology identified
•s BDAT. Congress in fact expected that
treatment would destroy organic
constituents in hazardous wastes (Vol.
130. Cong. Rec. S 9179 (daily ed. July 25.
1984)]. and the logical way to measure
destruction is to analyze total
concentration of waste constituents.
Conversely, where stabilization or
fixation technologies (i.e.. technologies
which decrease waste constituent
mobility) are identified as BDAT, the
TCLP is a better measure of
performance because it is designed to
measure the mobility of hazardous
constituents from a waste matrix.
In cases where the combination of
both destruction or removal
technologies, and stabilization or
fixation technologies is identified as
BDAT. both analyses must be employed
to monitor compliance with the
treatment standards. In such cases,
neither test alone is designed to ensure
that the treatment standard has been
met. For example, where a waste
contains organic constituents amenable
to destruction and metals amenable to
fixation, the total composition analysis
may demonstrate that the organics have
been treated to,the applicable
concentration level; however, reduction,.
in the mobility of metals must a!«o be •
ensured. Likewise, use of the TCLP may
demonstrate that the metals have been
treated to the applicable concentration
levels in the extract, yet does not
indicate whether the organics have bwen
destroyed in compliance with the-
applicable treatment standard. Both
tests must be used to ensure that the
"dual" treatment standard has been mot.
The Agency considered the use of
only the TCLP where BDAT includes a
stabilization or fixation technology. It
appears more logical to the Agency that
because the TCLP is not designed to
evaluate destruction, total waste
analysis be used if part of the BDAT
treatment train includes destruction (or
removal) technologies. However. EPA is
soliciting comment on this approach.
2. Notification Requirements
Today's proposal extends the existing
notification requirements in § 20H.7— •
which create tracking, certification, and
recordkeeping requirements for
managers of restricted wastes—to apply
to First Third wastes, whether or not
treatment standards have been
established. For First Third wastes
where EPA has established a treatment
standard or effective date, the .
requirements are the same as for other
restricted wastes and. therefore, no
additional language is needed. Because
the statutory waste management
requirements applicable to "soft
hammer" wastes are somewhat different
than existing requirements for other
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8,1988 / Proposed Rules
11765
restricted wastes (namely, a RCRA
section 3004(g)(6) certification to EPA is
not required for these wastes when land
disposed in units other than landfills or
surface impoundments), the Agency is
proposing new requirements in § 268.7
to account for these differences.
The basic difference between the
notification applicable to the "soft
hammer" wastes and the notification
applicable to other restricted wastes is
that rather than requiring notice of the
applicable treatment standard or
applicable prohibition (see existing
§ 268.7(a)(l) (the generator notifies the
treatment facility of the applicable
prohibitions and treatment standards for
restricted wastes sent to the treatment
facility]), the notice for "soft hammer"
wastes would require the generator to
notify the receiving facility of the "soft
hammer" prohibitions codified in
§ 268.33 (i.e., that such wastes are
prohibited from land disposal in landfill
and surface impoundment units unless
accompanied by a valid certification
(and demonstration, if applicable) in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 268.8. relating to the practical
unavailability of treatment
technologies). The EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, the manifest number
associated with the waste shipment, and
any available waste analysis data must
also be included in this "soft hammer"
notice.
The Agency believes such notification
is necessary because of the importance
of having a consistent tracking and
identification mechanism for all
restricted wastes. The notification thus
informs treatment facilities (and other
handlers) of the obligation to treat "soft
hammer" wastes destined for disposal
in landfill or surface impoundment units
(to the extent treatment is practically
available). Notification also informs
managers of these wastes that the
storage prohibition in { 268.50 is
applicable to the waste.
3. Recordkeeping Requirements for
Storage Facilities
The Agency is also proposing today to
correct an unintended oversight in the
recprdkeeping regulations of 5 268.7 to
indicate that the section applies to
facilities that store prohibited wastes.
As currently drafted, the provision
applies to generators, treatment ;
facilities, and land disposal facilities but
omits another possible actor in the
chain, the facility that simply stores
prohibited wastes without treating them.
There is no reason for such facilities not
to be covered by the provision, which is
intended to track prohibited wastes
from cradle to grave, and to ensure that
all facilities receiving such wastes be on
notice that the waste is prohibited and
what the applicable treatment standard
(or applicable prohibition) for the waste
is. These purposes are thwarted if
storage facilities are not covered by the
provision. Consequently, the Agency is
proposing today to remedy this
deficiency by including storage facilities
under the recordkeeping requirements of
§ 268.7. This requirement would apply to
all prohibited wastes, not only to those
affected by today's proposal.
In addition to the "generator-to-
storage" scenario discussed above, this
- notice also proposes to apply the
notification requirement to a treatment,
storage or disposal facility that sends a
restricted waste (or treatment residue)
off-site to another treatment or storage
facility. The Agency believes this
change will adequately track all
restricted waste from cradle to grave.
Another change to the current
regulatory language to facilitate the
"cradle-to-grave" tracking system is an
amendment of section 268.7(a)(3). This
provision of the regulation concerns the
case where a generator determines that
his restricted waste is eligible for land
disposal because it is subject to an
extension of the effective date or a "no
migration" exemption (i.e., the waste
may be land disposed, but not because
the waste meets the applicable
treatment standards). In this case, the
generator would be required to notify
the disposal facility of the status of his
waste. Here again, the Agency
overlooked the possibility that the waste
may not be sent directly to the land
disposal facility, and may in fact be
going to treatment or storage. Therefore,
to avoid any confusion. EPA proposes to
amend 5 268.7(a){3) to require that the
notice be sent with each shipment of
waste to the receiving facility.
C. "Soft Hammer" Provisions
1. Applicability
RCRA section 3004(g)(6) (42 U.S.C
8924(g)(6)) provides that if EPA fails to
set treatment standards for any
hazardous waste included in the
schedule promulgated on May 28.1986
(51 PR 19300) by the statutory deadline,
such waste may be land disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if:
(i) such facility it in compliance with the
requirements of subsection (o) which are
applicable to new facilities (relating to
minimum technological requirements); and
(ii) prior to such disposal, the generator hat
certified to the Administrator that euch
generator has investigated the availability of
treatment capacity and has determined that
the use of such landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical alternative
to treatment currently available to the
generator. (RCRA section 3004(g)(6)(A))
This so-called "soft hammer" applies
until May 8.1940, at which time such
wastes will automatically be prohibited
from all methods of land disposal that
are not otherwise determined to be
protective through the "no migration"
petition process (8 268.6).
As a preliminary matter, it is
important to note that these "soft
hammer" provisions, including the
demonstrations, certifications,
notifications, and treatment
requirements are only applicable to First
Third wastes for which treatment
standards have not been established,
and are only applicable until May 8,
1990. During the .period of the "soft
hammer" provision, those wastes which
are currently subject to the California
list restrictions would remain so, and
thus might be prohibited from land
disposal even though they are also a
"soft hammer" waste. This result is
consistent with statements in previous
preambles. The Agency indicated that
waste-specific prohibitions, treatment
standards, and effective dates would
supersede California list prohibitions,
treatment standards, and effective dates
(52 FR 25773.25776. and J 268.32(h). July
8,1987). This is because where the
Agency has made a waste-specific
determination, it is likely to be a more
accurate and a more considered
regulatory judgment than for the
genetically designated California list
wastes. The Agency has made no such
considered judgment with respect to
"soft hammer" wastes, however. In the
absence of any such specific regulatory
determination, it makes sense that these
Wastes be treated at least to the extent
necessary to comply with the California
list prohibitions and treatment
standards (where applicable). California
list, capacity determinations likewise
would supersede the "soft hammer"
provisions, since these capacity
determinations are tied directly to the
specific treatment standards, and
represent a specific Agency
determination.
2. Interpretation of Specific Terms
Because EPA does not expect to
establish treatment standards for all of
the First Third wastes, the Agency is
proposing the regulatory framework for
management of these "soft hammer"
wastes until May 8,1990, or until
treatment standards are promulgated,
whichever is sooner. To facilitate the
implementation of these provisions, the
Agency is discussing its interpretation of
the terms "treatment" and "facility" as
stated in section 3004(g)(6), and
requesting comment on these
interpretations.
-------
•11786
Federal Register / Vol. S3. No. 68 / Friday, April 8.1988 / Proposed Rules
o. "TnatmenfFor the purposes of the
"soft hammer" provision, the Agency it
interpreting "treatment" to mean
processing which reduces a waste's
toxicity or which reduces the likelihood
of migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste. By not quantifying the
term, the Agency thus would require
that "soft hammer" wastes be treated by
•ny current treatment methods which
are practically available and which
achieve meaningful (i.e.,
environmentally beneficial] reductions
of waste constituent toxitily and/or .
mobility. Treatment would continue so
long «« further meaningful jreductioni in
toxidry and/or mobility can be
achieved (again assuming that treatment
alternatives are practically available).
Where the "best" treatment is not
currently available, the "next best"
treatment will be required. Thus, even if
a waste has been treated, the,
requirement to treat to reduce the
toxicity of the waste or the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste would still apply. Further
treatment that achieves meaningful
reductions, is practically available,
would have to be employed.
Congrest clearly wished to require
treatment prior to disposal of section
3004(g) wastes in impoundments and
landfills—two forms of surface disposal
singled out for special mandated
minimum technological requirements. By
taking a relatively stringent view of
what constitutes treatment the Agency
is furthering this congressional purpose.
In addition, the Agency believes that
Congress intended that, during the
period of the "soft hammer", only
wastes treated to the most protective
levels achievable by practically
available technologies may go to land
disposal in landfills or surface
impoundments. Therefore, the Agency
believes that defining "treatment" for
the purposes of the "soft hammer"
provision as a reduction of toxicity or
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents is consistent with the intent
of Congress.
The Agency realizes that this,
approach could be interpreted to imply
that residuals from treatment would
have to be continually treated by the
tame process, or past the point where
meaningful reductions can occur. This is
not the Agency's intention (Le., the.
Agency does not intend to require solely
for the sake of treatment). EPA solicits
suggestions as to the best means of
expressing the intention that treatment
achieve some meaningful degree of
environmental benefit to .avoid requiring
sequential treatment that achieves only
minimal reductions. EPA could limit
. such treatment by requiring that a single
process be used only once. Another
approach to limiting treatment is to set a
performance limit by which treatment .
would be defined. For example,
treatment could be defined by limiting
the scope of available technologies to
those technologies that yield a reduction'
of 2095 in concentration or mobility of
toxic constituents [or another • -
designated percentage of reduction).
Those technologies that do not yield at
least a 20% reduction in toxiciry of the
waste or likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
would not be considered to be
practically available "treatment" for this
purpose. (Were the Agency to adopt this
approach, such a standard would not
imply that EPA would be setting a
surrogate treatment standard of 20%
reduction. The level of treatment would
not be a 20% reduction, but rather the
performance level achievable by the
treatment technology used.) .
The Agency's chief objective in
interpreting the statutory reference to
treatment is to prohibit certifications for
"soft hammer" wastes, that have only
been treated minimally when
meaningful reductions can be achieved
by a practically available treatment ' :
•technology. The Agency therefore
solicits comment oh an approach that
would address this problem directly by
requiring that "soft hammer" wastes be
treated so as to achieve meaningful
reductions of wastes' toxicity or
mobility (the statutory section
3004(m)(l) standard) and by stating that
sham or de mimmiis treatment cannot
give rise to a valid' certification • .
(assuming legitimate treatment is
practically available at the time of
certification). An example of sham
treatment would be adding dirt to a
waste to reduce its mobility.
This approach would differ from the
one proposed by not necessarily
requiring sequential treatment to reduce
further increments of wastes' toxicity or
mobility. It could have a practical
advantage of removing one complicated
feature from the rule, since the regulated.
community and EPA officials would no
longer need to struggle to determine how
much treatment is needed. It would also
focus regulatory efforts on the problem
of sham treatment, rather than diffusing
such efforts over issues of further
incremental reductions.
The Agency solicits comment on these
alternatives, and, in general, on its . .
interpretation of "treatment", as it
applies to the "soft hammer" provision
in 5 268.8. . . "'
• b. "Facility". Section 3004(g) (6) states
that "soft hammer" wastes may be
'disposed in ourface impoundments and
landfills "only if such facility is in
compliance with the requirements of
section (o) which are applicable to new
facilities." EPA is interpreting "facility"
in section 3004(g)(6) to refer to the
individual landfill or surface
impoundment "unit". EPA is persuaded
that this is the best reading of the
provision based oh .the language of the
statute, and on evident congressional
. policy reflected in the statutory
language and in the legislative history.
First, the reference in the provision to
facilities appears to be linked directly to
landfills and surface impoundments.
Thus, the statutory reference to "such
facility" (emphasis added) refers to the
landfill or surface impoundment units
mentioned immediately previously.
' Second and even more importantly,
the statute requires that "such facility"
be in compliance with the minimum
technological requirements "which are
applicable to new facilities." New
landfills and surface impoundments, or
new landfill and surface impoundment
units at existing facilities, however,
must have double liners, leachate
collection systems, and groundwater
monitoring. Congress thus appears to be
saying that if landfills and surface
impoundments are to receive "soft
hammer" wastes, then they must meet
the minimum technological requirements
that would apply if they were new.
This reading seems to the Agency to
be most in accord with the intent of the
provision. If the Agency fails to
establish a treatment standard for a
section 3004{g) waste, and these wastes
'are destined for disposal in units about
which Congress had particular concerns,
then, at the least, these units should
meet the minimum technological
requirements. The alternative is to
sanction disposal of untreated wastes
(assuming there is no practically
'available treatment technology) in
landfills and impoundments not meeting
minimum technological requirements, a
result EPA does not believe Congress
intended. In this regard, the legislative
history indicates that Congress intended
that landfills and impoundments
.receiving prohibited wastes for which •
the Agency failed to establish treatment
• standards meet the minimum
• technological requirements:
• Only after a generator certifies to EPA that
•uch generator has investigated the
availability of treatment capacity and
determined that the use of a landfill or
•urface impoundment U the only practical-
, alternative to treatment currently available
may such tvatte be placed in • landfill or .
surface impoundment A further limitation is
the condition that such landfill or surface
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday, April 8,1988 / Proposed Rules
117B7
impoundment must satisfy the minimum
technological feguinments for new facilities.
IS. Rep. No. 284.98th Cong, Isl Sets. 21
(1983), (emphasis added) (explaining
language later »dopled in section 3004(g)(e))]
It also bean mention that the
language in section 3004(o) does not
refer to new facilities, but rather. It
addresses new, replacement, or lateral
expansion landfill or surface
impoundment units at an existing
facility. This language likewise suggests
that Congress meant section 3004(g)(6)
to apply to units rather than facilities;
otherwise, section 3004(g){6) would have
no meaning at all.
An alternative interpretation of the
statutory language is that die reference
to"* * * requirements * * • applicable
to new facilities * * *" would apply to
the entire facility. This would give the
term "facility" its literal meaning, but
does not appear to reflect congressional
intent Under this interpretation, each
•rut as a facility would have to be in
compliance with the minimum -
technological requirements of section
3004(o) since those are the requirement*
that would be applicable to a new, or
"green-field", facility. EPA does not
consider this to be a viable option
because there are very few. if any, such
facilities. Thus, this interpretation of the
"soft hammer" provision could result in
a "hard hammer", which the Agency
does not believe was the intent of
Congress in providing for section
3004(g)(8). If Congress had intended to
prohibit land disposal of these wastes in
landfills or impoundments, it could have
said so directly as it did in section
3004(g)(6)(C).
A third option would be to interpret
section 30O4(g)(6) the same way as the
Agency previously interpreted section
3004(b)(4) (see existing § 268.5{h)) (i.e..
the facility as a whole must be in '
compliance with the requirements of
section 3004(o). meaning that all new,
replacement, or lateral expansion •
landfill or surface impoundment units
must meet the minimum technological
requirements, but that the waste could
go into any unit at such a facility, e.g.,
existing units not meeting the minimum
technological requirements). While this
would be consistent with the Agency's
current interpretation of "facility" to
section 3004(h)(4}—which concerns the
d{sposal of wastes subject to an
extension of the effective date—it would
ignore the additional language in section
3004(g)(6) (i.e.,"* • • requirements
* * * which are applicable to new
facilities^* •".ratherthan
"requirements of subsection (o)"). In
addition, this would allow untreated
"soft hammer" wastes with a valid
certification to be disposed in the same
types of units ae those First Third
wastes which meet the applicable
treatment standards. EPA does not
believe that this is what Congress
intended; however, the Agency is
_ requesting comment on this
interpretation. Also, as discussed in
greater detail in Section El. D., the
Agency has reconsidered its
interpretation of section 3004{h)(4) and
is proposing to require wastes which are
•abject to an extension to the effective
date to be disposed in landfills and
surface impoundments only if such units
ore in compliance with the minimum
technological requirements of section
9004{o).
a Certification by Owners or
Operators as Well as Generators. The
statute provides that generators of "soft
hammer" wastes certify to the Agency
that disposal to a landfill or
impoundment is the only practical
alternative to treatment currently
available. This language raises two
potential problems: (1) Are generators
the only entity that can certify; and (2)
can a certification be filed for land
disposal of treated "soft hammer"
wastes.
With respect to the first problem, the
Agency sees no reason to restrict
certification to generators. There are
situations where owners and operators
of a treatment or storage facility may be
more knowledgeable as to what
treatment is available, or may otherwise
be more sophisticated to the nuances of
administrative recordkeeping than a
generator. The Agency does not believe
that the underlying policy of the "soft
hammer" provision would be subverted
by allowing these entities the option of
submitting a certification.
With respect to the second problem,
although the statute does not address
the issue of certification for treatment
residuals, the Agency is of the view that
the certification provisions would apply.
This reading is necessary to avoid the
anomalous result of "soft hammer"
waste treatment reoidues being
prohibited from land disposal but
untreated wastes being land disposed to
impoundments and landfills after filing a
certification. Congress could not have
intended this result. Consequently, the
Agency u proposing that the "soft
hammer" certification apply to both
untreated wastes and treatment
residuals. A certification for a treatment
residue would also state that there n no
treatment practically available to
achieve meaningful reductions to
toxicity or mobility at the time of
certification.
3. Certification Requirements
EPA believes .the intent of Congress
was to ensure that wastes for which
treatment standards or extensions to the
effective date were not established
would nevertheless be treated to reduce
the toxicity or mobility of the hazardous
constituents by practically available
treatment technologies prior to disposal
in landfill or surface impoundment units
that meet the minimum technological
requirements. As stated earlier. EPA
interprets this to mean that where the
"best" demonstrated treatment is not
currently available, the "next best"
demonstrated treatment is required, so
long as meaningful reductions can be
achieved. The Agency also interprets
this to mean that this requirement is not
• necessarily fulfilled by a single
treatment step. Because a waste has
been treated does not mean that further
meaningful reduction of toxicity or
mobility is not available. Before a
treated "soft hammer" waste may be
disposed to a landfill or surface
impoundment, the generator or owner or
operator thus must still certify that there
is no practically available treatment that
meaningfully reduces the toxicity or
mobility of the hazardous constituents.
The Agency is also proposing to
require generators or owners or
operators to certify that they have
utilized the practically available
"treatment" (or train of treatment) that
most reduces the toxicity or mobility of
the hazardous constituents. Therefore,
where more than one treatment
technology is available, the treatment
which provides the most meaningful
reduction in toxicity or mobility is
required. This interpretation precludes
some forms of treatment where "better"
treatment is available. For example, a
waste may be amenable to meaningful
treatment by two available technologies,
incineration and stabilization, where
incineration yields the greater reduction
to toxicity or mobility. If incinerated, the
residuals may still require further
treatment by stabilization before they
are eligible for disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit However, if
the waste is first stabilized, incineration
may no longer be available for the
residual. Such stabilization as the initia!
treatment, would not provide the roost
meaningful reduction to toxicity or
mobility, and the Agency thus would not
accept a certification to this effect.
assuming incineration remains
practically available. EPA is soliciting
comments on this interpretation.
The Agency thus is proposing in
| 268.6 that the following requirements -
be met before a "soft hammer7' waste is
-------
11788
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 /Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
eligible for land disposal to a landfill or
surface impoundment unit:
(1) The generator has made a good faith
effort to locate and contract with treatment
or recovery facilities which can meaningfully
reduce the toxitity or mobility of hazardous
constituents in the waste.
