86
Tuesday
May 17, 1988
Part IV
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 264, etc.
Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (OSW-FR-88-006);
Proposed Rule
-------
17578
.Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 264,265,266 and 268
[SWH-FRL-3364-2; OSW-FR-88-006]
Land Disposal Restrictions for First
Third Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA section
3004(g)(5), EPA is proposing to prohibit
the land disposal of certain untreated
hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
268.10 (the first one-third of the schedule
of restricted hazardous wastes). Today's
action proposes treatment standards
and prohibition effective dates for these
wastes. Today's action also reproposes
the prohibition effective dates for
certain "First Third" wastes that were
the subject of a recent, related proposed
rulemaking (53 FR11742, April 8,1988).
EPA is proposing these changes based
on data from the Agency's recently
conducted survey of available
alternative capacity at treatment,
storage, disposal, and recycling
facilities. In addition, the Agency is
proposing to rescind the nationwide
variance based on inadequate treatment
capacity promulgated for hazardous
wastes containing halogenated organic
compounds (other than soils), and for
F001-F005 spent solvent wastes
generated by generators of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month
and solvent wastes resulting from
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) response actions or
RCRA corrective actions.
In actions not involving First Third
wastes (or not exclusively involving
such wastes), EPA is proposing to
amend the treatment standard for spent
solvent methylene chloride in
wastewaters from the pharmaceutical
industry. Also, EPA is proposing to
require all hazardous waste derived
products that are used in a manner
constituting disposal and whose
placement on the land is exempt from
regulation pursuant to 40 CFR 266.20(b)
to meet any applicable treatment
standard for each hazardous waste that
they contain as a condition of retaining
that exemption. With respect to
California list wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs), the Agency is soliciting
additional comment on an approach that
would allow these wastes to be burned
in industrial boilers and furnaces in
accordance with applicable regulatory
standards. Finally, EPA is making
certain corrections to the April 8,1988
proposed rule and is including
regulatory language to § 268.30(a) that
was inadvertently omitted froih the
April 8,1988 proposal.
If these proposed actions are
finalized, these First Third wastes can
be land disposed after the applic«|>le
effective dates if the respective |£
treatment standards are met or if"
disposal occurs in units that satisfy the
statutory no migration standard (see 40
CFR 268.6).
DATE: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before June 16,
1988.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket (&-205)
(WH-562), LLS. Environmental ,,
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Place the Docket
Number F-88-LDR8-FFFFF on your
comments. The OSW docket is located
at EPA RCRA Docket (sub-basement),
401M Streei, SW., Washington, DC
20460. The docket is open from 9:00 to
4:00, Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials. Call (202) 475-9327 for
appointments. The public may copy a
maximum of 50 pages from any
regulatory document at no cost.
Additional copies cost $.20 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general Jnformation contact the
RCRA Hotline, Office of Solid Waste
(WH-562B), U.S. Environmental ,
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (800) 424-9346.
(toll free) or (202) 382-3000 locally.
For general information'on specific
aspects of this proposed rule, contact
Stephen Weil, Lisa Faeth or William
Fortune, Office of Solid Waste (WH
562B), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 382-4770. For specific
information on BOAT/treatment
standards, contact Jim Berlow, Office of
Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., [Washington, DC 2Q460, (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:
Preamble Outline
I. Background
A. The Statute
1. Scheduled Wastes '
B. Regulatory Framework
1. Applicability
2. Treatment Standards
3. National Variances from the Effective
.• Dates
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the Effective
Dates
5. "No Migration" Exemptions from the
Restrictions
6. Variances from the Treatment Standards
7. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
II. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
A. Regulatory Approach
B. Best Demonstrated Available Technologies
(BOAT)
C. Waste Analysis Requirements
D. National Variances from the Effective
Date
E. Rescission of National Variances for
Certain Solvents and California List
Wastes
F. Corrections to the April 8,1988 Proposal
(53 FR 11742)
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)
5. Compliance with Performance Standards
6. Identification of BOAT
7. BOAT Treatment Standards for "Derived-
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
c. Residues from Managing Listed Wastes, or
that Contain Listed Wastes, are Covered
by the Prohibitions for the Listed Waste
8. Transfer of Treatment Standards
, 9. No Land Disposal as the BOAT Treatment
Standard
10. Waste Specific Treatment Standards
a. F006—Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations except from the
following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on
carbon steel; (3) zinc plating [segregated
basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or
zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel;
(5) cleaning/stripping associated with
tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon
steel; and (6) chemical etching and
milling of aluminum.
b. K001—Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol
c. K022—Distillation bottom tars from the
production of phenol/acetone from
cumene
d. K046—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the manufacturing, formulation, and
, loading of lead based initiating
compounds
e. K083—Distillation bottoms from aniline
production
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
17579
f. K086—Solvent washes and sludges, caustic
washes and sludges, or water washes
and sludges from the cleaning tubs and
equipment used in the formulation of ink
from pigments, driers, soaps, and
stabilizers containing chromium and lead
g. K087—Decanter tank tar sludge from
coking operations
h. K099—Untreated wastewater from the
production of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D)
i. K101—Distillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds
K102—Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the
production of veterinary Pharmaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-arsenic
compounds
j. K106—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production
k. Revision of BOAT Treatment Standard for
Methylene Chloride in Wastewaters from
the Pharmaceutical Industry Listed as
FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and/or F005
1. K021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst
waste from fluoromethanes production
K025—Distillation bottoms from the
production of nitrobenzene by the
nitration of benzene
K080—-Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operations
m. K044—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the manufacturing and processing of
explosives
K045—Spent carbon from the treatment of
wastewater containing explosives
K047—Pink/red water from TNT operations
n. Wastes for Which EPA is Proposing No
Treatment Standards [Including all
Chemical Specific P and U Wastes)
o. Burning in Industrial Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces as BOAT for HOC's.