(2) If the waste has been treated, the
generator or owner or operator demonstrates
that no treatment is practically available to
provide further meaningful reduction* in the
toxlclty or mobility of hazardous constituents
in the residual at the time of certification.
(3) The generator or owner or operator
certifies that the above conditions have been
met and sends the Regional Administrator .:
the certification and supporting
documentation, and keeps tl:e same
documentation on-site.
(4) Following certification to the Regional
Administrator, the generator or owner or
operator must send a copy of the certification
and supporting documentation to the disposal
facility with the initial waste shipment, and
continue to send the certification itself with
each shipment of waste thereafter.
(5) The owner or operator of the disposal
facility must
(a) keep all information arid documentation
received with the waste in the operating
record, and
(b) ensure that such waste is only placed in
• landfill or surface impoundment unit that
meets the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA section 3004(o) (i.e.,
double liner, leachate collection system, and
ground-water monitoring or compliance with
• statutory variance from these
requirements).
4. Treatment of "Soft Hammer" Wastes
in Surface Impoundment)!.
Under 1268.4 (which implements
RCRA section 3005{j)(ll)). restricted
wastes may be treated in surface
impoundments that meet the section
3004(o) minimum technological
requirements provided that, among other
things, residuals not meeting the
applicable treatmentstandards (or
statutory prohibition levels where
treatment standards are not established)
are removed within one year of
placement in the impoundment. Because
no treatment standards have been set
for "soft hammer" wastes, removal of
these residuals would seemingly be
required.
There is an anomaly with this result,
however. Were the owner or operator to
consider the unit to be a disposal
impoundment he could certify that no
practical alternative to disposal exists
and dispose of them in the same
impoundment Or, he could remove the
residues, and, making the same
certification, put them back. Provided
that no further treatment is practically
available, these residuals would be
eligible for disposal in Use same surface
impoundment unit from which they were
removed (since the minimum
technological requirements for disposal
of "soft hammer" wastes in a surface
impoundment and for treatment of
restricted wastes in a surface
impoundment are identical).
The Agency believes that requiring
such removal of treatment residuals of
"soft hammer" wastes (which may then
be eligible for disposal in the same type
of unit, or indeed, the very same unit)
would simply impose costs with no
environmental benefit. In such cases,
therefore, the Agency is proposing that
the certification required for disposal
. may be made without removal of the
residuals provided that no -treatment to
further meaningfully reduce the toxicity
or mobility of hazardous constituents is
practically available. This certification
may be made by the generator or owner
or operator at the time of placement in
the impoundment for treatment
5. Retrofitting Variances
There ntme final interpretive issue
regarding the "soft hammer" provision
on which the Agency solicits comment
The question is whether surface
impoundments that do not meet
minimum technological requirements
(MTRs) applicable to new facilities, but
which do satisfy one (or more) of the
variances for impoundment retrofitting
in section in 3005 (j) can nevertheless
receive "soft hammer" wastes. The
Agency believes that this is a
complicated question, bul that the best
reading is the following.
First, under section 3004(g)(6).
landfills or impoundments that receive
"soft hammer" wastes must be in
compliance with the MTRs for new
facilities. These require either double
liners and leachate collection systems,
or, as provided in section 30Q4(o}(2), •
alternative design and operating
practices and location characteristics
that prevent migration of hazardous
constituents, at least as effectively as'
double liners and a leachate collection
system.
Interim status surface impoundments
.in existence on November 7,1984 may
receive a waiver from retrofitting the
units to meet the same MTRs, but for
different reasons. Thus, the following
types of impoundments need not retrofit;
single-lined interim status units located
no closer than one-quarter mile from an
underground source of drinking water,
which are in compliance with applicable
groundwater monitoring requirements
(section 3005(j)(2)}; aggressive biological
treatment facilities in compliance with
applicable Clean Water Act permit
requirements and groundwater
monitoring requirements (section ,
3005(j)(3)): unite that are designed.
operated, and located to prevent
migration of hazardous constituents to
groundwater or surface water (section
3005(i)(4)); or units operating pursuant to
a consent decree providing equivalent
environmental protection as MTRs
(section 3005(j)(13)). ;
These section 3005 variances may or
may not be equivalent to the MTR
variance standard in section 3004(o](2).
"no migration" impoundments in section
3005(j)(4), for example, would almost
certainly satisfy the 3004(o)(2) standard;
aggressive biological treatment
impounds operating without liners might
not. For this reason, the Agency does
not believe that the statute
automatically allows placement of "soft
hammer" wastes into these types of
. impoundments. They do not necessarily
meet the MTRs for new landfills and
surface impoundments, as required by
section 3004(g)(6).
Second, the Agency believes that if
any section 3005(j) impoundment would
actually make the demonstration called
for in section 3004(o)(2), it could then
. receiye;"soft hammer" wastes. In this
case, the impoundment would be
satisfying the MTR applicable to new
surface impoundments and should not
be prohibited from receiving "soft
hammer" wastes.
Third, section 3005(j)(ll) provides that
otherwise prohibited wastes can be
placed in surface impoundments for
treatment provided, among other
conditions, that the impoundment either
meets MTRs or satisfies the conditions
of section 3005(j)(2) or (4) (single liner.
one-quarter mile from an underground'
drinking waster source, or "no
migration" to groundwater or surface
water). The Agency reads this provision
as allowing continued receipt of "soft
hammer" wastes in such impoundments;
there is no apparent reason that solvent.
dioxin, and California list wastes can be
placed in such impoundments, but not
"soft hammer" wastes. A consequence
of this rewarding would be that
treatment impoundments satisfying
section 3005(j)[2) or (4), but not MTRs,
and not making the MTR equivalence
demonstration would be able to
continue receiving "soft hammer"
wastes. Section 3005(j)(3) and (13)
treatment impoundments, however,
would remain ineligible because these
impoundments are excluded from
section 3005(j)(ll) eligibility. This
reading is consistent with the Agency's
general interpretation of section .
3005{j)(ll) to exclude section 30Q5(j)(3)
and (13) impoundments. (See si FR1609,
January 14,1986). . : . .
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11769
D. Disposal of Restricted Wastes
Subject to an Extension of the Effective
Date
RCRA section 3004(h)(4) states that a
restricted waste subject to an extension
of the effective date"* * 'maybe
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such facility is in
compliance with the requirements of
subsection (o)." [Emphasis added].
Section 3004(o] refers only to new,
replacement, or lateral expansion
landfill or surface impoundment units.
In the November 7.1986 rulemalting
(51FR 40572). EPA interpreted the word
"facility" to refer to the facility as a
whole. This interpretation allows for the
disposal of such wastes in landfill and
surface impoundment units that do not
meet the minimum technological
requirements provided that all new,
replacement, or lateral expansion units
at the facility (if any) are in compliance
with the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA section 3004(o).
EPA has reevaluated its original
interpretation, and now believes that
Congress intended the term "facility" to
refer to "unit", which is consistent with
the Agency's interpretation of "facility"
in section 3004(g)(6), which refers to the
disposal of First Third wastes for which
no treatment standards have been
established. Although section 3004(g)(6)
is linguistically distinguishable (since it
refers to the minimum technological
requirements applicable to new
facilities), the Agency's initial reaction
is that Congress did not intend a
different result for restricted wastes
subject to capacity variance and "soft
hammer" provisions. Both provisions,
for example, deal with the same type of
situation where treatment capacity is
unavailable and restricted wastes are
being disposed in a type of unit for
which Congress showed particular
concern. In addition, section 3004(h)(4)
also refers to "such facilities]"
immediately after mentioning landfills
and surface impoundments, thus
indicating that the reference to facility
was intended to apply to the specific
unit. Furthermore, EPA believes it is the
intent of Congress to require untreated
wastes to be disposed in landfill and
surface impoundment units that are
presumably more protective than units
that do not meet the minimum
technological requirements. Legislative
history to section 3004(h)(4) in fact
states that Congress meant to prohibit
disposal of restricted wastes subject to a
capacity variance in all surface
impoundments or landfills except those
meeting minimum technological :
requirements applicable to new
facilities—the same language as used in
•ectioh 3004{g}(6) which the Agency
views as clearly requiring the landfill
and impoundment units to meet the
minimum technological requirements.
(See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1133,98th
Cong., 2d Sess, 87)(This passage in the
Conference report actually refers to
disposal of waste subject to a one-year
case-by-case capacity variance under
section 3004(h)(3), but the Agency sees
no basis for not applying it to section
3004(h)(2) as well.
In justifying its original interpretation
in the November?, 1988 final rule. EPA
expressed concern with the
inconsistency of requiring wastes which
have been granted an extension to the
effective date due to a lack of sufficient
treatment capacity, to go to units that
were considered in determining whether
treatment capacity was available,
namely treatment surface
impoundments required by section
3005(j)(ll) to meet minimum
technological requirements. This
inconsistency no longer exists because
the retrofitting requirements for surface
impoundments become effective in
November 1988. These requirements are
the same whether the unit is used for
disposal or treatment. Also, as old
landfills (or old cells at landfills) are
closed, new landfills (or new cells) will
meet the minimum technological
requirements. Thus, the number of units
available that do not meet the minimum
technological requirements has
diminished and will continue to do so.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing that
all restricted wastes subject to an
extension of the effective date be.
disposed of in landfills and surface
impoundments only when such units
meet the minimum technological
requirements.
E. Relationship to California List
Prohibitions
As discussed in the July 8,1987
California list final rule preamble (52 FR
25773), and as reflected in 5 268.32(h)
(i.e., the overlap of the HOCs and other
prohibited wastes), where the Agency
makes a waste-specific determination
that is more specific than the California
lisrdetermination, such determinations
will supersede the California list
treatment standards and effective dates.
The Agency intends this principle to
apply to the restrictions on the land
disposal of First Third wastes. While it
is clear that Agency-established
treatment standards or effective dates
for First Third wastes are more specific
than California list determinations, there
is some ambiguity surrounding the
applicability of the California list
restrictions to "soft hammer" wastes.
Until promulgation of the restrictions "
on land disposal of First Third wastes,
many of these wastes are subject to the
California list restrictions. Once
treatment standards and effective dates
have been promulgated for such wastes,
the California list restrictions clearly
will be superseded. However, no
treatment standards will have been
promulgated for "soft hammer" wastes.
EPA is therefore proposing that "soft
hammer" wastes which are otherwise
subject to the California list restrictions
remain subject to the California list
treatment standards and effective dates.
It should be noted that if a national
capacity variance has been granted for a
"soft hammer", waste under the
California list final rule, such a waste
would remain subject to the
demonstration and certification
requirements of § 268.8 (as discussed in
Section III. C.). This approach not only
recognizes that the California list
treatment standards are not actually
effective for such a waste (due to the
national capacity variance), but also
remains consistent with the Agency's
intent that where more than one
regulatory requirement applies, the more
stringent requirement will apply. The
Agency solicits comment on its"
approach to the applicability of the
California list prohibitions to "soft
hammer" wastes.
EPA is also considering a change in
the approach on the applicability of
California list restrictions to wastes for
which a more specific determination has
been made. For First Third wastes for
which treatment standards have been
established, but for which the Agency
has granted a national capacity variance
due to inadequate capacity to treat the
waste to the treatment standard, the
Agency is considering an approach
where such First Third wastes would
remain subject to the California list
prohibitions during the period of the
national variance. For example, assume
that a liquid metal-containing First Third
waste (otherwise subject to the
California list restrictions) has been
granted a national capacity variance
because of inadequate capacity to treat
the waste to the treatment standard, yet
was not granted a variance under the
less stringent (in terms of concentration
levels of the metal) California list
prohibitions that are in effect at this
time. The Agency would determine that,
because capacity exists to treat the
"California list" waste to allow for land
disposal, the California list prohibitions
still apply and the "First Third" waste
would be required to comply with the
California list prohibitions. The First
Third treatment standard would then be
-------
11770
Federal Register / Vof. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 6, 1988 / Proposed Rules
applicable on the First Third effective
date.
Granting a national variance for the
First Third waite in the above example
based on inadequate treatment capacity
could allow the land disposal of
untreated wastes which may have metal
concentrations exceeding that of the
otherwise applicable California list
prohibition levels, for which fihe Agency
has determined that treatment to meet
•t least California list prohibitions is
available. This approach would vitiate
the measure of environmental protection
achieved by treating the waste to below
California list levels (or rendering the
waste non-liquid). Similarly, if the
Agency were to establish treatment
standards for California list metals and
cyanides and promulgated capacity
variances because of a lack of sufficient
treatment capacity to meet these
standards, the wastes would still be
required to be treated to meet the
California list statutory prohibitions (see
generally 52 FR 29992, August 12.1987).
However, EPA realizes that this
constitutes a change in approach from'
that stated in the California list final
rule (52 FR 25773) and therefore solicits
comment
F. Determination as to the Availability'
of the Two-Year Nationwide Variance
for Solvent Wastes Which Contain Less
Than I percent Total FOOJ-F005 Solvent
Constituents
In a June 4,1987 technical correction
notice (52 FR 21010) to the November 7.
19fl8 final rule prohibiting land disposal
of certain spent solvent and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes. EPA
promulgated en amendment to
1268.30(a)(3) reclarifying that solvent
wastes that are prohibited in the hands
of their initial generator—i.e., that are
not subject to any applicable variance—-
cannot be permissibly land disposed
until treated to meet the § 268.41
treatment standards. This principle
applies to all residues from treatment
(unless they are part of a different
treatability group for which EPA has
determined that no treatment capacity
exists). (See 52 FR 21012, June 4,1987
and also 52 FR 22356-22357, June 11,
1987.) Because questions have been
raised regarding the policy basis for the
'action, and because the underlying
principle is an important one which
warrants the fullest consideration, EPA
has decided to seek further comment on
this issue, and (if comment warrants) to
revise its current approach accordingly.
The Agency has stated many times
th at * determination as to whether a
waste is restricted from land disposal is
to be determined at the initial point of
generation in order to avoid
compromising the Integrity of the Part
268 Subpart D treatment standards (see
51 FR 41820, November 7.1988 and 52
FR 25765, July 8,1987). Determining the
applicability of a prohibition at any later
point could result in the treatment
standard being supplanted.
In the case of the prohibited solvent
wastes, EPA established an effective
date of November 8.1988 for restricted
solvent wastes containing less than 1%
total restricted solvent constituents (40
CFR 268.30(a)(3)]. The determination
should be made by the initial generator
at the point of generation so that the
f 288.41 treatment standards—which are
based on data showing that these
solvents' mobility can be very
significantly reduced with proper
treatment normally involving
incineration—not be supplanted by the
1% national capacity variance level.
This could occur if solvent treatment
residues treated to 1% solvent
constituents then became eligible for a
national capacity variance: the 1% level
would become a de facto treatment
'level, whereas the true, achievable
treatment level would, in most cases, be
orders of magnitude lower. Where
capacity exists to treat the residues, this
result is simply at odds with the
statutory scheme embodied in section
3004(m). (See 51 FR 44620. November 7..
1986.)
There would be no reason for
treatment facilities to continue treating
restricted solvent wastes below the 1%
level. For instance, the Agency noted
that the BDAT treatment train for many
restricted solvent wastes involves
distillation of the solvents followed by
incineration of the still bottoms from
distillation. The residues of incineration
should then meet the Subpart D
treatment standards (assuming that
incineration is conducted properly). (See
51 FR 1727, January 14,1986.) Were the
prohibition point to be determined
anywhere but the point of generation of
the spent solvent, there would be no
reason to continue treating solvent still
bottoms that contain less than 1% of the
restricted solvents, even though the still
bottoms are amenable to further
treatment and the Subpart D treatment
standards are based on further
treatment.
The Agency also has indicated that
where it has determined that no
treatment capacity exists to treat a
particular residue from treatment, then
the capacity variance would apply to
the residue from treatment. This could
occur most normally when treatment
generates a residue which belongs in a
new treatability group for which the
Agency has determined that there is no
existing treatment capacity (see 52 FR
22357. June 11,1987). The Agency
continues to believe that this is a sound
principle.
With respect to solvent distillation
bottoms, however. EPA's data indicate
that a capacity variance is unwarranted.
Since the initial January 14,1986
proposal, the Agency has stated that
distillation bottoms have to be treated
further before they could be land
disposed (see 51 FR 1724). The Agency
also has found that incineration
treatment capacity exists for these
residues from solvent distillation. (See
51 FR 1724.1727, and 1729. January 14,
1986; 51 FR 40815. November 7,1986; and
Capacity Background Document for
November 7.1988. Solvent Rule. pp. 63-
64.66.)
•'These passages all indicate'that the
Agency assessed the volume of
distillation bottoms resulting from
distillation of restricted solvent wastes
and determined that there was adequate
incineration capacity to treat them.
These conclusions were not challenged
during the solvent land disposal
prohibition rulemaking. but the Agency
again solicits comment, in light of
operating experience since promulgation
of the November 7,1966 rule, as to -
whether there is adequate treatment
, capacity to treat residues from
treatment of restricted solvent wastes
where such residues contain less than
1% total solvent constituents but do not
meet the applicable Subpart D treatment
standards. If commenters believe that
this may be the case (based on
appropriate data), the Agency solicits
further comment as to whether there is
any basis for considering these residues
to be a different treatability group. .
In proposing regulatory language and
soliciting comment on this issue, the
Agency is not withdrawing its existing
regulation. The Agency notes, however.
that its earlier actions on this issue were
prospective only. (See 52 FR 21010.
stating that the revisions are effective
on June 4.1987.) Thus, the June 4.1987
revisions to { 268.30(a)(3) have no
applicability to any certifications made
before that date or to any treatment
residues land disposed before that date.
(See 52 FR 21012. June 4.1987 {item *16);
id. at 21017 (item #62).)
C. Storage Prohibition
The storage prohibition in 5 268.50 is
applicable to all First Third wastes.
including those wastes for which
treatment standards have not been
established (i.e.. "soft hammer" wastes).
The statutory language in RCRA section
3004(H states that:
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 /Proposed Rules
''^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^""^"""'^^^""'^"^'•"""^••"••••^••'••••^••••••IS^MMSMMSIS^MBSB
11771
In thei case of any hazardous waste which
is prohibited from one or more methods of
land disposal under this section (or under
regulations promulgated by the Administrator
under any provision of this section) the
storage of such hazardous waste is prohibited
unless such storage is solely for the purpose
of the accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal.
Under RCRA section 3004(g){6), "aoft
hammer" wastes are prohibited from
disposal in landfills and surface
impoundments unless the generator
certifies that such disposal is the only
practical alternative to treatment
available to the generator. Therefore.
"soft hammer" wastes are prohibited
from "one or more methods of land
disposal", and are subject to the storage
prohibition.
EPA does not believe that Congress
intended the storage prohibition to
apply to wastes which are no longer
prohibited from "one or more methods
of land disposal". Should a "soft
hammer" waste be subject to the
certification set forth in § 268.8, this
waste would no longer be prohibited
from any form of land disposal. The
Agency is proposing that the storage
prohibition would no longer be
applicable, and 5 268.50 would be
amended to reflect this interpretation.
This is consistent with the Agency's
approach to wastes which are subject to
an extension of the effective date, which
are also not subject to the storage
prohibition.
H. Petitions To Allow Land Disposal of
Prohibited Wastes
1.'Overview
The statutory language of RCRA 3004
(d), (e), and (g) includes provisions
allowing an interested party to petition
to dispose of prohibited wastes in land
disposal units, including deep injection
wells, provided that the petitioner
demonstrates to the Administrator "to-a
reasonable degree of certainty that there
will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous." Land disposal of
otherwise prohibited hazardous wastes
may be allowed only where it can be
demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that the statutory standard
will be met.
On November 7,1988, EPA
promulgated regulations (51FR 40572) .
that provided procedures for submittal
of petitions to allow land disposal of a
waste prohibited under Subpart C of
Part 268. The regulation (40 CFR 288.6)
included the information that must be
provided in a "no migration"
demonstration, the criteria the
demonstration must meet, and the •
Agency's review and approval
procedures.
Since promulgation of the November
7,1988 final rule, the Agency has had
•everal inquiries regarding the
appropriate content of "no migration"
petitions. In response to these questions,
EPA is proposing additional
. requirements in today's rule. This rule
does not, however, present the Agency's
interpretation of the statutory "no
migration" language of RCRA 3004 (d),
_ (e), and (g). The Agency hopes to further
address this question at a later date.
Today's notice discusses additional
requirements relating to:
(1) Other applicable laws;
(2) Monitoring plans;
(3) Variance departures; and
(4) Detection of hazardous constituent
migration.
A detailed discussion of these
requirements is provided in Section 4.
2. Requirements for "No Migration"
Petitions in the November 7,1988 Final
Rule -
In the final rule published on
November 7,1986, the Agency
promulgated procedures and criteria for
"no migration" petitions for surface
disposal units. As codified in 40 CFR
268.6 (d) through (j), EPA requires all
"no migration" petitions to be submitted
to the Administrator containing
information that describes: (1) specific
wastes and specific unit(s) involved, (2)
chemical and physical characteristics of
the wastes, and (3) comprehensive
characterization of the disposal unit and
environment.
A successful petition must meet the
following criteria that form the basis for
the Agency's evaluation of the
demonstration for compliance with the
statutory language:
(1) Waste and environmental
sampling, testing, and analysis data are
accurate and reproducible;
(2) Sampling, tenting, and estimation
methods for determining chemical and
physical properties of wastes and
environmental parameters are
explained;
(3) Simulation models used in the
demonstration must be calibrated for
specific waste and site conditions;
(4) Quality assurance and quality
control plan must be submitted that
addresses all aspects of the
demonstration;
(5) An analysis must be performed to
identify and quantify any aspects of the
demonstration that contribute
significantly to uncertainty. This
analysis must include an evaluation of
the consequences of predictable future
events, including, but not limited to,
earthquakes, floods, severe storm
events, droughts, or other natural
phenomena; and ' ••"
(6) A statement must be prepared and
signed that verifies the petitioner's
familiarity with all information in the
petition and that the data and
information is true, accurate and '
complete to the extent possible.
In addition to these requirements, the
following provisions are applicable to
units that have received a variance from
the land disposal prohibitions;
' (1) The petition will apply only to land
disposal of specific restricted wastes at
that disposal unit;
(2) The effective period of the^etition
can be no longer than the term of the
RCRA permit if the unit is operating
under a RCRA permit, or up to a
maximum of 10 years from the date of
approval if the unit is operating under
interim status. Terms of the petition in
either case will expire upon termination
or denial of a RCRA permit or upon the
termination of interim status (except
when interim status is terminated by the
issuance of a permit), or when the waste
volume limit of the disposal unit during
the effective period of the petition is
reached; and
(3) The petition does not relieve the
petitioner of his responsibilities in the
management of hazardous waste under
40 CFR Parts 260 through 271.
The applicants are required to comply
with all restrictions on land disposal
that are in effect during the time period
in which the petition is being prepared, •
submitted, and reviewed until a final
decision by the Administrator is made.
The Administrator may request
additional information as needed to
evaluate the demonstration. After
completing review of the application, the
Administrator will announce to the
public and solicit comments on his
intent to approve or deny the petition in
the Federal Register. After review of
public comments, he will then publish
his final decision on the petition in the
Federal Register.
3. Regulatory Requirements of RCRA
Sections 3004 (f) and (g) November 7,
1986 Final Rule
The Agency recently proposed rules to
implement the land disposal restrictions
of section 3004 (f) and (g) of RCRA for
waste disposal in deep injection wells
(52 FR 32446. August 27.1987). While the
standards applied to owners or
operators of deep injection wells in
these proposed rules fare the same as
those in today's proposal, the criteria,
content, and procedures are different in
that they specifically pertain to unique
-------
11772
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
technological and bydrogeologic
conditions associated with injection.
The reader should refer to these August
27,1987 proposed rules for complete
discussion of how the Agency intends to
apply the "no migration" standards in
deep injection wells.
4. Additional Requirements for "No
Migration" Petitions for Surface Units
Based on review of the inquiries and
comments received on the subject of "no
migration" petitions, the Agency is
proposing additional requirements to be
effective on the date of promulgation.
These requirements would be added to
those already codified in 40 CFR Part
288 for "no migration" petitions for
surface disposal units. Today's proposed
rule provides further procedural and
informational requirements applicable
to those surface disposal units for which
a variance from the land dinposal
restrictions is being sought, and does not
interpret the statutory language of
RCRA sections 3004 (d). (e) and (g)
regarding "no migration"
demonstrations. Specific information
and procedural requirements of today's
proposal are discussed below.
(1) Other Applicable Laws: EPA is
proposing to require the petitioner to
provide sufficient information in the
petition demonstration to aiisure the
Administrator that land disposal of the
prohibited waste(s) (in the petition) will
comply with other applicable Federal,
State, and local laws (Section 258.6(d)
(1)]. The petitioner must review Federal.
State and local laws to determine if
stricter regulations must be applied to
the unit for which the petition is
submitted. This review is necessary to
reveal environmentally sensitive areas.
and endangered species which must be
protected. The review of Federal laws
should include, but not be limited to, the
Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the
Safe Drinking Water Act; the
Endangered Species Act; the National
Historic Preservation Act; the Wild and
Scenic Rivera Act; the Coastal Zone
Management Act; the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act; the Atomic Energy
Act; and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuary Act. The
review of State and local laws must be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Under 40 CFR 270.3, an owner or
operator seeking a RCRA permit for a
unit must demonstrate compliance with
several Federal laws, including some of
those listed above. The Agency does not
foresee that an owner or operator
satisfactorily making a timely
demonstration for those laws covered
under § 2703 in order to obtain a permit.
will have to make another
demonstration of compliance with those
same laws for the purposes of obtaining
a "no migration" variance.
(2) Monitoring Plan: Under Section
2B8.6(d)(2) of today's proposal, EPA is
proposing that petitioners submit a
monitoring plan to the Administrator
that describes the monitoring program
installed at and/or around the unit to
verify continued compliance with
conditions of the variance.
This monitoring plan must be
submitted an part of the "no migration"
petition and must provide infonnatiori
on die monitoring of the unit and/or the
appropriate environment around the
unit, or, if monitoring the unit or the
environment around the unit is either
technically infeasible or impracticable,
the rationale supporting the
determination of infeasibility or
impracticability. If the petitioner asserts
that monitoring is impractical or
infeasible, no monitoring plan (for the
unit or environment as appropriate)
need be submitted. However, the
Administrator will decide if monitoring
of the unit itself or monitoring of the
environment around the unit, or both, is
required, based on the factors
supporting the variance and other
information provided. If EPA decides
that such a plan is necessary, the
petitioner will be required to submit a
plan before the final decision on the
petition will be made.
If a monitoring plan is required, the
petitioner must submit as part of that
plan the following information:
a. The media monitored, in cases
where monitoring of the environment
around the unit is required;
b. The type of monitoring conducted
at the unit, in the cases where
monitoring of the unit is required;
c. The location of the monitoring
stations;
d. The monitoring interval (frequency
of monitoring at each station);
e. The specific hazardous constituents
to be monitored;
f. The implementation schedule for the
monitoring program;
g. The equipment used at the
monitoring stations;
h. Sampling and analytical techniques
employed;
i. Data recording/reporting
procedures.
The plan must include discussion of
the rationale for the design of the
monitoring program and demonstrate
that monitoring will be positioned so as
to detect migration from the unit at the
earliest practicable time. Specifically,
the plan must provide discussion of the
monitoring program with respect to the
following points
a. Mobility and persistence of
hazardous waste constituents managed
in the unit;
b. Possible migration pathways from
the unit, both during the active life of the
facility and through the post-closure
care period;
c. Operations at the unit;
d. Strength of engineered and natural
material components of the unit and any
weak points in the unit design.
e. Optimum location of the monitoring
stations to detect any migration of
hazardous constituents at the earliest
practicable time.
The Agency believes that monitoring
programs, either for the unit itself or the
environment around the unit or both
will be required in most cases. Only in a
very few instances does the Agency feel
that monitoring of the unit itself or the
environment around the unit may not be
appropriate or technically feasible. One
such case may be hazardous waste
repositories in geologic formations that
are so extensive that installation of
monitoring wells around the formation
itself may not allow detection of
migration at the earliest time, and
installation of monitoring wells in the
formation may damage the integrity of
the formation. Monitoring the repository
itself (e.g., pressure monitoring of fluids
between well-casings in solution-mined
caverns, or leachate sumps and pumps
in room-end-pillar mines] may be
suitable in this case.
A monitoring program should include
monitoring the behavior of wastes in the
unit to detect any changes in the waste
that may affect the potential for
migration of hazardous constituents
over time. Examples of this type of
monitoring include periodic testing of
the waste in a unit; leachate collection
systems in surface impoundments,
landfills, and room-and-pillar mines; and
fluid or gas pressure monitoring in well
casings above solution-mined caverns in
salt domes. To avoid monitoring
systems within the unit, the petitioner
must show that the available technology
for monitoring the unit would adversely
affect the structural integrity or the
waste isolation capability of the unit.
The locations of the monitoring
stations in the different media outside of
the unit (if applicable) and/or within the
unit itself (if applicable) must be
apecified in the monitoring plan.
Selection of the monitoring points in the
media around the unit and within the
unit should be based on an assessment
of pollutant fate and transport and
should provide for detection of releases
of hazardous constituents at the earliest
practicable time.
-------
Federal Register /"'-Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 6. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11773
Groundwater monitoring systems
must consist of a sufficient number of ..'.
wells installed at appropriate locations
and depths to detect migration to the
ground water at the earliest practicable7
time. The groundwater monitoring
program for conventional land disposal -
units, such as surface impoundments
and land treatment units, should comply
with 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 standards
and requirements as well as technical
guidance issued by EPA to properly
locate, design, drill, develop, and
operate groundwater monitoring wells.
Monitoring systems must consist of a
sufficient number of devices located so
as to detect migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit at the earliest
practicable time. All monitoring systems
and their capabilities must be specified
in the monitoring plan of the petition
and approved by the Administrator.
A petitioner may be able to
incorporate into his monitoring plan part
or all or a groundwater monitoring
program established for the purpose of
complying with 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265 Subpart F. For example, a petitioner
may be able to use all or some of his :
monitoring wells if they will detect
migration at the earliest practicable ,
time, and may only have to increase the
frequency of monitoring. , /'...•
The monitoring interval specified in
the monitoring plan (§ 268.6(d)(2)} must
provide detection of migration of . ..
hazardous-constituents at the earliest :
practicable time. The owner or operator
must submit a suggested monitoring
interval for all monitoring stations and
demonstrate that the frequency of
monitoring at that station is adequate to
detect releases of hazardous
constituents at the earliest practicable
time. The demonstration may be based
on computer simulations or other
assessments of pollutant fate and .'-.'.
transport in the particular media.The
Administrator will determine if the
suggested interval is appropriate based
on the evaluation of the demonstration..
The monitoring interval will vary
depending on the media being monitored
and other site-specific factors. These
factors may include climatology.
environmental setting, unit design .
characteristics, and waste
characteristics. -;
The Appendix VIII constituents to be
monitored must be specified in the
monitoring plan [5 268.6(d}(2)). The. :
constituents to be monitored in.the unit
should be determined based on - ^
knowledge of waste composition and
mobility of waste components. For
groundwater, the constituents to be
monitored may be analogous to those
monitored under Parts 264 and 265
Subpart F. Under Subpart F. depending
on whether the monitoring program is in
a detection, compliance, or corrective
action monitoring phase, an owner or
operator may be monitoring for
indicator parameters, all Appendix IX
constituents, or specific waste
constituents. A monitoring program
undertaken to demonstrate "no
migration" may be able to make use of
Subpart F monitoring data. Although
monitoring indicator parameters under
Subpart F may be helpful to
demonstrate "no migration", the actual
constituents to be monitored must be
determined based on an analysis of the
waste.
Monitoring outside the unit in the
different media should include, but is
not necessarily limited to, the most
mobile constituents for the particular
media.
Where applicable, the monitoring
program described in the petition
monitoring plan must be in place for a
period of time specified by the
Administrator prior to receipt of waste
at the unit (§ 268.6(e)) or as indicated in
an alternative schedule as approved by
the Administrator. The monitoring.
program must be implemented during
the time which the unit is receiving
restricted waste which does not meet .
the treatment standards under 3004(m)
and may also be necessary, in part or in
total, during the post-closure care • -. .•
period. Although the approved petition
is valid for only as long as the owner's
and operator's operating permit (10
years maximum], the monitoring of
media to which the wastes could
potentially migrate may continue for as
long as the waste remains hazardous.
The objective of a monitoring program
for "no migration" variances is to allow
detection of migration of hazardous
constituents at the earliest practicable
time. During the operating life of the
unit, such a detection of migration will
prevent the unit from continuing to
receive waste not meeting standards
under 3004(m) (see discussion below}.
During the post-closure care period,
however; the unit is no longer receiving
restricted untreated waste, and the
objective of any monitoring is to detect
the need for corrective action. Thus, in
most cases, groundwater monitoring .
other than that already required for
post-closure care under §§ 264.117 and
265.117 will not be necessary.
Monitoring of additional media may be
necessary during the post-closure care
period if the activities conducted under
post-closure do not adequately protect
against migration. However, the Agency
does not envision that a disposal unit
which has been properly closed will '
pose a threat of migration through other
media. . ,
Monitoring of unit parameters, such as
temperature or pressure, will not be
required after closure if the monitoring
activities would compromise the
isolation capability of a disposal unit or
would not provide data of significance
to assess the unit's integrity after
closure.
• The monitoring program must meet
the criteria in S 268.6(1):
a. All testing, sampling and analytical
techniques must be conducted according
to methods contained in EPA
Publication SW-846 Solid Waste Testing
Methods or must be approved by the
Administrator, and all data must be
accurate and reproducible;
b. Sampling, testing, estimation and
modeling techniques must be provided
and approved by the Administrator and
c. A Quality Assurance and Quality
Control plan must be approved by the
Administrator. .
The Agency believes that the
reporting of monitoring data should
occur regularly, but that frequent
reporting of monitoring data imposes a
significant administrative burden on the
owner or operator and the petition
reviewer. The Agency believes that
monitoring data which is collected for
the purposes of demonstrating .
compliance with the variance and which
does not reveal migration or significant
changes to the site, should be reported
annually to the Administrator. A
schedule for reporting the data should
be proposed in the petition and
approved by the Administrator. The
Agency is requesting comment on
whether data should be reported
annually, or more frequently. The
Agency further believes that monitoring
data may be reported to the . .
. Administrator or kept on-site as part of
the operating log. The Agency is
soliciting comment as to whether the
monitoring data should be reported to
the Administrator, kept in the operating
log on-site, or both.
(3) Changes from Conditions of the
Variance: Under 268.6(1) Of this
proposal, if there is a change from the
reported conditions at or around the unit
or any change affecting the unit or the
' area around the unit for which the .
petition has been granted, .this change
must be reported to the Administrator at
the earliest practicable time. The
Agency believes that any changes made
at the facility that may affect any part of
the unit must be reported: For example,
if the owner/operator proposes to make
engineering changes at the unit, these
must be reported to the Administrator at
least 30 days prior to the change being
-------
11774
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
made. If the monitoring plan lor the unit
needs to be changed or upgraded to
better reflect actual conditions at the
lite, it must be reported to the
Administrator at least 30 days prior to
this proposed change. If site conditions
change (i.e., environmental changes), the
Administrator must also be notified of
this change. The Agency realizes that
some petitions will be submitted and
approved prior to a unit being built As
such, the Agency believes thut it is
necessary to provide flexibility to
change some conditions of the petition if
necessary to protect against migration.
or to adequately detect a release.
The Agency also realizes that
conditions upon which the "no
migration" variance has been granted
may prove to be different once the unit
is operating. For example, a petitioner
may predict, based on modeling, that
leachate concentration will be at a
certain level and the petition was
approved conditional upon that
concentration. However, actual
monitoring of the leachate after the unit,
receives restricted waste may show that
levels are above those predicted. Such a
change in the conditions of the variance
should be reported to the Administrator.
The Agency realizes that some changes
may not be significant enough to
warrant action, but believes that all
changes to the unit or area around the.
unit, or changes that may affect unit or
area around the unit must be reported.
both for pending petitions and facilities
already granted waivers. The
Administrator will determine if such
changes warrant actions such as
submittal of a new petition,
modifications to the variance,
revocation of the variance, or no
changes to the variance, among others.
At this time, the Agency is unable to
delineate changes which would be
considered minor in their effect on the
variance. As such, the Agency proposes
requiring notification of all changes. The
Agency is soliciting comment on what
changes should or should not be
reported. The Agency is also soliciting
comment as to whether all changes or
some changes need to be reported
immediately or can be submitted as part
of the reporting requirements for
monitoring.
(4) Detection of Hazardous
Constituent Migration: Under proposed
§ 2G8.6(m). if the owner or operator
determines that there is a migration of
hazardous constituents from the unit,
the owner or operator must immediately
suspend receipt of restricted wastes at
the unit and notify the Administrator, in
writing, within 10 days of the
determination. EPA believes that ten
days is a reasonable time period for
notifying the Administrator of a
migration of hazardous constituents.
The Agency, however, is interested in
receiving comments from the public on
the appropriate time period for the
notification of the Administrator. EPA
also believes that immediate suspension
of receipt of restricted wastes is
necessary in order not to compound the
problem of migration.'
In the notification of migration
(applying to all media), the owner/
operator must provide analytical data
on the constituents, and an initial
assessment of the cause of migration.
The notification may include the owner
or operator's planned response to the
release. The planned response may
include additional monitoring, corrective
actions to remediate the release, and
design or operating modifications to
prevent a recurrence of the release. The
notification may also suggest what
response by the Agency would be
appropriate.
A brief summary of the information
required in a notification is provided
below:
•.The analytical data to be provided must
include but it not necessarily limited to the
following: (1) the owner or operator must
provide the constituents detected and the
concentrations at which they were detected;
and (2) the owner or operator must provide
modeling data (if applicable) that estimates
the levels of hazardous constituent migrating
from the unit.
b. The notification must provide an initial
assessment of possible causes of the
migration. This assessment may include an
evaluation of engineered components [i.e..
deterioration, construction deficiencies, etc.),
changes in environmental factors (i.e.,
climate, groundwater fluctuation, etc.), and
other appropriate factors.
Following receipt of the owner or
operators' notification of migration, the
Administrator will determine the actions
to be taken within 60 days of receiving
the notification. The Administrator will
make this decision based upon
information provided in the monitoring
plan, the "no migration" petition, and
the notification. Possible responses to
the notification may include revoking
the owner or operator's variance, partial
closing of the unit, additional
monitoring, operational changes, or
other appropriate responses. A
petitioner would then be afforded
further opportunity to comment on the
Agency's, decision. However, EPA
•believes that the Agency's (and public's)
interest in having only treated wastes
disposed in surface disposal units other
than "no migration" units appears to
outweigh any private interest in
continued land disposal of untreated .
wastes, and thus, justifies immediate
Agency action without further right to
comment before the decision.
If a final decision cannot be reached
by the Agency within 60 days, the
Administrator will issue a draft decision
specifying temporary measures to be in
effect until a final decision is reached.
Temporary measures that may be
specified by the Administrator include,
but are not limited to, restrict ions, on
waste types or quantities placed in the
unit, additional monitoring, or
unrestricted continued operations.
/. Proposed Approach to Comparative
Risk Assessment
Within the regulatory framework
established for implementing the land
disposal restrictions, EPA included
certain criteria in the determination of
-"available" treatment technologies. One
criterion required that treatment
technologies not present greater total
risks than land disposal waste
management practices. Although the
Agency utilized comparative risk
assessments in the development of
regulations prohibiting land disposal of
certain solvent-containing and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes (November
7,1986 final rule) and California list
wastes (July 8,1987 final rule), the
analysis did not affect the
determinations that treatment was
available.