11. Requirement that Hazardous Waste
Derived Products Used in a Manner
Constituting Disposal Meet BOAT in
Order to Remain Exempt from Regulation
12. Corrections to the April 8,1938 Proposal
{53 FR 11742)
B. Determination and Measurement of
Applicable Treatment Standards
1. Relationship to Restrictions on California
List Wastes
.C. Proposed Approach to Comparative Risk
Assessment
D. Determination of Alternative Capacity and
Effective Dates for First Third Wastes
1. Capacity Data Base and Methodology
2. Capacity Analysis of First Third Wastes,
Solvent Wastes, California List Wastes,
and Soil and Debris
a. Total Quantity of Land Disposed First
Third Wastes
b. Required Alternate Capacity
3. Capacity Currently Available and Effective
Dates
E. Alternative Capacity and Effective Dates
for Solvent Wastes and California List
Wastes
F. National Variance from the Effective Date
for Contaminated Soils
1. Legal Authority
2. Summary of the Proposed Agency Action
3. The Facts Justifying a National Capacity
Variance for These Soils
4. Request for Comment on Variance for
Contaminated Debris
5. No Proposed Variance for Other
Contaminated Soils
6. Definition of "Soil"
7. Notes on Drafting of the Regulatory
Language
IV. Modifications to the Land Disposal
Restrictions Framework and to Proposed
Soft Hammer Provisions
A. Applicability (40 CFR 268.1)
B. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 268.7)
C. National Variance for Spent Solvent
Waste Residues (40 CFR 268.30)
D. Section 268.8(a)(3)
E. Section 268.8(b)(2)
F. Section 268.8(c)
G. Section 268.33(g)
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 Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Purpose
2. Executive Order No. .12291
3. Basic Approach
4. Methodology
a. Determination of Affected Population and
Waste Management Practices
b. Cost Methodology
c. Economic Impact Methodology
d. Benefits Methodology
S. Results
a. Population of Affected Facilities
b. Costs
c. Economic Impacts
d. Benefits
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review of Supporting Documents
E. Rescission of National Variance for
Certain Solvent and California List
Wastes
VIII. Implementation of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program
IX. References
X. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265,
266 and 268
I. Background
A. The Statute
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), enacted on
November 8,1984, require the Agency to
promulgate regulations that prohibit the
land disposal of untreated hazardous
wastes, except in land disposal units
that satisfy the "no migration" standard
contained in RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e)
and (g). Specifically, the amendments
include dates when particular groups of
untreated ha2;ardous 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 section 3004 (d){l), (e)(l), (g)(5),
42 U.S.Q. 6924 (d)(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(11(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)(l), 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(l)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited
and may be land disposed.
Although these prohibitions normally
take effect immediately, the Agency is
authorized to grant national variances
from statutory dates and case-by-case
extensions of effective dates. The
Administrator may grant a national
variance from a statutory date and
establish 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 capadity which
protects human health and the
environment will be available" (RCRA
section 3004(10(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(2)).
The Administrator may grant a case-by-
case extension of an effective date 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 be made available by such
effective date" (RCRA section
3004(h)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(3)).
In addition to restricting the land
disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress
also restricted the treatment and storage
of hazardous wastes. The statute allows
treatment of restricted wastes in surface
impoundments which meet minimum
technological requirements (certain
exceptions are allowed). Treatment in
-------
17580 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
surface impoundments is permissible
provided the treatment residues that do
not meet the treatment standards, 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(j)(H)(B}).
Storage of restricted wastes 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" (RCRA
section 3004(j), 42 U.S.C. 6924(j}).
1. Scheduled Wastes
The amendments require 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 covered under section
3004{e). 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 by June 8,1989.
(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.
"Soft hammer" provisions specify that
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 continue to be disposed in a landfill
or surface impoundment provided that
(1) the unit is in compliance with
minimum technological requirements
and (2) prior to disposal, the generator
has certified 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
or until May 8,1990, whichever is
sooner. Other forms of land disposal are
not similarly restricted and may
continue to be used for disposal of the
untreated waste until EPA promulgates
a treatment standard or until May 8,
1990, whichever is sooner. If the Agency
fails to set a treatment standard for any
scheduled 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](6), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(6)).
B. Regulatory Framework
By way of preface, EPA notes that the
following description of existing rules is
for the readers' convenience, and is not
intended to reopen any of these rules for
public comment.