Upon further consideration of the
existing comparative risk analysis, the
Agency believes that the approach in
which the risks of land disposal are
compared to the risks from.alternative
treatment technologies is flawed. In
cases where the land disposal practice .
could be found to be less risky than any
of the treatment alternatives, the
analysis could lead to anomalous
results. For example, in a situation
.where the comparative risk analysis
indicated that land disposal was the
least risky alternative available, there
would be no specified treatment
technology for the wastes. At the same
time, land disposal would be prohibited
by statute. Thus, the generator could not
land dispose the wastes, even though
treatment could be conducted pursuant
to other regulatory standards that assure
protection of human health and the
environment. ' •
A second anomaly is that unless EPA
actually specifies a treatment method as
the treatment standard—normally an
undesirable option (see 51 FR 44725,
December 11,1986)—the regulated
community may still use treatment
technologies identified as riskier than
land disposal to comply with the
treatment standards. In this respect, the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 08 / Friday, April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
11775
comparative risk assessments would not
deter the use of treatment found to
present greater total risk.
In light of these legal and practical
considerations, EPA does not believe
the existing comparative risk
assessment approach is warranted as a
decision tool for this rulemaking in the
determination of "available" treatment
technologies. In the future the Agency
may conduct risk analyses to distinguish
between the overall degree of risk posed
by alternative treatment technologies
and to make determinations concerning
the "best" technology based on net risk
posed by the alternative practices. The
Agency solicits comment on this new
approach. . -
/. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Effective Dates for First Third
Wastes
I. Quantities of Wastes Land Disposed
EPA has estimated the total quantities
of First Third wastes land disposed
annually based on the results of the
OSW RIA Mail Survey of Treatment.
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
regulated in 1981. The Agency
acknowledges that data from this survey
are not current and may limit the
accuracy of capacity analyses, but
believes that this database is the only
comprehensive information currently
available that is specific enough to •
allow EPA to determine required
alternative treatment capacity. EPA is
developing a new database that will be
used for capacity determinations. The
new database will be comprised of
information taken from responses to a
1987 survey of treatment, storage,
disposal, and recycling facilities. Since
this new capacity database will not be
available until early in 1988, the
capacity analyses for this propsoed rule
are based on the 1981 survey data.
When the 1987 survey data become'
available EPA will reassess capacity.
Four methods of land disposal are
included in the table below: Disposal in
landfills; storage in waste piles; disposal
by land application; and treatment,
storage, and disposal in surface
impoundments. Deep well injection,
another method of land disposal, will be
addressed in a separate Federal Register
, notice. Other methods of land disposal
that are affected by today's proposal
(utilization of salt dome and salt bed
formations and underground mines and
caves) are not addressed in the capacity
'analyses because of insufficient data.
Similarly, there is not enough data to
. estimate the capacity requirements for
land disposed First Third wastes
generated by Small Quantity Generators
(SQGs) and form CERCLA response
actions and RCRA corrective actions.
TOTAL VOLUME OF FIRST TWRD WASTES
LAND DISPOSED EXCLUDING DEEP WELL
INJECTED WASTES {MILLION GALLONS/
YEAR)
Disposal method
tfltvHUI
Storage in waste pan« :
Surface impoundments:
Stofftqft Qflly, ,
tSspowd ., ,„„,„„-..-,•-„„-,
Tn»«l -.. ....... , , ,,„ ,rlj
vol-
ume
600
100
70
990
1130
300
250
3440
About 250 million gallons of First
Third wastes are disposed in surface ' '
impoundments annually. Ultimately, all
of this waste will require alternative
treatment capacity.
Approximately 990 million gallons of
First Third wastes are stored in surface
impoundments annually. Since storage
implies a temporary containment of
waste. EPA has assumed that stored
wastes are eventually treated, recycled
or permanently disposed of in other
units. To avoid double-counting of such
wastes, the volumes of wastes reported
as being stored in surface
impoundments were not included in the
estimates of volumes, requiring-
alternative treatment capacity.
However, the Agency recognizes that,
because of the restrictions on placement
of wastes into surface impoundments.
these wastes will eventually require
alternative storage capacity.
In addition to the wastes stored, about
1.4 billion gallons for First Third wastes
are treated or treated and stored
concurrently in surface impoundments
annually. These wastes may still be
treated this way, provided that the
impoundments meet the minimum
technological requirements under RCRA
by November 1988. However, while
there are not data available to estimate
the quantity of waste treated in ,
impoundments that meet the minimum
technological requirements, EPA
believes that the volume is relatively
small. Therefore, EPA has assumed that
all First Third wastes being treated or
treated and stored simultaneously in '..
surface impoundments will require
alternative treatment and storage
capacity, usually in the form of either
retrofitted impoundments or new tank
treatment systems.
2, Required Alternative Capacity
In order to assess the requirements for
alternative treatment capacity that will
result from the restrictions of today's
proposed rule, the Agency first
characterized the volume of First Third
wastes that require alternative
treatment capacity on the basis of land
disposal method, waste code, and
physical/chemical form. Using this
information, it was then possible to
determine which treatment technologies
are applicable to the waste volumes and
to determine the volume of .alternative
treatment capacity that will be required
when owners/operators comply with the
land disposal restrictions being
proposed today.
Due to time constraints, as explained
previously. Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) analyses
have not been completed for all of the
scheduled First Third wastes. Capacity
analyses have not been performed for
"soft hammer" wastes (P and U.waste
codes) or First Third E and K wastes for
which treatment standards are not being
proposed today. Furthermore, the
Agency has determined that generators
of the waste K069 are able to totally
recycle the waste volumes .generated
and that the First Third wastes K004,
K008, K036. K073 and K100 are no longer
being generated. Since the treatment
standard is set as "No Land Disposal"
for wastes that are no longer generated
or are totally recycled, no capacity
analyses were necessary for,these
wastes. The table below lists the
amount of waste land disposed for those
First Third wastes for which treatment
standards are being proposed today.
VOLUME OF FIRST THIRD WASTES, EX-
CLUDING DEEP 'WELL INJECTED
WASTES, AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
RULE (MILLION GALLONS/YEAR)
Disposal method
Vol-
ume
Landfill........ „_..;.; '..
Land application —
Storage in waste piles ..u.——
Surface impoundments:
Storage only...,- —»
Treatment only ...„,..
Storage and treatment......—
Disposal ...».»..»»..J«..w«.u»..
Total ..._.„..,
: Total (excluding Storage, only) ;.._
220
90
SO
50
55
30
85
560
530
Based on our analysis, EPA estimates
that today's proposed rule would
potentially affect about 530 million
gallons of First Third wastes that are
land disposed annually that will require
treatment capacity. ' '
As explained elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA today is proposing
treatment standards that are expressed •
as concentration limits and is identifying
-------
11776
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988./ Proposed Rules
the technology basis of the standards.
EPA is not requiring that the upecified
treatment technologies be used to
comply with standards. However, in
order to evaluate the treatment capacity
required for First Third wastes, EPA is
assuming that the entire volume of
waste estimated for each waste code
will be treated using the same type of
technology that forms the basis of the
proposed treatment standards.
The treatment technologies used to
establish proposed treatment standards
fall under six categories: fluic'lized bed
or rotary kiln incineration for K01B,
K018-K020, K024.
K030. K037, and K048-K052. liquid
injection incineration for KOl 5,
wastewater treatment for K002,
waste water treatment and incineration
for K103 and K104. chemical treatment
for K071 and high temperature metals
recovery for K061. The volumes of First
Third wastes that will require
alternative treatment capacity are listed
for each category in the table below.
REQUIRED TREATMENT CAPACITY FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED RULE (Mxucw GAL-
LONS/YEAR)
Technology
FV*:«d Bed or Rotary Kiln Incineration —
LrQU^ lnjeci»on Inonefation. .«««.«««««*««.«.,
W«'.t*a'.w Treatment for K062
Vm'ewater Treatment and Incineration (or
KtOS and K104 .-..-,...,.............-..—..._......
OHNThca^ Tfeatrvcot — —
hjan Temperature Metais Recovery
TctdK.H. ..........................
Re-
puted
treat- ,
merit
capac-
ity
170
<1
230
30
10
90
530
3. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates
Fluidized Bed. Rotary Kiln and Liquid
Injection Incineration
EPA estimates that about 170 million
gallons per year of First Third wastes
will require fluidized bed or rotary kiln
incineration capacity as a result of
today's proposed standards.
EPA has identified rotary kiln
incineration as BDAT for the wastes:
K016. K018, K019. K020. K024. K030 and
K037. While the treatment standards for
these wastes are based on rotary kiln
incineration, the Agency believes that a
well-designed and well-operated
fluidized bed incinerator will also
achieve the treatment standards.
Therefore, fluidized bed incineration
capacity was included in the estimates
of treatment capacity.
EPA has identified fluidized bed
incineration followed by stabilization of
metals in the ash as BDAT for the K048,
K049. K050. K051. and K052 wastes.
While the treatment standards for these
wastes are not based on rotary kiln
incineration, EPA believes that rotary
kiln incineration in a well-designed and
well-operated unit followed by
stabilization of metals in the ash will
also achieve the treatment standards.
Therefore, rotary kiln incineration
capacity was included in the estimates
of treatment capacity.
Liquid injection incineration was used
to establish the treatment standard for
K015. While BDAT is identified as liquid
injection incineration, the Agency
believes that incineration in a well-
designed and well-operated industrial
furnace (e.g., a cement kiln) will also
achieve the treatment standard.
Therefore, industrial furnace capacity
was included in the estimate of
treatment capacity for this waste.
As the Agency determined for the
Solvents and Dioxins Rule (51FR 40572),
there is not enough commercial fluidized
bed or rotary kiln incineration capacity
for wastes requiring these technologies
and EPA lacks the information
necessary for estimating on-site
incineration capacity at facilities that •
generate these wastes. Therefore. EPA
assumes that capacity is inadequate and
proposes to grant a two-year national
capacity variance from the effective
date for the following wastes: KOI6.
K018, K019. K020. K024. K030, K037,
K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052. It
should be noted that capacity analyses
will be reviewed when the new data
become available.
. The Agency has determined that there
' is adequate liquid injection incineration
capacity (including cement kilns)
commercially available to treat KOI5
wastes. Therefore, EPA does not
propose to grant a capacity variance for
this waste.
Waste water Treatment for K082
EPA estimates that about 230 million
gallons per year of the First Third waste
K062 would require wastewater
treatment as a result of today's
' proposed rule. BDAT for K062 is
identified as chromium reduction,
chemical precipitation and vacuum
N filtration. The Agency believes that this
treatment is generally available on-site
and has determined for previous rules
(51 FR 40572 and 52 FR 25760) that some
available commercial capacity exists.
Furthermore, approximately 42 percent
of the K062 waste is currently being
managed in surface impoundments that
are subject to the minimum
technological requirements under
RCRA. The Agency believes that some
of these impoundments may either be
retrofitted to meet the minimum
technological requirements or may be
replaced by newly-installed tank
treatment systems. Consequently, EPA
believes that adequate capacity for K062
exists or will exist prior to promulgation
of the final rule. Therefore, no variance
is proposed for K062.
Wastewater Treatment and Incineration
for K103 and K104
EPA estimates that approximately 30
million gallons per year of the First
Third wastes K103 and K104 would
require wastewater treatment and
incineration as a result of today's
proposed rule. BDAT for these wastes is
solvent extraction, followed by
incineration of the solvent contaminated
extract and followed by steam stripping
and carbon adsorption of the
wastewater. The Agency estimates that
about four million gallons per year
(approximately 13 percent of the original
volume) of solvent contaminated extract
will require incineration and that the
entire volume of waste will require
solvent extraction followed by steam
stripping and carbon adsorption.
The Agency has determined that there
is adequate incineration capacity
commercially available to treat the
volumes of K103 and K104 generated
(this includes industrial kiln capacity as
well as liquid injection incineration
capacity). However, EPA has
determined that there is not enough
solvent extraction/steam stripping/
carbon adsorption capacity
commercially available to treat the
volumes of K103 and K104. Therefore.
even though incineration capacity is
available, these wastes cannot be
treated to the treatment standards.
Since capacity for some treatment steps
is inadequate, EPA proposes to grant a
two-year national capacity variance
from the prohibition effective date for
K103 and K104.
High Temperature Metals Recovery for
K061
EPA estimates that approximately 90
million gallons of the First Third waste
K061 will require high temperature
metals recovery capacity annually (even
though K061 is a dust, the volume is
given in gallons because all volumes
were reported, as gallons in the RIA Mail
Survey). Available data indicate that
generators are not equipped to treat
K061 on-site and that there is not enough
commercial capacity available to treat
the amount generated. Therefore. EPA
proposes to grant a two-year national
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8.' 1988 / Proposed Rules
capacity variance from the prohibition
effective date forKOBl.
Chemical Treatment for K071
EPA estimates that about 10 million
gallons of the First Third waste K071
would require chemical treatment
annually as a result of today's proposed
rule. BOAT for K071 is acid leaching and
chemical oxidation for nonwastewatere
and sulfide precipitation followed by
filtration for wastewaters. The available
data indicate that there are no
commercial treatment facilities that
manage this waste and that most
generators are not equipped to treat
K071 on-site. Therefore, EPA proposes to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance from the prohibition effective
date for KOTl.
4. Capacity Variances for "Derived-
From" and "Mixed" Wastes
In developing estimates of the
quantity of a waste that requires
treatment as a result of the land
disposal restrictions. EPA attempts to
define all such wastes including
"derived-from" and "mixed" wastes.
However, EPA's estimates of treatment
capacity usually assume that all waste
is treated using the same type of
treatment technology that is determined
to be the basis for the BDAT treatment
.standards.
As explained earlier in this preamble,
EPA's treatment standards will apply to
a range of wastes with physical and/or
chemical characteristics potentially
different from the waste tested. In cases
where the facility believes that the
appropriate treatment technology is
different from the technology
determined to be BOAT or that the
associated effective date is
inappropriate, the facility can petition
for either a variance from the treatment
standard or a case-by-case capacity
extension. (A case-by-case extension
could be granted even if a variance from
the treatment standard was not
requested or was denied.)
5. Capacity Variances for "Soft
Hammer" Wastes
The Agency is not barred from ;;
granting capacity variances for "soft
hammer" wastes, i.e. First Third wastes
for which there is no treatment standard
(52 FR 25774-775, July 8,1987). The
Agency, however, has discretion as to
whether or not to grant such variances.'
(See RCRA section 3004(h)(2) ("The
Administrator may establish an
, effective date different from the.
effective date which would otherwise
apply * • •" (emphasis added)).] The
Agency believes it inappropriate to
consider capacity variances for "soft
hammer" wastes because section
3004(g)(8) functions as an individualized
capacity determination. Generators of
wastes destined for disposal in landfills
or impoundments, in effect, must make
their own search of practically available
treatment and certify the results. The
Agency thus believes it would be an
inefficient use of its own resources (and
possibly ah undermining of the "soft
hammer" scheme) if it were to
undertake its own independent capacity
determination for "soft hammer"
wastes.
IV. Modifications to the Lund Disposal
Restrictions Framework
Today's proposal does two things.
First, it proposes the Agency's approach
IB restricting the land disposal of Firet
Third wastes, presenting the conditions
under which land disposal of these
wastes may be continued. Second, it
proposes modifications to the existing
framework of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program, as first
promulgated on November 7.1988 (51 FR
40572) and subsequently modified in the
July 8.1987 California list final rule (52
FR 25780). Unless otherwise specified.
these proposed modifications will apply
to all other restricted wastes. This
section of today's proposal summarizes
these modifications and refers to more
detailed discussions in other sections of
this preamble.
A. General Waste Analysis (§§ 264.14
and 265.13)
The Agency has proposed
modifications to §§264.13 and 265.13 to
reflect provisions for the treatment of
"soft hammer" wastes in surface
impoundments. The framework •
promulgated November 7,1986 provided
for an exemption allowing treatment of
restricted wastes in surface
impoundments meeting the minimum
technological requirements (i.e.. double
liner, leachate collection system, and
.groundwater monitoring), provided that
residuals that do not meet the treatment
standard are removed annually. As
discussed in Section III. C. 3., this
exemption is extended to allow for
wastes subject to the "soft hammer"
provision (i.e.. wastes for which no
trea'tment standard has been
established). Nonsubstantive
modifications are also proposed to make
these sections more readable.
B. Operating Record (§ 264.73 and
§265.73)
The Agency is proposing to modify
§.264.73 and § 265.73 to require retention
of the § 268.8 certification, i.e. the
certification applicable to "soft
hammer" wastes. EPA is also proposing
to require that facilities retain the new
tracking notice required under § 268.7
for generators sending "soft hammer"
wastes to receiving facilities, and for
treatment facilities sending "soft
hammer" wastes to a disposal facility.
The proposed notice and certification is
discussed further in Sections III. B. 2.
and III. C. 2. respectively.
C. Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
(§268.1) -
The Agency is proposing to modify
§ 268.1 only to include the "soft
hammer" wastes in the applicability of
the land disposal restrictipns, and to
allow the disposal of such wastes in
landfill and surface impoundment units
meeting the minimum technological
requirements provided such wastes are
the subject of a valid certification under
§ 268.8.
D. Treatment in Surface Impoundment
Exemption (§ 268.4)
The proposed modifications to the
requirements of § 268.4 reflect the
special conditions for allowing this
exemption to apply to First Third wastes
for which no treatment standards have
been established. Certain
nonsubstantive modifications have also
been proposed to improve the
readability of the section. The
conditions relating to the disposal of
"soft hammer" wastes are discussed in
Section III. C. 3.
E. Case-by-Case Extensions (§ 268.5)
The modification to § 268.5 reflects
the Agency's new interpretation of
RCRA section 3004(h){4), that wastes
subject to a case-by-case extension of
the effective date, if disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment, must
. be disposed in a unit that meets the
minimum technological requirements.
EPA's earlier interpretation was that
Congress intended such wastes to be
disposed in a facility that meets the
minimum technological requirements.
The discussion for this proposed change
is found in Section III. D.
F. "No Migration "Petitions (§ 268.6)
As discussed in Section III. H., the
Agency is pro'posing modifications to the
existing requirements for petitioning
EPA for a "no migration" exemption
under § 268.6.
G. Testing andRecordkeeping (§268.7)
The proposed modifications to § 268.7
extend the notification and certification
requirements to include the First Third
wastes. EPA is also proposing to apply
the recordkeeping.requirements of this
section to treatment and storage
-------
11778
Federal Register f Vol. 53. No. «8 / Friday. April 8, 1968 [ Proposed Rules
fteflitiet not already included In the
"cradle-to-grave" paper trail, including
•n additional change addressing wastes
that may be land disposed under an
extension, exemption, or variance. Also,
• new notification is proposed for "soft
hammer" wastes. The discussion for
these proposed modifications is found in
Section UL 6.
Testing requirements for wastes in
{ 268.43 (i.e.. wastes for which the
treatment standards are expressed as
concentration levels in the waste, rather
than tn the waste extract) have been
proposed. And finally, other
nonsubstantive modification!! are being
proposed to improve the readability of
this section.
H, Landfill and Surface Impoundment
Disposal Restrictions (§268J3)
The Agency is proposing a new
§ 268.8 which addresses the prohibition
on disposal of First Third wastes for
which treatment standards have not
been established. An extensive
discussion in Section III. C. presents the
Agency's interpretation of RCRA section
3004(g](6)(A), which is applicable to the
disposal of such wastes in landfills and
surface impoundments, and also
proposes EPA'a approach to the type of
information which must be supplied and
certified to prior to such disposal.
/. Waste Specific Prohibitions—First
Third Wastes (§288.33)
Section 268.33 proposes the actual
prohibitions on the land disposal of First
Third wastes (wastes listed tn § 268.10)
for which EPA has proposed treatment
standards, and also proposes effective
dates based on the availability of
capacity to treat these wastes. Section
111. A. describes the development of
these proposed treatment standards,
and Section III. I. presents the capacity
data and assumptions on which the
proposed effective dates are based.
Section 268.33{e) proposes the
prohibitions placed on "soft hammer"
wastes, as discussed in Section ID. C.
. It should be noted that the; schedule
for waste K019 (a Second Third waste
listed in § 268.11) has been accelerated
to include this waste in the First Third.
K100 (a Third Third waste listed in
§ 268.12) is also included in the First
Third.
/. TreaUnenl Standards (§268.40,
§268.41, and §268.43)
Proposed treatment standards,
expressed as concentration levels in
both the waste (§ 268.43, as expressed m
a new Table CCW) and in a waste
extract developed by using the TCLP,
are presented in proposed amendments
to Subpart D. The treatment standards
are dismissed in Section DI. A.
K. Storage Prohibition (§268.50)
Only a slight modification to the
existing storage prohibition in 1268.50 is
proposed to account for the Agency's
interpretation of RCRA section 3004(j),
as applicable to "soft hammer" wastes
which are the subject of a certification
under 5 268.8. This interpretation is
presented in Section ID. G. of this notice.
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
•ay 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
•nd prohibitions in authorized States.
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
BO. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
Today's rule is proposed pursuant to
•ections 3004(d) through (k), and (m). of
RCRA (42 ILS.C. 6624). Therefore, it will
be added to Table l.in 40 CFR 271.1(j).
which identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and take effect m 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 in the following section.
When this rule is promulgated. Table 2
in 40 CFR 271.1(j) will be modified also
to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementing provision of HSWA.
B. Effects 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
3OO6(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that ara
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1,1993 (see 40
CFR 271.24(c)).
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and 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. Since final
rule promulgation will be after July 1,
1987, State program modifications must
be made by July 1,1991, if only
regulatory changes are necessary or July
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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 /Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
M779
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.
The amendments being proposed
today need not effect the State's
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
primacy status. A State currently
authorized to administer the UIC
program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) could continue to do so
without seeking authority to administer
these amendments. However, a State
which wished to implement Part 148 and
receive authorization to grant
exemptions from land disposal would
have to demonstrate that it had the
requisite authority to administer
sections .3004 (f) and (g) of RCRA. The
conditions under which such an
authorization may take place are
summarized above, and are discussed in
50 FR 28728. et seq., July 15.1985.
C. State Implementation
There are three unique aspects of
today's proposal which affect State
implementation and impact State
actions on the regulated community:
1. Under Part 268, Subpart C. EPA is
proposing land disposal restrictions for
all generators and disposers of certain
types of hazardous waste. In order to
retain authorization. States must adopt
the regulations under this Subpart since
State requirements can be no less
stringent than Federal requirements.
2. Also under Part 268. EPA may grant
a national variance from the effective
date of land disposal prohibitions for up
to two years if it is found that there is
insufficient alternative treatment
capacity. Under 5 268.5, case-by-case
extensions of up to one year [renewable
for one additional year) may be granted
for specific applicants lacking adequate
capacity.
. The Administrator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective date because these
determinations must be made on a
national basis. In addition, it is clear
that RCRA section 3004(h)(3) intends for
the Administrator to grant case-by-case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the basis of national concerns
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore. States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. Under i 268.44. the Agency may
grant a waste-specific variance from a
treatment standard in cases where it
can be demonstrated that the physical
or chemical properties of the waste
differ significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standard, and. the waste cannot be
treated to specified levels or treated by
specified methods.
The Agency is solely responsible for
granting such variances since the result
of such an action will be the
establishment of a new waste
treatability group. All wastea meeting
the criteria of this new waste
treatability group will also be subject to
the variance, and thus, granting such a
variance has national impacts.
Therefore, this aspect of the program is
not delegated to the States. w
4. Under 5 268.6. EPA may grant
petitions of specific duration to allow ••
land disposal of certain hazardous
waste where it can be demonstrated
that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous.
States which .have the authority to
impose bans may be authorized under
RCRA section 3006 to grant petitions for
exemptions from bans. Decisions on
site-specific petitions do not require the
national perspective required to ban
waste or grant extensions. However, the
Agency expects few "no migration"
petitions and so will be handling them at
Headquarters, though the States may be
authorized to grant these petitions in the
future. The Agency expects to gain
valuable experience and information
from review of "no migration" petitions
which may affect future land disposal
restrictions rulemakings. In accordance
with RCRA section 3004{i), EPA will
publish notice of the State's final
decision on petitions in the Federal
Register.
States are free to impose their own
disposal bans if such actions are more
stringent or broader in scope than
Federal programs (RCRA section 3009
end 40 CFR 271.1(i)): Where States
impose such prohibitions, the broader
end more stringent State ban governs.
VL Effects of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program on Other
Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated Under the
Clean Water Act
As a result of the land disposal
. restriction! program, the regulated
community might switch from treatment
(BOAT) and land disposal for some
restricted First Third wastes to
discharge to publicly owned treatment.
works (POTWs): this; switch would be
based on waste management costs and
treatment availability after the land
disposal restrictions took effect In
shifting from treatment and land
disposal to discharge to POTWs. an
increase in human and environmental
risks could occur. Also as a result of the
land disposal restrictions, hazardous
waste generators could illegally
discharge their wastes to surface water
without treatment which could cause
damage to the local ecosystem.
Some generators might treat their
wastes prior to discharging to a POTW.
but the treatment step itself could
increase risks to the environment. For
example, if incineration were the
pretreatment step, metals and other
hazardous constituents present in air
scrubber waters could be discharged to
surface water. However, the amount of
First Third waste shifted to POTWs
would be limited by such factors as the
physical form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatment required prior to discharge.
and State and local regulations.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
Management of some First Third
wastes could be shifted from treatment
1 (BOAT] and land disposal to ocean
dumping and ocean-based incineration.
If the cost of ocean-based disposal plus
transportation were lower than the cost
of land-based treatment, disposal, and
transportation, this option could become
an attractive alternative. In addition.
ocean-based disposal could become
attractive to the regulated community if
land-based treatment capacity were not
available.
An increase in ocean-based disposal
could lead to an increase in risk to the
marine environment. For example,
ocean dumping of toxic hazardous
wastes could cause increased risks for
sensitive marine organisms. Stack
emissions from ocean-based
incinerators might contain metals and
persistent organic chemicals that could
be deposited in the ocean and have
potentially toxic effects on marine life.
In addition, accidental spills and
releases in the ocean could have severe
effects on coastal and marine resources.
Management of restricted First Third
wastes could not be automatically
shifted to ocean dumping and ocean-
based incineration based on costs alone.
Both technologies require permits, which
could be issued only, if technical
requirements (e.g.. physical form and
heating value) and MPRSA
environmental criteria (e.g., constituent
concentrations, toxicity, solubility,
density, and persistence} were met
MPRSA requires that nine specific
factors, including the availability and
impacts of land-based disposal
-------
11780
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday, April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
alternatives, be coneldered before
permit* can be issued for ocean
disposal.
C. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act
Some treatment technologies
applicable to First Third wastes could
result in cross-media transfer of
hazardous constituents to air. For
example, incineration of metal-bearing
wastes could result in metal missions
to air. Some constituents, such as
chromium, can be more toxic if inhaled
than if ingested. As a result, it might be
necessary to issue regulatory controls '
for some technologies to ensure they are
operated properly.
The Agency has taken several steps to
address this issue. EPA has initiated a
program to address metal emissions
from incinerators. It has also initiated
two programs under section 3004(n) to
address air-emissions from other
sources. The first program will address .
fugitive emissions from equipment such
as pumps, valves, and vents from units
processing concentrated organic waste
streams. The second program will
address other sources of air emissions,
such as tanks and waste transfer and
handling.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Purpose
The Agency estimated the costs.
benefits, and economic impacts of
today's proposed rule. These analyses
are required for "major" regulations as
defined by Executive Order No. 12291.
The Agency is also required under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to assess
small business impacts resulting from
the proposed rule. The cost s.nd
economic impact analyses serve,
additionally, as a measure of the
practical capability of facilities to
comply with the proposed rule.
The results indicate that today's rule
is a major rule. This section of the
preamble discusses the results of the
analyses of the proposed rule as
detailed in the draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule.
The draft RIA is available in. the public
docket for this proposal.
The analyses presented in this section
and in the draft RIA do not fully reflect
the current status of the proposed rule.
Certain wastes were included in the
RIA, but, due to the additional time
required to set treatment standards for
the wastes, were not part of the
proposed rule. Treatment standards
were set in the proposed rule for other
waitei which did not appear in the
database used for the RIA. In addition.
for a few wastes, the treatment
standardr presented in the proposed
rule differ, in varying degrees, from
those assumed initially in the RIA.
These discrepancies will be addressed
in the RIA for a subsequent First Third
proposed rule.
2. Executive Order No. 12291
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
EPA to assess the effect of proposed
Agency actions and alternatives during
the development 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 No. 122191
requires that regulatory agencies
prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for major rules. Major rules are
defined as those likely to result in:
• An annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
• A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries;
or
• Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
innovation, or international trade.
The Agency has prepared an RIA
which compares the proposed rule with
a regulatory alternative, as discussed in
the following sections. Based on this
analysis, the Agency has concluded that
this proposed regulation is a major rule
with an annual cost to the economy
ranging from $681-696 million per year.
3. Basic Approach/Regulatory
Alternatives
EPA is proposing to set treatment
standards for a subset of the First Third
K wastes and to let "soft hammers" fall
on all First Third P and U wastes. As
indicated earlier in the preamble, the
Agency will continue to analyze
treatment data for additional First Third
F and K wastes and will publish a
supplemental proposal. When the
proposal is published, the. impacts of
meeting the land disposal restrictions
requirements for these wastes will be
identified.
The "soft hammers" place restrictions
on the land disposal of First Third
wastes for which no treatment
standards have been set by August 8,
1988. The "soft hammer" provisions
would be in effect until "hard hammers"
fell (on May 8,1990) or for an even
shorter period if treatment standards or
extensions of the effective date were
promulgated. The effect of "hard
hammers" falling on wastes and of
extensions of the effective date were not
examined as part of this analysis. The
"soft hammers", as well as the proposed
rule as a whole, are discussed in greater
detail in Section III of this preamble.
EPA estimated the costs, benefits, and
potential economic impacts of the
proposed rule and of a major regulatory
alternative to it. However, only the
impacts of the proposed rule are
presented here. Results for the
regulatory alternative are discussed in
the RIA.
Provisions of the proposed rule, as
analyzed in the RIA, are as follows:
Proposed Rule:
• Treatment standards are
established for 30 F and K wastes,
and
• "Soft hammers" are allowed to fall
on P and U wastes.
The costs and benefits of two."soft
hammer" scenarios were examined:
Scenario 1:
• "Soft hammers" fall on P and U
wastes and treatment capacity is
assumed not to exist;
• Therefore, P and U wastes may
continue to be land disposed in
units meeting minimum
technological requirements.
Scenario 2:
• "Soft hammers" fall on P and U
wastes and treatment capacity is
assumed to exist;
• Therefore, P and U wastes must
meet "approximate treatment
atandardo" (treatment that will
reduce the mobility and toxicity of
hazardous consituents).
It was assumed that the "soft hammers"
would apply to wastes disposed of in
landfills, surface impoundments, waste
piles, and land farms. While neither
scenario corresponds exactly to the
proposed rule, it was assumed that the
two scenarios would establish upper
and lower bounds on the effects of the
proposed rule. The scenarios were also
used to explore some of the implications
of varying "soft hammer" requirements.
The effects of the proposed rule (with
"soft hammer" scenarios) were
estimated by comparison of post-
regulatory costs, benefits, and economic
impacts with those resulting under
baseline conditions. The baseline is
continued land disposal of wastes in
units meeting minimum technological
requirements.
4. Methodology
a. Determination of Affected
Population and Waste Management
Practices. The first step in determining
the populations of affected wastes and
facilities was to characterize waste
streams based on available
characterization reports and
professional judgment. (See Section D
for referencen.) This characterization
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 68 /Friday, April a 1988 / Proposed Rules
11781
data was matched with information on
waste quantities and management
practices from the 1981 RIA Mail Survey
and the 1984 Small Quantity Generator
Survey to determine the waste streams
and facilities potentially affected by the
proposed rule. Waste quantities and . _
numbers of facilities from each survey
were scaled up, by means of weighting
factors, to represent the national
population of wastes and facilities.
Next, it was necessary to adjust the
affected waste and facility population!
by considering the cost of compliance
with regulations which have taken effect
since the 1981 RIA Mail Survey was
conducted. In particular, EPA adjusted
reported waste management practices to
reflect compliance with the provisions of
40 CFR Part 264, which apply to
permitted treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. In making this
adjustment, the Agency assumed the
facilities would elect the least costly
methods of compliance.
This adjustment defines not only
baseline management practices and
costs associated with them, but also the
number of facilities and waste streams
in the affected population. For example,
for some facilities, the costs of land
disposing of certain wastes may have
been driven so high by the minimum
technological requirements that other
management modes became less
expensive. EPA assumes that these
. facilities no longer land dispose of these
wastes and that these wastes are no
longer part of the population of waste
streams that may be affected by any
restrictions on land disposal ''
;Finally, it was necessary to consider -
the overlap between First Third wastes
and California list,, solvent, and dioxin
wastes. A number of First Third wastes
are California list wastes, and a Tew
First Third mixed wastes contain
solvents and dioxins. To isolate the
impacts of this proposed rule, it was
necessary to "net out" the costs.
economic impacts, and benefits
stemming from treatment standards
established under other rules: in some
cases this resulted in waste streams and
facilities being dropped from die
affected population for this rule.
The logic used to net out overlapping
costs, economic impacts, and benefits is
illustrated for First Third wastes which
are also California list wastes:
The First Third
treatment for .the
waste (ream is Oi»,
CaHomiakst
Then:
TJieRntThinJ
treatment adds orn'
or more steps to the
California Jisl
Th* first Third
treatment differs
•substantially from the
tet '-
Include
1mm the analysis (since
There would be no incm-
mental impectt due to
•te Br*t ThW proposed
' ' '
The population of wastes which
would be affected by the proposed rule
may include some wastes from CERCLA
responses or RCRA corrective actions.
However, there are insufficient data at
present to estimate these quantities.
Underground injected wastes were
excluded from this analysis; these
wastes will be dealt with in the RIA for
a separate rule.
The population of affected facilities
includes:
• Commercial hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (commercial TSDFs). which
charge a fee for hazardous waste
disposal;
• Non-commercial TSDFs. which
provide disposal services for wastes
generated on-site or off-site by their
parent firms; •
• generators, which send their waste
off-site to commercial TSDFs for
disposal; and
* small quantity generators (SOGs).
which send their waste off-site to
commercial TSDF.
& Cost Methodology. Once waste
quantity, type and method of treatment
were 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.
EPA estimated baseline end compliance
waste management costs using
engineering judgment Wastes amenable
to similar types of treatment were
grouped to identify economies of scale
available through co-treatment and
disposal.
Facilities face several possible options
if they may no longer land dispose of
their wastes. EPA applied the same .
rationale in predicting facility choice
among these options as it did in
establishing the affected population:
facilities were assumed to elect the least
costly method of complying with the
requirements of this rule. Costs of
compliance were derived by predicting
the minimum-coot method of compliance
with land disposal restrictions for each
facility and calculating the increment
between that aad baseline disposal
costs. As in the analysis of baseline
costs, economies of scale in waste
management were considered. Shipping
costs for wastes sent off-site for
management were also considered.
EPA developed facility-specific
compliance costs in two components, •
which were weighted and then summed
to estimate total national costs of the
rule. The first component of the total
compliance cost is incurred annually for
operation and maintenance (O&M) of
alternative modes of waste treatment
and disposal The second component of
the compliance cost is a capital cost,
which is an initial outlay incurred for
construction and depreciable assets.
Capital costs were restated as annual
values by using a capital recovery factor
based on a nominal interest rate of 9
percent These annuaiized capital costs
were then added to yearly O&M costs to
derive an annual compliance cost.
c. Economic Impact Methodology. (1)
Non-Commercial TSDFs andSQGs. EPA
assessed economic impacts on non-
commercial TSDFs and SQGs in several
steps. First, the Agency employed a
general screening analysis to compare
facility-specific incremental costs to
financial information about firms,
disaggregated by Standard Industrial
-Classification (SIC) and cumber of
employees per facility. (See Section D
for references.) This comparison was
based on two ratios, which were, used to
identify facilities likely to experience
adverse economic effects. The first is a
ratio of individual facility compliance
costs to costs of production. This ratio
represents the.percent product price
increase for facility output that occurs if
the entire compliance cost—
accompanied by facility profit—is
passed through to customers in the form
of higher prices. A change exceeding
five percent is considered to imply a
substantial adverse economic effect on a
facility. The second is a coverage ratio
cash from operations to costs of
compliance. This, ratio represents the
number of times that facility gross
margin covers the regulatory compliance
cost if me facility fully absorb:-; the cost.
For this ratio, a value of less than 20 is
considered to represent a significant
adverse effect. The coverage ratio is the
more stringent of the two ratios, but
exceeding the critical level in either one
suggests that a facility is likely to be
significantly affected. These ratios
bound possible effects on individual
firms. This analysis considers only pre-
tax costs, because Census data are
stated in pre-tax terms.
Once facilities experiencing adverse
economic effects were identified using ••
-------
11782
Federal Register / Vol. S3. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed RuleB
the two screening ratio*, a more detailed
financial analysis was performed to
verify the results and to focus more
cloiely on affected facilities. For this
subset of facilities, the coverage ratio
was adjusted by allowing a portion of
costs to be passed through. Economic
effects on individual facilities were
examined assuming that product price
increases of one and five percent were
possible. Those facilities for which the
coverage ratio was less than two were
considered likely to close.
(2) Commercial TSDFs. For thii group
of facilities, there exists no Census SIC
from which to draw financial
Information. Two SICs which might be
used as proxies. 4953 and 41359, do not
distinguish between financial data for
hazardous waste treatment firms and for
firms managing municipal and solid
wastes. Consequently, the analysis of
economic effects on commercial
facilities was qualitative. This analysis
Included an examination of the quantity
of waste each facility received from the
waste group restricted by today's rule.
EPA also examined the ability of each
facility to provide the additional
treatment required once these
restrictions were promulgated, and thus
to retain or expand that portion of its
business generated by restricted wastes.
(3) Generators. EPA's analysis of the
economic effects of this rule on
generators disposing of large quantities
of affected wastes off-site assumed that
commercial facilities could entirely pass
on to them the costs of compliance with
this regulation in the form of higher
prices for waste management sejrvices.
Because of data limitation;! in th'e RIA
Mail Survey, EPA did not develop plant-
specific waste characterization,
treatment methods, and compliance
costs for generators, as it did for TSDFs.
The analysis of the economic effects of
today's proposed rule on this group used
RIA Mail Survey data to develop model
plants generating average waste
quantities. This allowed EPA to assess
possible effects on generating plants.
d. Benefits Methodology. The benefits
of today's proposed rule v/ere evaluated
by considering the reduction in human
health risk that results from using
alternative treatment for First Third
wastes rather than employing baseline
management practices. Human health
risk is defined herein as the probability
of injury, disease, or death over a given
time (70 years) due to responses to
doses of disease causing agents. Due to
time and budget constraints, risk results
were obtained for only selected,
potentially high-risk waste streams,
which were selected based on previous
analyses and professional Judgment
The human health risk posed by a
waste management practice is a
function of the toxicity of the chemical
constituents in the waste stream and the
extent of human exposure to the
constituents. The likelihood of exposure
is dictated by hydrogeologic and
climatic settings at land disposal units
and the fate and transport of chemical
constituents in environmental media.
EPA estimated human health risk in
four steps. The first step was to estimate
the concentrations of each of the
hazardous constituents of the waste
stream in each of the three media (air,
surface water, ground water) into which
they might be released by a certain
waste management technology. These
estimates depend on the steady-state
(i.e., continuous) release rates calculated
for each technology, and on
environmental fate and transport
characteristics for constituents.
The next step was to estimate the
total human intake, or dose, of each of
the chemicals through inhalation of air
and ingestion of ground water, surface
water, and contaminated fish. A 65
kilogram person was assumed to be
continuously exposed to contaminated
media over a 70-year lifetime.
The Agency next calculated the risk to
an individual from the dose derived in
the previous step. EPA estimated the
relationship of dose to .effect (using a .
"dose-response" curve developed based
on toxicity data) and weighted the effect
according to severity.
Finally, EPA estimated the population
risk by multiplying the average
individual risk by the number of people
in a given environment. The whole
process described above, was repeated
2.000 times, using different population
sizes and environmental settings drawn
from representative distributions, to
generate a population risk distribution
for each waste-technology combination.
The mean of the distribution for the
baseline disposal technology was
compared with the mean of the
distribution for an alternative treatment
technology to derive the net benefit of
the land disposal restrictions for that
waste stream. Risks were not
discounted.
Benefits other than reduction in
human health risk—such as resource
damage avoided and corrective action
costs avoided—were not quantified. As.
a result, the benefits of the land disposal
restrictions for First Third wastes are
likely to be understated. (Other benefits
measures will be addressed in RIAs for;
subsequent rules.)
6. Results
a. Affected Population. The number of
affected facilities is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF AFFECTED
FACILITIES
T
Proposed rule
Commtrcial TSDFt ........
Non-Commercial
TSDFs :-
SQGs.
Total „„
Scenario 1
•84
260
2,47
1,320
4,111
Scenario 2
84
253
2,443
1,320
4,100
b. Costs. The costs of the proposed -
rule are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2.—COSTS OF THE PROPOSED
RULE (ANNUAUZED INCREMENTAL COST
IN MILLIONS OF 1987 DOLLARS)
*
Treatment of F and K
Wastes
Son Hammers on P
and U Wastes ~,»
Total ............... -. .
Proposed rule
Scenario 1
681
0
681
Scenario 2
681
15
696
As shown, the proposed rule is a
major rule, with costs of $681-696
million per year. Nearly all of the costs
of the proposed rule are due to the
treatment of F and K wastes. The F and
K wastes are high-volume wastes; large
portions of the wastes go to incineration,
high temperature metals recovery, and
stabilization under the proposed rule.
The residuals from the wastes which are
incinerated often require solidification
due to the metal content of the ash.
The P and U wastes, on the other
hand, are generated in relatively small
'quantities. .Their management under the
proposed rule depends on which
scenario is considered. Under Scenario
1, the wastes continue to be land
disposed in units meeting minimum,
technological requirements. Under
Scenario 2, the wastes are mostly
incinerated; however, since the P and U
wastes are primarily organic with little
metal content, the ash from incineration
generally does not require solidification.
Under the proposed rule, the two "soft
hammer" scenarios result in relatively
little difference in cost. Scenario 1—
continued land disposal of P and U
wastes—results in zero incremental cost
over the baseline. Scenario 2—treatment
of P and U wastes under "approximate
treatment standards"—Jesuits in low
costs due to the small volume of waste
going to treatment. The costs associated
with "soft hammers" would be incurred
for less than two years, i.e.. until "hard
hammers" fell, treatment standards
-------
• Federal Register / Vol. S3, No. 68 / Friday. April 8, 1988 / Proposed Rules
11783
were established, or extensions to the
effective date were granted. Since P and
U wastes result from spills or are off-
spec chemical products, the assumption
that quantities reported in EPA's
surveys represent annual values may
overstate the costs if production occurs
sporadically. •
-.. Large volumes of wastes stored in
surface impoundments dropped out of
-the analysis because storage in tanks
was found to be less expensive than
storage in surface impoundments in the
baseline. As a result the costs of the
rule associated with treatment of
residuals from storage surface
impoundments were quite small. Large
volumes of wastes treated in surface
impoundments remained in the analysis.
, However, the small quantity of dredged
material from these impoundments
requiring treatment caused these costs
to be low as well.
Most of the costs of the rule are borne
by generators and noncommercial
TSDFs; generators account for
approximately three quarters of
compliance costs and non-commercial
TSDFs for approximately a quarter.
SQGs account for less than one percent
of total compliance costs.
c. Economic Impacts. The economic
impacts of the proposed rule are
summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3.—NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACTED FACILITIES
Commercial TSDFs ... —
Non-Commercial
T?PF»
ftenarptnrf .,,,.. „ IM llln ,
SQGs
' Titfiil ,,-„;-„
Proposed rule :
Scenario 1
{')
'; " '•• 68
1,040
441
1,549
Scenario 2
H
'.' - ' 72
1.049
673
1,794
1 Commercial TSDFs were assumed -to pass all
compliance costs through to generators; therefore,
the number of significantly affected facilities was not
calculated.
Most of the significantly impacted
non-commercial TSDFs are from the
petroleum refining and primary metals
industries (SICs 29 and 33, respectively).
Significantly impacted generators are
mostly .from Primary Metals and ' •'.• .
Fabricated Metals (SICs 33 and 34.
respectively). Commercial TSDFs fall
primarily into Electric, Gas, and
Sanitary Services (SIC 49); those
facilities specializing in land disposal
services could be adversely affected.
The most significant difference between
Scenarios land 2 is in the number of
significantly affected SQGs. As
discussed above, impacts due to "soft
hammer" provisions would be of less
than two years duration.
d. Benefits. Table 4 summarizes the
estimated benefits of the proposed rule.
The annual values were obtained by
dividing the total benefit estimates
(corresponding to a 70 year lifetime) by
70. ' -;.. ";'•• •/•-
TABLE 4.—BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED
RULE (NUMBER OF ADVERSE HEALTH
EFFECTS AVOIDED PER YEAR)
TABLE ST-COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
PROPOSED RULE.
Treatment of F and
K Wastes
Soft HvmnwffS-Oft P
and U Wastes
Total ',
Proponed rule
Scenario 1
130
0
130
Scenarios
130
78
206
The results above are driven primarily
by two waste codes; K061 and P070.
K061 is emission control dust/sludge
from the primary production of steel in
electric furnaces; it contains a number of
metals. It is mostly landfilled in the
baseline and goes tp high temperature
metals recovery under the proposed
rule. P070 io Aldicarb, a pesticide which
is land applied in the baseline and
incinerated under the proposed rule.
As shown, there is a substantial
difference in benefits between Scenarios
1 and 2 under the proposed rule due
primarily to the management of P070.
Most of the risk associated with land
application in the baseline is due to
exposure via air. It is likely, in actual
practice, that air exposures would be
reduced through the use of. protective
gear by persons involved in land
application and the restriction of access
by other persons to the site; therefore
the difference in benefits between the
two scenarios may be overstated. The
difference may also be overstated to the
extent that the P and U wastes are
generated sporadically, rather than
annually as reported in the R1A Mail
Survey. The benefits under Scenario 2
would be of less than two years
duration; i.e., they would Continue until
"hard hammers" fell, treatment
standards were eet, or extensions to the
effective date were granted.
e. Cost Effectiveness, The cost
effectiveness of the proposed rule is
; illustrated .in Table 5. Compliance costs
for the regulated community and human
health risk reduction are the basis for
the comparison; other, potentially
significant costs (e.g.. Agency
• implementation costs) and benefits (e.g.,
natural resource damage avoided) were
not estimated. - ..
•. .-'..'..' •
Costs (Millions of
1987 Dollars per
' year ..........................
Benefits (Adverse
Health Effects
Avoided per Year).....
Cost Effectiveness
(Million* of Dollars
per Case Avoided)....
Proposed rule
Scenario 1
681
130
5.2
Scenario's
696 .
208
3.3
B. Regulatory Flexibility'Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibilty
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis 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 evaluated the economic effect of
the rule on small entities, here defined
as concerns employing fewer than 50
•people. Because of data limitations, this
small business analysis excluded
generators of large quantities of First.
Third wastes. The small business
population therefore included only two
groups: All non-commercial treatment,
storage and disposal facilities employing
fewer than 50 persons, and all small
quantity generators which were also
small businesses:
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, if over 20% of the population
of small businesses is likley to
experience financial, distress based on
the costs of a rule, then the Agency is
required to consider that the rule will
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities and to perform
a formal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
EPA has examined the rule's potential
effects on small businesses as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
has concluded that today's final 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 fbrmal Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis document in support
of this rule. More detailed information
on small business impacts is available
-------
11784
•Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 68 / Friday. April 8, 1988 / Propoted Rules
In technical background documents
prepared in support of this ntlexnaking.
d FapcfvnTX Reduction Act
The information collection •
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Information Collection Request
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1436] and a copy may be
obtained from Rick Westiund,
Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M
Street SW. (RM-223); Washington. DC
20460 or by calling (202) 382-2745.
Submit comments on these requirements
to EPA and: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs; OMB: 7213 Jackson
Place NW.; Washington DC 20503
marked "Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA." The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments in the
information collection requiiements.
D. Review of Supporting Documents-
The primary source of information on
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by this rule was
EPA's "National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities
Regulated Under RCRA-in 1981" (R1A
Mail Survey) (April 1984). EPA's
"National Small Quantity Hazardous
Wa^ste Generator Survey" (February
1985) was the major source of data on
small quantity generators.
Waste stream characterization data
and engineering costs of waste
management were based on the
following EPA documents:
• "Characterization of Waste Streams
Listed in 40 CFR Section 261 Waste
Profiles." Vols. 1 and II (August 1985);
• "Characterization of Constituents
from Selected Waste Streams Listed in
40 CFR Section 261,M Vols. I and E
(August 1985);
• RCRA Background and Listing
Documents for 40 CFR Section 261;
• RCRA Section 3007 Industry
Studies;
• "RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model.
Appendix A: Waste Stream Data Base"
(March 1984); and
• Source Assessment Documents for
various industries.
For financial and value of shipment
information for the general ucreening
analysis. 1982 Census data were used.
adjusted by 1984 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers data. Producer price
Indices were also used to restate 1904
dollar* in 1887 terms. ,
VOL Implementation of the Part 288
Land Disposal Retractions Program
As a result of the regulations being
proposed under Part 268, several options
will be available to die generator or
owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, and disposal facility for the
management of restricted hazardous
wastes. This section helps the regulated
community determine the appropriate
waste management procedures. It
provides referencca to the applicable 40
CFR Parts 264 and 265 requirements as
well as Part 268 requirements for
implementation of the various waste
rpnnagPTnpnt options.
All the sequences in the generator's
decision-making process must
commence with a determination as to
whether the hazardous waste is listed in
Part 268 Subpart C. If the hazardous
waste is not a restricted waste, it is not
subject to the land disposal restrictions
of Part 268. It must nevertheless be
managed in accordance with Parts 264
and 265.
The generator of a restricted waste
must determine the appropriate
treatment standards (if any) under Part
268 Subpart D. The applicable treatment
standards must be determined at the
point of initial generation prior to any
treatment. At this time, he must
determine the effective date of the
applicable treatment standard. EPA has
the authority to delay the effective dates
of the Part 268 treatment standards
based on the unavailability of adequate
national treatment capacity.
Determinations as to the adequacy of
treatment capacity are based on the
quantity of waste generated and the
availability of alternative treatment,
recovery or disposal technologies. For
those wastes where EPA has determined
that alternative capacity is adequate,
the treatment standards take effect
immediately upon promulgation. The -
generator must use analysis of his waste
(or waste extract when applicable) or
knowledge of his waste (data supporting
such knowledge must be kept on-site) to
make determinations as to whether his
waste may go directly to land disposal
or first must be treated.
If the concentrations of the hazardous
constituents in the waste (or waste
extract, when applicable) are in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standards, the waste may go
directly to land disposal The generator
must submit a notice and certification
statement to the land disposal facility as
required under § 268-7. The land
disposal facility must verify the records
of the generator in accordance with the
facility's .waste analysis plan. A
generator that operates an on-site land
disposal facility must put the
information contained in the notice
(except for the manifest number) in the
operating record of the land disposal
facility.
If the concentrations of the hazardous
constituents in the waste (or waste
extract, when applicable) exceeds the
. treatment standards, placement of the
waste in land disposal units as of the
effective date specified in Part 268
Subpart C is prohibited (unless the
waste ia subject to a case-by-case .
extension under 1268.5, or a "no
migration" exemption under S 268.6).
The generator must treat die prohibited
waste in either an on-site or off-site
treatment facility with interim status or •
ft RCRA permit that is allowed to accept
the waste.
An off-site treatment facility must
obtain a notice from the generator as
required in § 268.7. This notice must be
placed in the operating record.
Generators that are also treatment
facilities must keep the information
contained in the notice (except for the
manifest number) in the facility's
operating record.
When shipping the treatment residual
to an interim status or RCRA permitted
land disposal facility, the treatment
facility must certify in accordance with
§ 268.7 that the treatment residue meets
the applicable treatment standards and
must also send a notice (S 268.7) to the
land disposal facility.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in 5 268.10 (i.e., a First
Third waste) where treatment standards
have not been set, and such waste is
land disposed off-site by methods other
than landfills or surface impoundments,
the generator must provide a notice in
accordance with- 5 268.7. The off-site
disposal facility is required to keep the
• generator's notice in its operating
record, and is responsible for ensuring
that the waste is not disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment. If the
generator disposes on-site, the,
information contained in the notice
(except for the manifest number) must
be kept in the facility's operating record,
and the generator must ensure that such
waste is not disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in $268.10, where treatment
standards have not been set and are
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, such waste may only be
disposed in landiill or surface
impoundment units that meet the
Minimum technological requirements of
RCRA section 3004(o) (double liner,
leachate collection system, and
groundwater monitoring). Prior to
-------
Federal Register / Vol 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rales 11785
disposal the generator must certify in
accordance with | 268A For off-site
disposal, the demonstration and
certification required in § 268.8, as well
as the notice required in § 268.7 must be
provided with the initial waste shipment.
The §268.8 demonstration need not be _
provided again as long as the conditions
of the demonstration have not changed.
Thereafter, only the notice required in
§268.7 and the certification required in
§268.8. must be provided with each
waste shipment. If such waste is
disposed on-site, the demonstration and
certification required in §268.8. as well
as the notice (expect for the manifest
number) required in §26U7 must be kept
in the operating record.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in 5 268.10 where no
treatment standard has been set. and
the waste goes off-site for treatment, the
generator must send a notice as required
in § 268.7. The treatment facility must
keep a copy of the notice in its operating
record. If treated oo-site, the information
contained in the notice (except for the
manifest number) must be kept in the
facility's operating record. After
treatment, and no further treatment is
practically available (if further
treatment is available, the
recordkeeping requirements that apply
are the same as for the original
treatment), the requirements are the
same that apply for the generator. If the
waste is disposed in a landfillor surface
impoundment (which must meet the
minimum technological requirements.
see section 3004(g)(6)(A)(i}), the original
generator or the owner/operator may
supply the demonstration and
certification required by § 268.8. The
generator may supply this information
when the waste is sent to the treatment
facility, certifying that no further
treatment is practically available and
therefore, placement in the landfill or
surface impoundment is the only
practical alternative.
IX. References
Background Documents
(1) U.S: EPA. "Background Document for
First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part
268 Land Disposal Restrictions Proposed Rule
First-Third Waste Volume. Characteristics.
and Required and Available Treatment
Capacity." U.S. EPA. OSW Washington. DC
1987.
(2) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for First Third Waste Codes." U.S.
EPA, OSW. Washington. DC 1987.
Regulatory Impact Analysis .
(3) U.S. EPA. -Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Proposed Restrictions on Land Disposal of
First Third Wastes." U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington. DC, 1987.
List of Subjects in «g CFR Parts 264,
265,2M, Md 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Environmental protection.
Hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials transportation. Hazardous
waste. Imports, Indian lands. Insurance.
Intergovernmental relations. Labeling,
Packaging and container. Penalties,
Recycling. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Security measures. Surety
bonds. Surety measures. Waste
treatment and disposal. Water pollution
control. Water supply. '
Dated: March 28.1968.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For reasons sell oat in the preamble, it.
is proposed that Chapter I of Title 40 be
amended as follows:
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
I. In Part 264:
1. The authority citation for Part 264 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a), 6924, and
6925. . "
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
2. Section 264.13 is amended by
revising paragraph (fa)(7](iii) to read as
follows:
JS 264.13 General want* wwtysia.
* » • * \ * • ' •' • .
(b) ••*'••
(7)* v- :
.(iii) The annual removal of residues
which are not delisted under § 260.22 of
this chapter or which exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste and
either: .'•:;.
(A) Do not meet applicable treatment
standards of Part 288 Subpart D; or
(B) Where no treatment standards
have been established:
(1) Such residues do not meet the
applicable prohibition levels in 5 268.32
or RCRA section 3004(d); or
(2) Such residues are prohibited from
land disposal under § 268.33(e).
Subpart E—Manffest System,
Recordkeepfng, and Reporting
3. Section 264.73 is amended by
revismg paragraphs (b){10). (b)(13). and
(bMl4) to read as follows:
8 264.73 Opwatfng record.
0>r * * .;."
(10) Records of the quantities .(and
date of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5, a petition
pursuant to § 268.6. or a certification ,
under § 268.8, and the applicable notice
required by a generator under § 268.7(a);
. *• * * '. '•*- * ..• -•-.,:
(13) For an off-site land disposal
-facility, a copy of the notice and .
certification (and demonstration, if
applicable] required by the generator or
the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under \ \ 268.7 and 2683.
whichever is applicable; and
(14) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the information contained in the
notice required by the generator or
owner or operator of a treatment facility
under § 268.7, except for the manifest
number, and the certification (and
demonstration, if applicable) required
under § 268A whichever a applicable.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
H. In Part 265:
. The authority citation for Part 265 is
revised to read as follows: ,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 8912(a). 8924.
6925, and 6935.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
2. Section 265.13 is amended by
revising paragraph (bj(7)(iii) to read as
follows:
§265.13 General wacte analysis.
• •«-.*• . •
(b)* ••'••'
(7)*
(iii) The annual removal of residues
which are not delisted under § 260.22 of
this chapter or which exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste and
either:
(A) Do not meet applicable treatment
standards of Part 268 Subpart D; or
(B) Where no treatment standards
have been established:
(1) Such residues do not meet the
applicable prohibition levels in J 268.32
or RCRA section 3004fdh or
' /2/Such residues are prohibited from
land disposal under § 268.33(e).
-------
11788
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
Subpart E—Manifest System,
RtcordkMpIng, and Reporting
3. Section 205.73 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(8). (b)[ll). and
(b)(12) to read as follows:
1265.73 Operating record.
• • * • •
(b)"« • *
(8) Records of the quantities (and date
of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5, a petition
pursuant to 1268.6, or a certification
under i 288.8, and the applicable notice
required by a generator under § 268.7(a);
* « • • _ •
(11) For an off-site land disposal
facility, a copy of the notice and
certification (and demonstration, if
applicable) required by the generator or
the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under i 268.7 and § 268.8.
\vhlcheveris applicable; and
(12) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the information contained in the
notice required by the generator or the
owner or operator of a treatment facility
under § 288.7. except for the manifest
number, and the certification (and
demonstration, if applicable) required
under § 253.8, whichever is applicable.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
DL In Part 268: -
1. The authority citation for Part 268 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6905. e912[n), 6921, and
6924.
0
Subpart A—General
2. Section 268.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
{2M.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(c)* • *
(6) Prior to May 8,1990, in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit where all
applicable persons are in compliance
with the requirements of $ 268.8, with
respect to wastes that are not subject to
Subpart D treatment standards and not
subject to the prohibitions in i 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d).
3. Section 268.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) to lead as
follows:
|26t.4 Traxtmmteurfseelnipoundintnt
exemption.
(a) • • •
(2} The following conditions are met:
(i) Sampling and testing. For wastes
with treatment standards in Subpart D
of this part and/or prohibition levels in
Subpart C of this part or RCRA section
3004(d), the residues of the treatment are
analyzed, as specified in S 268.7 or
' § 268.32, to determine if they meet the
applicable treatment standards or,
where no treatment standards have
been established for the waste, the
applicable prohibition levels. The
sampling method, specified in the waste'
analysis plan under S 264.13 or S 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.
(ii) Removal. The following treatment
residues (including any liquid waste)
must be removed at least annually:
residues which do not meet the
treatment standards promulgated under
Subpart D of this part; residues which
do not meet the prohibition levels
established under Subpart C of this part
or imposed by statute (where no
treatment standards have been
established), residues which are from
the treatment of wastes prohibited from
land disposal under Subpart C of this
part (where no treatment standards
have been established and no
prohibition levels apply); or residues
from managing listed wastes which are
not delisted under § 260.22 of this
chapter. However, residues which are
the subject of a valid certification under
S 268.8 made no later than a year after
placement of the wastes in an .
impoundment are not required to be
removed annually. If the volume of
liquid flowing through the impoundment
or series of impoundments annually is
greater than the volume of the
impoundment or impoundments, this
flow-through constitutes removal of the
supernatant for the purpose of this
requirement.
(iii) Subsequent management.
Treatment residues may not be placed
in any other surface impoundment for
subsequent management unless the
residues are the subject of a valid
certification under § 268.8 which allows
disposal in surface impoundments
meeting the requirements of § 268.8(a).
(iv) Recordkeeping. The procedures
and schedule for the sampling of
impoundment contents, the analysis of
test data, and the annual removal of
residues which do not meet the
treatment standards, or prohibition
levels (where.no treatment standards
have been established), or which are
from the treatment of wastes prohibited
from land disposal under Subpart C
(where no treatment standards have
been established and no prohibition
levels apply), must be specified in the
facility's waste analysis plan as
required under { 264.13 or § 265.13 of
this chapter.
« • * • •
4. Section 268.5 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(2) introductory
text to read as follows:
§ 268.5 Procedures for case-by-case
extensions to an effective date.
• • ' • * *
(h) * * *
(2) Such hazardous waste may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit only if the unit is in
compliance with the following
requirements:
« • • • •
5. Section 268.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding
new paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5), and
revising paragraphs (c), (e) and (f) to
read as follows:
§ 266.6 Petitions to allow land disposal of
e waste prohibited under Subpart C of Part
268.
(a) • * *
(3) A comprehensive characterization
of the disposal unit site including an
analysis of background air, soil, and
water quality.
(4) A monitoring plan which will
detect migration at the earliest
practicable time;
(5) Sufficient information to assure the
Administrator that land disposal of the
restricted waste(s) will comply with
other applicable Federal, State, and
local laws.
• •'•**
(c) Each petition referred to in
paragraph (a) of this section must
include the following:
(1) A monitoring plan that describes
the monitoring program installed at and/
or around the unit to verify continued
compliance with the conditions of the
variance. This monitoring plan must
•provide information on the monitoring of
the unit and/or the environment around
the unit, or if monitoring the unit or
environment around the unit is
technically infeasible or impractical, the
rationale supporting the determination
of infeasibility or impracticality. The
following specific information must be
included in the plan:
(i) The media monitored in the cases
where monitoring of the environment
around the unit is required;
(ii) The type of monitoring conducted
at the unit, in the cases where
monitoring of the unit is required;
(iii) The location of the monitoring
stations;
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 6. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11787
fiv) The monitoring interval
(frequency of monitoring at each '
station);
(v) The specific hazardous
constituents to be monitored;
(vi) The implementation schedule for
the monitoring program;
(vii) The equipment used at the
monitoring stations;
(viii) The sampling and analytical
techniques employed; and
(ix) The data recording/reporting
procedures.
(2) Where applicable, the monitoring
program described in paragraph (c)fl)
must be in place for a period of time
specified by the Administrator prior to
receipt of restricted waste at the unit,
unless an alternate schedule is approved
by the Administrator.
(3] The monitoring data collected
according to the monitoring plan
specified under paragraph (c)(l) of this
section must be sent to the
Administrator according to a format and
schedule specified and approved in the
monitoring plan, and
(4] A copy of the monitoring data
collected under the monitoring plan
specified under paragraph (c)(l) of this
section must be kept on-site at the
facility in the operating record.
(5) The monitoring program specified
under paragraph (c)(l) of this section
meet the following criteria:
(i) All sampling, testing, and
analytical data must be approved by the
Administrator and must provide data
that is accurate and reproducible.
(ii) All estimation and modeling
techniques must be approved by the
Administrator.
(iii) A quality assurance and quality
control plan addressing all aspects of
the monitoring program must be
provided to and approved by. the
Administrator.
* • * * *
(e) After a petition has been
approved, the owner or operator must
report any changes in conditions at the
unit and/or the environment around the
unit that may affect requirements upon
which the petition was approved.
(1) If the owner or operator desires to
make changes to the unit such as the
engineering design, or the compliance
monitoring system such a change must
be proposed, in writing, and the owner
or operator must submit a
demonstration to the Administrator at
least 30 days prior to making the change.
The Administrator will determine
whether the proposed change
invalidates the terms of the petition and
will determine the appropriate response.
Any change must be approved by the
Administrator prior to being made.
\Z} V the owner or operator discovers
that a condition at the site which was
modeled or predicted in the petition
does not occur as predicted, this change
must be reported, in writing, to the
Administrator within 10 days of
discovering the change. The
Administrator will determine whether
the reported change from the terms of
the petition requires further action,
which may fatclude revocation of the
petition, petition modifications, or other
responses.
(!) If the owner or operator determines
that there is migration of hazardous
constiluent(s) from the unit, the owner
or operator must
(1) Immediately suspend receipt of
restricted wastes at the unit, and
(2} Notify the Administrator, in
writing, within 10 days of the
determination that a release has
occurred.
(3) Following receipt of the
notification the Administrator will
determine within 60 days of receiving
notification the appropriate response
actions that the owner or operator must
take to prevent further migration of
hazardous constituents out of the unit.
• 4 * * *
6. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising the introductory texts of
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2), and by
revising (a)(3), by ^designating
paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(5), by adding the
new paragraph (a)(4), by revising
paragraph (b) introductory text, by
redesignating paragraph (b}(l) as (b)(4)
and (b)(2) as (b)(5), by adding new
paragraphs (b)(lj. {b)(2j, (b)(3). (b}(6),
and (b)(7), and by revising paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
(268.7 Wastaanatyals.
(a) Except as specified hi { 288.32 or
1288.43 of this part, the generator must
test his waste, or test an extract
developed using the test method
described in Appendix I of this part, or
use knowledge of the waste, to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste does not meet the
applicable treatment standards, or
where the waste does not comply with
the applicable prohibitions set forth in
I 268.32 of this part or RCRA section
3004(d), with each shipment of waste the
generator must notify the treatment or
storage facility in writing of the
appropriate treatment standards set
forth m Subpart D of this part and any
applicable prohibitions set forth in-
i 268.32 of this part or RCRA section
3004(d). The notice must include the
following information: ,
* * * * *
(2) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment with each shipment of waste
he must submit, to the treatment,
storage, or land disposal facility, a
notice and a certification stating that the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards set forth in Subpart D of this
part and the applicable prohibitions set
forth in § 268.32 of this part of RCRA
section 3004(d).
* • * * •
(3) If a generator's waste is subject to
a case-by-case extension under § 268.5,
an exemption under § 268.6, an
extension under § 268.1(c)(3), or a
nationwide variance under Subpart C,
with each shipment of waste, he must
submit a notice to the facility receiving
his waste stating that the waste is not
prohibited from land disposal.
(4) If a generator determines that-he is
managing a waste that is subject to the
prohibitions under § 268.33(e) of this
part and is not subject to the
prohibitions set forth in 5 268.32 of this
part, with each shipment of waste the
generator must notify the treatment,
storage, or disposal facility, in writing,
of any applicable prohibitions set forth
in S 268.33(e). The notice must include
the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in 5 268.33(e);
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data where
available.
• • • * ' *
(b) Treatment facilities must test their
wastes according to the frequency
specified in their waste analysis plans
as required by S 264.13 or § 265.13. Such
testing must be performed as provided
in paragraphs (b)(l). (b)(2) and (b)(3) of
this section.
(1) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract (§ 268.41), the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility must test the treatment residues,
or an extract of such residues developed
using the test method described in
Appendix I of this part, to assure that
the treatment residues or extract meet
the applicable treatment standards.
(2) For wastes that are prohibited
under § 268.32 of this part or RCRA
section 3004(d) but not subject to any
treatment standards under Subpart D of
this part, the owner or operator of the
-------
11788
Federal Regiiter / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
treatment facility must test the
treatment residues according to the
generator testing requirements specified
In S 288.32 to assure that the treatment
residues comply with the applicable
prohibitions.
(3) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste (§ 268.43), the owner or
operator of the treatment facility must
test the treatment residues (not an
extract of such residues) to assure that
the treatment residues meet the
applicable treatment standards.
• • • • •
(6) If the waste or treatment residue
will be further managed at • different
treatment or storage facility, the
treatment, storage or disposal! facility
sending the waste or treatment residue
off-site must comply with the notice
requirements applicable to generators in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section.
(7) For wastes that are subject to the
prohibitions under §268.33(e) of this
part and are not subject to the
prohibitions set forth in S 268.32 of this
part, with each shipment of such waste
the owner or operator must notify any
subsequent treatment, storage, or
disposal facility, in writing, of any
applicable prohibitions set forth in
i 268.33(e). The notice must include the
following information:
(1) EPA Hazardous Waste Number,
(li) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in §268.33(e);
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available.
- (c) The owner or operator of any land
disposal facility disposing any waste
subject to restrictions under this part
must:
(1) Have records of the notice and
certifications specified in paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section, and the
certification specified in §268.8 if .
applicable.
(2) Test the waste, or an extract of the
waste or treatment residue developed
using the test method described in
Appendix I of this part or using any
methods required by generators under
§ 268.32 of this part, to assure that the
wastes or treatment residues are in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standards set forth in Subpart
D of this part and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in § 268.32 of this
part or In RCRA section 3004(d). Such
testing must be performed according to
the frequency specified in.the facility's
waste analysis plan as required by
§264.13 or §265.13.
(3) Where the owner or operator is
disposing of any waste that is subject to
the prohibitions under S 268.33(e) of this
part but not subject to the prohibitions
set forth in § 268.32, he must ensure that
such waste is the subject of a valid
certification according to the
requirements of § 268.8 prior to disposal
in a landfill or surface impoundment
unit, and that such disposal is in
accordance with the requirments of
§ 268.5(h)(2).
7. Section 268.8 is added to read as
follows:
{2&8.S LandflM and wirface Impoundment
disposal restrictions*
(a) Prior to May 8,1990. wastes which
•re otherwise prohibited from land
disposal under § 268.33(e) of this part
'may be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment which is in compliance
with the requirements of § 268.5(h)(2)
provided that the requirements of this
section are met.
(1) Prior to such disposal, the person
seeking to dispose such wastes (i.e., the
generator or owner or operator) has
made a good faith effort to locate and
contract with treatment and recovery
facilities currently available.
(2) Such generator or owner or
operator submits to the Regional
Administrator a demonstration and
certification that, the requirements of
paragraph (a)(l) of this section have
been met. The demonstration must
include a list of facilities and facility
officials contacted, addresses, telephone
numbers, contact dates, and an
explanation of why no treatment is
practically available. The following
certification is required.
I certify under penalty of law that the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.8(a)(l) have been
met and that disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical alternative
to treatment currently available. I believe
that the information submitted is true,
- accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
informations, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment.
(3) With the initial shipment of waste,
such generator or owner or operator
must submit a copy of the demonstration
and the certification required in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section to the
land disposal facility. For each.
.subsequent waste shipment, only the
certification is rquired to be submitted
provided that the conditions being
certified remain unchanged. Such
. generator or owner or operator must
keep copies of the demonstration (if
applicable] and certification required for
each waste shipment on-site.
(b) After receiving the demonstration
and certification, the Regional
Administrator may request any
additional information which he deems
necessary to evaluate the certification.
(1) Any person who has submitted a
certification under this section must
immediately notify the Regional
Administrator when he has knowledge
of any change in the conditions which
formed the basis of his certification.
(2) If, after review of the certification,
the Regional Administrator determines
that treatment (or further treatment) that
yields reductions in toxicity is
practically and currently available, or
that some other method of treatment
yields greater reductions in toxicity of
the waste or residual or greater
reductions in the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents from the
waste or residual, the Regional
Administrator may invalidate the
certification and require such additional
treatment.
(c) Once the certification is made.
wastes may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment unless otherwise
prohibited by the Regional
Administrator. .
Subpart C—Prohibition on Land
Disposal
8. Section 268.33 is added to read as
follows:
S 268.33 Wast* specific prohibitions-
First Third wastes.
(a) Effective August 8.1988. the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K004, K008.
K015, K036, K062, K069. K073. and K100
are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K016. K018.
K019, K020, K024. K030, K037, K048.
. K049. K050, K051. K052, K061, K071,
K103. and K014 are prohibited from land
disposal.
(c) Between August 8,1988, and May
8,1990, for wastes described in
paragraph (b) of this section, disposal in
a landfill or surface impoundment is
allowed only if the unit is in compliance
with the requirements specified in
§ 268.5(h)(2).
(d) The requirements of paragraph (a),
(b), and (c) of this section do not apply
if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in Subpart D of this
part; or
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under } 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the petition; or
(3) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11789
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
(e) Between August 8.1988. and May
8,1990, the wastes specified in § 268.10
for which treatment standards under
Subpart D of this part or prohibitions in
S 268.3Zor in RCRA section 3004{d) are
not applicable are prohibited from
disposal in a landfill or, surface
impoundment unless the wastes are the
subject of a valid demonstration and
certification pursuant to 5 288.8.
(f) To determine whether a hazardous
waste listed in § 268.10 exceeds the
applicable treatment standards
specified in § 268.43, the initial
generator must test • representative
sample of the entire waste (not a leach
extract). If the waste contains
constituents in excess of the applicable
Subpart D levels, the waste is prohibited
from land disposal and all requirements
of Part 268 are applicable, except as
otherwise specified in this section.
Subpart 0—Treatment Standards
9. Section 268.40 is amended fay
revising paragraph (a) and adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
5268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
S 268.41 may be land disposed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
residue of the waste developed using the
test method in Appendix I of this part
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of S 268.41 for any
hazardous constituent listed in Table
CCWE for that waste.
'* * • • «
(c) A restricted waste identified in
§ 268.43 may be land disposed only if
the constituent concentrations in the
waste or treatment residue of the waste
do not exceed the value shown in Table
CCWE of § 268.43 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for
that waste.
10. Section 268.41 (a) is amended by
adding the following subtables to Table
CCWE in alphabetical and numerical
order by EPA Hazardous Waste
Number:
§288.41 Treatment standards expressed
as concentrations In waste extract
(a) ' • '
Table CCWE—Constituent
Concentrations in Waste Extract
K061 nonwastewtter (see tfeo tabto
CCW in 1268.43)
' **. " -'-' '•- ' ''- ' "-!- '' • -'
Chromium (total) ,
IM* , , „
Moreuy
Zlne _ _
K062 nonwastewater (see also iabto
CCW in 9 268.43)
1' Chromium (
44.0
1730.0
20.300.0
0.28
24,100:0
K062 wastewater (see also table
CCWE in J 268.41) t
Chromium (total)™
Copper ; .
Nickel . ~~"
Concentra-
ion (in mg/l)
0.32
0.42
0.44
v, K062 wastewater (see also table
CCWE in 1268.41)
lead
K016 nonwasiewater
Tefrachloroeth«ne._ „___
Hexacniorobutadiene .„.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiefie.....
Hexachloroethane
K016 nbnwMtewator
Hexachlorobutadjene
Hexachtorocyctopemadiene
Hexachloroethane
K018 nonwaatewater
Cnloroethane.. .....«....-..««..„......„
1.1-Oichloroethane !"""Z.
1 .2-Oichloroethane
1 1 1-Trichloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane .
Hexachlorobutadiene __
Pentachtoroethane ....„
Concentra*
ton (in mg/l)
0.04
Concentra-
tion (inmg/
kfl)
5.96
• 27.2
5.44
5.44
ZTS.
Concentra-
tion (n mg/l)
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.007
0.033
Concentra-
tion (inmg/
*Q)
5.96 •
5.96
5.96
5.96
27.2
27.2
5.44
5.44
K018 nonwastewater
Chkxoethane
Chkxomethane
1.1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichtofoethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene ..
Pentachkxoetnane
Concentra*
tion (in mg/l)
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.007
K019 nonwastewater
Chloroform „ __._..
1 ^-Oichloroethane Z.Z™'"
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichtoroethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether .......
Chhxobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene..............__. . .
1,2,4-Tnchlorobefizene
Concentra-
tion (inmg/
"9)
5.96
5.96
5.96
596
5.44
5.66
27.2
5.44
5.44
18.7
K019 wastewater t
^ikxobenzene
Chloroform....
1 ^-Oichloroethane .., .:..„.. .._
Concentra-
ion (in mg/l)
0.006
0.007
0.007
-------
11790
K01B*Mtow«ter
TVa'ACttlOfD-rttUHUI
1 ,*1 ,1 •TnciSfofoothftfM
HcXatch-OTDAthAfM -.,,,,., ,
Naoathabm*
12.^Trichlorob«u«_._ ,
K020 noow-tstewattr
t*»ct*x«_™.__: _
T_*_Chlom«th_.w. ,
K030 rxxrwatlowalof
H4t.crAxobuUa.eno
HlxaeMoroetharte ,.,„..„„.... „
HexscWo'OTcpene
PanlMiNortAenien*
1.2.4,5-Tetrachtorotwnzene „ „__,„.
Ttttichtofoetfiene. „„
t.Z4.~ncnioiobenzena „ „ .
a
KQ30 wastowater
Hex-ehlo'obutsdtena
Pctttachkxoetnana
1.2.4-TncMoobenc7Ki_. ~°
O-D>chto«o6«fl».ft_ ,,,„,, .. .
K024 nonwastawaUK
Phth«!»?_/vl
1C024 waatewater ,
; 1
Ptth-JSe_rid -.
••CoTwntr,.
,ton(mmfl/0
- ' 0.007
•0.007
43.008
0.033
0.007
0.023
0.007
0.007
Coocdni/A-
kO)
5.96
5.44
.6.86
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.007
0.007
tion (in rng/
' 5.44
27.2
27_2
13.6
596
te.7
Concentra-
tion (m mg/l)
0.007
0 007
0.007
0.017
££23
0.008
•0.608
lion (mmo/
'kg)
•Coocentra-
ion (m mg/l)
0.06.
J£103*nd KUM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S3, No. 68 / Friday. Aoril 8. 1988 / Pronosed Rule
K052 nonwastewater (M« mlso table
CCWE in 5268.41)
Toluene — ...,.„„ ....,„
Xytene
o-Creaol — ...,., , u
P^nJSOt „.,„;.
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene _.„..,
Phenol
Cyanide ;
Concentra-
tion (in mo/
kfl)
3.83
6.54
0.84
0.64
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.48
K052 wastawater
Phenaftttvene
2,4-Diniethylphenol
Hemefie...,,',
Xytane ; „-„„,--,,„
(fcCrecoi ,,„,„ , ,,„ „.,
p-Cresnl ..,.
Naphthalana ,
Phenol _ .
Chromium (total)
Lead ,
Zinc .._......_...._„.„....„..__„.„_„..„„
Concentra-
tion (in mg/i)
0.007
. 0.007
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
K015 wastewater
Anthracene .—..-».._.».„.__„„.
Benzal chloride ._ ..
Benzotb and/or k) fluoranthene...
Phenanthrene „ .
Toluene „..„.
Chromium (total)
Nickel ..
Concentra-
tion (m mg/l)
1.02
0.28
0.29
0.27
1.00
0.3C
0.44
K037 nonwastewater
DtsuHoton..
Toluene..
Concantra- S 268.50 Prohibitions on storage of
Son (in mo/ restricted wastes.
fcn) .
™' * * • * • •
0.1
28.0
K037 wwtewater
DwoHoIon_
Concentra-
tion (in mg/0
0.003
•0.028
No Land Disposal fon
K004
KOOS
K015 nonwastewater
K036
K061 wastewater
K069
K073
K100
(b) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
treatment, the treatment residue must
meet the lowest treatment standard for
the constituent of concern.
Subpart E—Prohibitions on Storage
12. Section 268.50 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
(d) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this section does not apply to wastes
which are the subject of an approved
petition under 5 268.8. a nationwide
variance under Subpart C of this part,
an approved case-by-case extension
under § 268.5, or a valid certification
under § 268.8.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
IV. In Part 271:
1. the authority citation for Part 271 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6S05. 6912(a). and 6926.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.1Q) is amended fay
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication in the Federal Register
{271.1 Purpose and scope.
• *»*.« ,
(I)'
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
FEDERAL REGISTER reference
Effective date
tlnsert date of publication of final
rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
Land disposal restncliorts for First Third wastes 53 FR [insert FEDERAL REGISTER paae numbers] Aug. 8.1989.
3. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the date of publication and the
Federal Register page numbers to the
following entry in Table 2.
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
• * • • •
U).*
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
SeHHrnplementing provision
RCRA citation
FEDERAL REGISTER refererice
Aug. 8.1968 Land disposal restriction* on First Third of kited 3004(g)_
wastes.
tlnsert date of publication]. 53 FR
[insert .FEDERAL REGISTER page
numbers].
[FR Doc. 88-7379 Filed 4-7-B8:8:45 am]
WJJNQ CODE M40-IO-M
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11783
were established, or extensions to the
effective date were ((ranted. Since P and
U wastes result from spills or are off-
spec chemical product^,, the assumption
that quantities reportedPin EPA's
surveys represent annual values may
overstate the cost* iff production occurs
sporadically.
Large volumes of wastes stored in
surface impoundments dropped out of
the analysis because storage in tanks
was found to be less expensive than
storage in surface impoundments in the
baseline. As a result, the costs of the
rule associated with treatment of
residuals from storage surface
impoundments were quite small. Large
volumes of wastes treated in surface
impoundments remained in the analysis.
However, the small quantity of dredged
material from these impoundments
requiring treatment caused these costs
to be low as well.
Most of the costs of the rule are borne
by generators and noncommercial
TSDFs: generators account for
approximately three quarters of
compliance costs and non-commercial
TSDFs for approximately a quarter.
SQGs account for lens than one percent
of total compliance costs.
c. Economic Impacts. The economic
impacts of the proposed rule are
summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3.—NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACTED FACILITIES
Commercial TSDFs ..._.
Noncommercial
TSDFs.
G&nora tors .,«..«.*..„.„«.„.,
SQGs,»™.
Total -.
Proposed rule
Scenario 1
(')
68
1.040
441
1,5X9
Scvn&no 2
o
72
1.049
673
1.794
'Commercial TSDFs were assumed to pass al
compliance costs through to generators; therefor*.
the number of significant affected facilitiM was not
calculated.
Most of the sqpodficugy impacted
non-commercial 3$Z)Fs.are from the
petroleum refiniafynd primary metals
industries (SIC* ZfcVflnd 33," respectively).
Significantly impacted generators are
mostly from Primary Metals and
Fabricated Metals (SICs 33 and 34,
respectively). Commercial TSDFs fall
primarily into Electric, Gas, and
Sanitary Services (SIC 49); those
facilities specializing in land disposal
services could be adversely affected.
The most significant difference between
Scenarios 1 and 2 is in the number of
significantly affected SQGs. As
discussed above, impacts due to "soft
hammer" provisions would be of less
than two years duration.
d. Benefits. Table 4 summarizes the
estimated benefits of the proposed rule.
The annual values were-obtained by
dividing the total benefit estimates
(corresponding to a 70 year lifetime) by
70.
TABLE 4.—BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED
RULE (NUMBER OF ADVERSE HEALTH
EFFECTS AVOIDED PER YEAR)
Treatment of F and
K Wastes
Soft Hammers on P
and U 'Wastes
Total
Proposed rule
Scenario 1
130
0
130
Scenarios
130
78
'208
The results above are driven primarily
by two waste codes; K061 and P070.
K061 is emission control dust/sludge
from the primary production of steel in
electric furnaces; it contains a number of
metals. It is mostly landfilled in the
baseline and goes to high temperature
metals recovery under the proposed
rule. P070 is Aldicarb, a pesticide which .
is land applied in the baseline and
incinerated under the proposed rule.
As shown, there is a substantial
difference in benefits between Scenarios
1 and 2 under the proposed rule due
primarily to the management of P070.
Most of the risk associated with land
application in the baseline is due to
exposure via air. It is likely, in actual
practice, that air exposures would be
reduced through the use of protective
gear by persons involved in land
application and the restriction of access
by other persons to the site; therefore
the difference in benefits betweendBe
two scenarios may be overstatednhe
difference may also be overstated to the
extent that the P and U wastes are
generated sporadically, rather than
annually as reported in the RIA Mail
Survey. The benefits under Scenario 2
would be of less than two years
duration; i.e., they would continue until
"hard hammers" fell, treatment
standards were set, or extensions to the
effective date were granted.
e. Cost Effectiveness. The cost
effectiveness of the proposed rule is
illustrated in Table 5. Compliance costs
for the regulated community and human
health risk reduction are the basis for
the comparison; other potentially
significant costs .(e.g., Agency
implementation costs] and benefits (e.g.,
natural resource damage avoided) were
not estimated.
TABLE 5—COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
PROPOSED RULE.
Costs (Millions of
1987 Dollars per
year . ...
Benefits (Adverse _
"Heattrr Effects ••*=
Avoided per Year)
Cost Effectiveness
(Millions of Dollars
per Case Avoided)....
Proposed rule
Scenario 1
681
130
5.2
Scenario 2
y.
696
208^
3.3
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibilty
Act, S U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to .publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis 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 evaluated the economic effect of
the rule on small entities, here defined
as concerns employing fewer than 50
people. Because of data limitations, this
small business analysis excluded
generators of large quantities of First
Third wastes. The small business
population therefore included only two
groups: All non-commercial treatment,
storage and disposal facilities employing
fewer than 50 persons, and all small
quantity generators which were also
small businesses.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, if over 20% of the population
of small businesses is likley to
experience financial distress based on
the costs of a rule, then the Agency is
required to consider that the rule will
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities and to perform
a formal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
EPA has examined the rule's potential
effects on small businesses as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
has concluded that today's final 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. More detailed information
on small business impacts is available
-------
Federal Register / Vcl 53. No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rates
11785
disposal, die generator must certify in
accordance with § 288A For off-rite
disposal, the demansiratio* end
certification required in §268.8. as well
.as the notice required i» § 268.7 must be
provided with the. iniiiarwaste shipment.
The §268.8 demonstration need not be
provided again as long as the conditions
of the demonstration have not changed.
Thereafter, only the notice required in
§268.7 and the certification required in
§268.8. must be provided with each
waste shipment. If'such waste is
disposed on-site, the demonstration and
certification required in §268.8, as well
as the notice (expect for the manifest
number) required in §268-7 must be kept
in the operating record.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in § 268.10 where no
treatment standard has been set, and
the waste'goes offrsite for treatment, the
generator must send a notice as required
in § 268.7. The treatment facility must
keep a copy of the notice in its operating
record. If treated oa-site. the information
contained in the notice (except for the
manifest number) must be kept in the
facility's operating record. After
treatment, and no further treatment is
practically available (if further
treatment is available, the
reco'rdkeeping requirements that apply
are the same as for the original
treatment), the requirements are the
same that apply for the generator. If the
waste is disposed in a landfill or surface .
impoundment (which must meet the
minimum technological requirements.
see section 3004(g)(6)(A)(i)). the original
• generator or the owner/operator may
supply the demonstration and
certification required-by § 268.8. The
generator may supply this information
when the waste is sent to the treatment
facility, certifying that no further
treatment is practically available and
therefore, placement in the landfill oc
surface impoundment is. the only
practical alternative.
IX. References
Background Doomtat*
(1) U.S. EPA. "BMigronnfoocument for
First Third Waste*»gnvyuH«CFRPart
268 La nd Dispo«at RtettcSeM Proposed Rule
First-Third W«ata VeJpne. Characteristics,
and.Required iinrl rfWiiinhtr Trtqtmml
Capacity."'U.S-EPA,OSW Waskingtau, DC
,1987.
(2) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT1 Background '
• Document for First Third Waste Codes." U.S.
EPA. OSW, Washington, DC. 1987.
Regulatory Impact Analysisi' '
(3) U.S. EPA. -Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Proposed Restrictions on Land Disposal of
First Third Wastes." U.S. EPA. OSW, .
Washington. DC. 1987. : '
List of SMfejects in
-------
Foderafr Reghter / Vol. 53. Wo. 88 / Friday. April 8. *9fe8 [ Proposed Rnfes
11787
(iv) Th« monitoring interval
(frequency of mcaHofing at each
station);
(v) The specific bundous
constituents to hetnoniipred;
(vi) The impienmbitlon schedule for
the monitoring prognm;
(vii) The equipment need at the
monitoring stations;
(viii) The sampling *nd analytical
techniques employed; and
(ix) The data recording/reporting
procedures.
(2) Where applicable^ the monitoring
program described in paragraph (c)(l)
must be in place for a period of time
specified by the Administrator prior to
receipt of restricted waste at the unit,
unless an alternate schedule i* approved
by the Administrator.
(3) The monitoring data collected
according to the monitoring plan
specified under paragraph (c)(l) of this
section must be sent to the
Administrator according to a format and
schedule specified and approved in the
monitoring plan, and
(4) A copy of the monitoring data
collected under the monitoring plan
specified under paragraph (c](lj of thw
section must be kept on-site at the
facility in the operating record.
(5) The monitoring program specified
under paragraph (c)[lj| of this section
meet the following criteria:
(i) All sampling, testing, and
analytical data must be approved by the
Administrator and must provide data
that is accurate and reproducible.
(!i) All estimation and modeling
techniques must be approved by the
Administrator.
(iii) A quality assurance and quality
control plan addressing all aspects of
the monitoring program must be
provided to and approved by the
Administrator.
* • * * *
(e) After a petition has been
approved, the owner to- operator must
report any changes in condition* at the
unit and/or the environment around the
unit that may afisctNqarcments upon
which the petition wai approved.
(1) If the owner « operator desires to
make changes to>tfa»«nttiuch as the
engineering design, or the compliance
monitoring system sach * change must
be proposed, in writing, and the owner
or operator must submit a
demonstration to the Administrator at
least 30 days prior to making the change.
The Administrator will determine
whether the proposed change
invalidates the terms of the petition and
will determine the appropriate response.
Any change must be approved by the
Administrator prior to being made.
(2) If the owner or operator disco vers-
that a condition at the site-which was
modeled or predicted fn-the petition-
does not occur as predicted, this change-
must be reported, in writing, to-the
Administrator within 10 days of
discovering the change. The
Administrator win determine whether
the reported change from the terms of
the petition requires further action.
which may include revocation of the
petition, petition modifications, or other
responses.
(f) If the owner or operate* detarmioea
that there is migration of hazardous
constituents} from the unit, the owner
or operator must
(1) Immediately suspend receipt of
restricted waatea at the unit, and
(2) Notify the Administrator, is
writing, within 10 days of the
determination that a release has
occurred.
(3) Following receipt of the
notification the Administrator will
determine within 80 days of receiving
notification the appropriate response
actions that the owner or operator must
take to prevent further migration of
hazardous constituents out of the unit.
• * * • * *.
6. Section 288.7 is amended by
revising the introductory texts of
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2), and by
revising (a)(3), by redesignating
paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(5), by adding the
new paragraph (aX4), by revising
paragraph (b) introductory text, by
redesignating paragraph (b)(l) aa (b)(4)
and (b)(2) as (b)(5), by adding new
paragraphs (b)(l). (b){2). (b)(3). (b)(6),
and fb).(7), and by revising paragraph (c}
to read aa follows:
S268J Waatnanalysis.
(a) Except as specified in $ 268.3
i 288.43 of this part the generate
test his waste, or test an extrac
developed using the test met
described in Appendix I of this part, or
use knowledge of the waste, to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste does not meet the
applicable treatment standards, or
where the waste does not comply with
the applicable prohibitions set forth in
§ 268.32 of this part or RCRA section
3004(d), with each shipment of waste the
generator must notify the treatment or
storage facility in writing of the
appropriate treatment standards set
forth in Subpart D of this part and any
applicable prohibitions set forth irr
§ 268.32 of this part or RCRA section
3004(d].Tbenotfce-jmi8tinchidethe - .
following iiifui'iiiatiuiir
*•*•**•
(2] If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part, and determines thai the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment with each shipment of waste
he must submit to the treatment
storage, or land disposal facility, a
notice and a certification stating that the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards set forth in Subpart D of this
part and the applicable prohibitions set
forth in { 268.32 of this part of RCRA
section 3004(d).
*****
(3) If a generator's waste ia subject to
a case-by-case extension under 5 288.5,
an exemption under J 268.3, an
extension under § 268.1(c}{3). or a
nationwide variance under Subpart C,
with each shipment of waste, he must
submit a notice to the facility receiving
his waste stating that the waste is not
prohibited from land disposal.
(4) If a generator determines that he ia
managing a waste that is subject to the
prohibitions under S 288.33(e} of this
part and is not subject to the
prohibitions set forth in S 268.32 of this
part, with each shipment oi waste the
generator must notify the treatment
storage, or disposal facility, in writing,
of any applicable prohibitions set forth
in § 268.33(e). The notice must include
the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number
(ii) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in $ 268.33(e);
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data where
available.
*****
fb) Treatment facilities must test their
wastes according to the frequency
specified in their waste analysis plans
as required by § 264.13 or S 265.13. Such
testing most De-performed as provided
in paragraphs (bK*}. (bX2) and (b}(3) of
this section.
(1) For wastes with treatment
standards.expressed as concentrations
hi the waste extract [3 268.41), the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility must test the treatment residues,
or an extract of such residues developed
using the test method described in
Appendix I of this part, to assure that
the treatment residues or extract meet
the applicable treatment standards.
(2) .For wastes that are prohibited
under S 268.32 of this part or RCRA
section 3004(d) but not subject to any
treatment standards under Subpart D of
this part, the owner or operator of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 68 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules
11789
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
(e) Between August 8, 1988. and May
8, 1990, the wastes specified in § 268.10
for which treatment standards under
Subpart D of this part or prohibitions in
§ 268.32 or in RCRA section 3004(d) are
not applicable are prohibited from
disposal in a landfill or, surface
impoundment unless the wastes are the
subject of a valid demonstration and
certification pursuant to § 268.8.
(f) To determine whether a hazardous
waste listed in 5 268.10 exceeds the
applicable treatment standards
specified in S 268.43, the initial
generator must test a representative
sample of the entire waste (not a leach
extract).. If the waste contains *
constituents in excess of the applicable
Subpart 0 levels, the waste is prohibited
from land disposal and all requirements
of Part 268 are applicable, except as
otherwise specified in this section.
Subpart D— Treatment Standards
9. Section 268.40 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
§ 268.41 may be land disposed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
residue of the waste developed using the
test method in Appendix I of this part
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of § 268.41 for any
hazardous constituent listed in Table
CCWE for that waste.
(c) A restricted waste identified in
§ 268.43 may be land disposed only if
the constituent concentrations in the
waste or treatment residue of the waste
' do not exceed the value shown in Table
CCWE of § 268.43 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for
that waste. ' ^. .
10. Section 268.41(a)-4s amended by
adding the following subtables to Table
CCWE in alphabetical-and numerical
order by EPA Hazardous Waste
Number:
§ 268.41 Treatment standards -expressed
. as concentrations in waste extract
(a) « ' ;*' ...
TVrAAa /'Vt/l/P f~*nnt;fifnf>rrt '•-•-
Concentrations in Waste Extract-
* * •*..,.*•'' * . .'.•'.
K061 nonwastewater (see also table
CCW in §268.43)
Cadmium....;. :......; .
Chromium (total) :;..... ,
Lead . :
K062 nonwastewater (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Lead
Concontra*
Son (in mg/l)
0.19
0.33
0.09
0.02
0.50
Concentra-
tion (In mg/l)
0.094
0.37
K071 nonwastewater (see also tatrf*
CCW in J 268.43)
•
Mercury . .. -
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.0025
K048. K049. K050. K051, K052
nonwastewater (see also table CCW
in § 268.43)
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
. 0.006
1.68
0.013
0.048
0.025
0.18
0.141
« * * * •
11. Section 268.43 is amended by
adding paragraphs (a) and (b) and Table
CCW to read as follows:
§ 268.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentrations.
(a) Table CCW identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous
constituents which may not be exceeded
by the waste or treatment residual (not
an extract of such waste or residual) for
the allowable land disposal of suet*
waste or residual. /
TABLE CCW— CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
K061 nonwastewater (see also table
CCWE in §268.41)
• Lead
Zinc
| Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
, . 44.0
> 17300
: 20.300.0
0.28
24.100.0
K062 wastewater (see also table
/ CCWE m§ 268.41)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.32
0.42
, 0.44
K062 wastewater (see also table
CCWE in} 268.41)
Lead
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.04
K016 nonwastewater
Tetrachloroethene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachtorobutadiene .....
Hexachlorocyctopentadiene
Hexachtoroethane .. «
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
*g>
5.96
27.2
S.44
5.44
27.2
K016 nonwastewater
Tetrachloroethene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.007
0.033
K018 nonwastewater
Chkxoethana: .'.
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.1.1-Trichloroethane — „
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
27.2
27.2
544
5.44
K018 nonwastewater ^Min^g/"l)
Chloroethane
1 2-Oichlbroethane
1,1,1-Tnchtoroethane :....
0.007
0007
0.007
i 0.007
i 0.007
i 0.033
.0.007
! 0.007
K019 nonwastewater
1 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene.
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Chlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane '.
Naphthalene :
Phenanthrene
1 ,2.4-Trtchlorobenzene
Concentra-
tion (Hi mg/
kg)
i 5.96
i 5.96
i 5.96
596
! 544
566
27.2
5.44
5.44
18.7
K01.9 wastewater J tJo^rfSS/i)
Chlorobenzene ; 0.006
Chloroform..... .'. „
1,2-Dichloroetharie ;
i 0 007'
! 0.007
-------
Federal Register,/ Vol. 53. No. 68 / Friday. .April 8. 1988 / Proposed Rules 11791
K052 nonwaxewater (se« also taWe
CCWE m| 268.41)
Xylene.,™. .- «.™m.~.
o*Oesol . .. ."•
p-Cfesd ........ .,....:,.,...~..~...... _......
Phenol.... !Z!"L"1",.
Cyan**
Concentre*
tion(mmg/
1 K9)
0.84
0.84
; 0.84
0,84
0.84
1.48
K052 waslawater
Pheninthrer*' _ -i
2,4-DimMtiytpnenoJ •
Rtnrene
'""•.
lion (in mg/|)
0.007
0.007
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.20
0.037
0.40
:
K015 wastewater
Anthracene.
Btnzai cwonde .,.„
Btnzotb and/or k) Ihxxanthcne '
Toluene ~~...~....™»™.™~-.......-......~.—
Cnromu/n (total) ......».»».,»«»,.,.« «....
N>c>. el _-...-..,.....,......................................
Concentra-
tion (m mg/l)
1,02
0.28
0.29
0.27
1.00
0.3C
0.44
! Concantra- *
K037 ncnwastewater ! tion (in mg/
I kg)
.1
DisuHoton 0.1
Toluene 28.0
t
..„,_ | Concentra-
K037 wastewater ! Mn (in mg/j)
i
Dtsutfoton I 0.003
No Land Disposal for
K004
K008
K015 nonwastewater
K036 . •
K061 wastewater
K069
K073
K100
(b) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
treatment, the treatment residue must
meet the lowest treatment standard for
the constituent of concern.
Subpart E— Prohibitions on Storage
12. Section 268.50 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
S 2M.SO Prohibitions on storage of
rtstrlcted wastes.
(d) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this Section does not apply to wastes
which are the subject of an approved
petition under § 268.6. a nationwide
variance under Subpart C of this part. „
an approved case-by-case extension
under § 268.5, or a valid certification '.
under §268.8. >,"'t
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OP STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
IV. In Part 271:
1. The authority citation for Part 271 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a). and 6926.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.1 (j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication in the Federal Register
9 271.1 Purpose and scope.
« « » * *
(j) * * *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation di:«
TiU« of regulation
FEDERAL REGISTER reference
Effective date
[Insert date of pubfieation of final Land disposal restrictions for First Third wastes.. 53 FR [insert FEDERAL REGISTER page numbers] Aug. 8.1988.
rule m tn« FEDERAL REGISTER). . •
3. Section 2"l.l(j) is amended by Federal Register page numbers to the> 5 271.1 Purpose and scope.
adding the dale of publication and the following entry in Table 2. f ' * ' * *
- - ' (J) * * *
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
SetfHmplefnenting provision.
RCRA citation
FEDERAL REGISTER reference
^ .- •
Aug. 8.19S8 Land dtopoul restnctions on Bret Third of listed 3004(g).
wtitn.
[Insert date of publication). 53 FR
(insert FEDERAL REGISTER page
numbers].
JFR Doc. 8a-7379 Filed 4-7-flff: B-AS am)
aUJUMO CODE tMO-W-U
------- |