On November 7,1986, EPA
promulgated a final rule (51FR 40572)
establishing the regulatory framework
for implementing the land disposal
restrictions program. This rule also
implemented the first phase of the
program with regulations prohibiting the
land disposal of solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes. Corrections to the
November 7,1986, rule were included in
a June 4,1987, Federal Register notice
(52 FR 21010) to clarify the Agency's
approach to regulating restricted wastes.
Some changes to the framework were
made in a July 8,1987, final rule (52 FR
25760) that prohibited the land disposal
of California list wastes.
1. Applicability
The land disposal restrictions apply
prospectively to the affected wastes. In
other words, hazardous wastes land
disposed after the applicable effective
dates are subject to the restrictions, but
wastes land disposed prior to the
effective dates are not required to be
removed or exhumed for treatment.
Similarly, only surface impoundments
receiving restricted wastes after the
applicable-deadline are subject to the
restrictions on treatment in surface
impoundments contained in § 268.4 and
3005(j)(ll). Also, the storage restrictions
apply to wastes placed in storage after
the effective dates. If, however,
hazardous wastes subject to the land
disposal restrictions are removed from
either a storage or land disposal unit, or
treated in surface impoundments after
the applicable effective date, such
wastes are subject to the restrictions
and treatment standards.
For the purposes of the restrictions,
land disposal includes, but is not limited
to, placement in a landfill, surface
impoundment, waste pile, injection well,
land treatment facility, salt dome or salt
bed formation, or underground mine or
cave (RCRA section 3004(k)). The
Agency also considers placement in a
concrete vault or bunker intended for
disposal purposes to be land disposal.
The provisions of the land disposal
restrictions program apply to wastes
produced by generators of greater than
1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste as
well as small quantity generators of 100
to 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste
(or greater than 1 kilogram of acute
hazardous waste) in a calendar month.
However, wastes produced by small
quantity generators of less than 100
kilograms of hazardous waste (or less
than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous
waste) per calendar month are
conditionally exempt from RCRA,
including the land disposal restrictions.
The land disposal restrictions applyto
both interim status and permitted
facilities. The requirements of the land
disposal restrictions program supersede
40 CFR 270.4(a), which currently
provides that compliance with a RCRA
permit constitutes compliance with
Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, even
though the requirements may not be
specified in the permit conditions, all
permitted facilities are subject to the
restrictions.
2. Treatment Standards
By each statutory deadline the
Agency must establish the applicable
treatment standards under 40 CFR Part
268 Subpart D for each restricted
hazardous waste. After the applicable
effective dates, restricted wastes may be
land disposed in Subtitle C facilities if
they meet the treatment standards. If
EPA does not promulgate treatment
standards by the statutory deadlines,
such wastes are prohibited from land
disposal with the exception of first-third
and second-third ranked hazardous
wastes. The first- and second-third
wastes for which EPA has not
promulgated treatment standards can
continue to be disposed in landfills and
surface impoundments, provided certain
demonstrations are made, and provided
these units meet the minimum
technology requirements of section
3004(o), until May 8,1990, or until EPA
promulgates treatment standards,
whichever is sooner. Other types of land
disposal are not restricted until EPA
promulgates treatment standards or
until May 8,1990, whichever is earlier.
A treatment standard is based on the
performance of the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT) to treat the
waste. EPA may establish treatment
standards either as specific technologies
or performance standards based on the
performance of BDAT technologies.
Compliance with performance standards
may be monitored by measuring the
-------
Federal Register /. Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17581
concentration level of the hazardous
constituents (or in some circumstances,
indicator pollutants) in the waste,
treatment residual, or in the extract of
the waste or treatment residual. When
treatment standards are set as
performance levels, the regulated
community may .use any technology not •
otherwise prohibited (such as
impermissible dilution) to treat the
waste to meet the treatment standard.
Treaters thus are not limited to only
those technologies considered in
determining the treatment standard.
However, when treatment standards are
expressed as specific technologies, such
technologies must be employed.
3. National Variances From the Effective
Dates
The Agency has the authority to grant
national variances from the statutory
effective dates, not to exceed two years,
if there is insufficient alternative
protective treatment, recovery or
disposal capacity for the wastes (RCRA
section 3004(h)(2}). To make this
determination EPA compares the
nationally available alternative
treatment, recovery, or protective
disposal capacity at permitted and
interim status facilities which will be in
operation by the effective date with the
quantity of restricted waste generated. If
there is a significant shortage of such
capacity nationwide, EPA will establish
an alternative effective date based on
the earliest date such capacity will be
available.
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the
Effective Dates
The Agency will consider granting up
to a 1-year extension (renewable only
once) of a ban effective date on a case-
by-case basis. The requirements
outlined in 40 CFR 268.5 must be
satisfied, including a demonstration that
adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity for the
petitioner's waste cannot reasonably be
made available by the effective date due
to circumstances beyond the applicant's
control, and that the petitioner has
entered into a binding contractual
commitment to construct or otherwise
provide such capacity.
5. "No Migration" Exemptions From the
Restrictions
EPA has the authority to allow the
land disposal of a restricted hazardous
waste which does not meet the
treatment standard provided that the
petitioner demonstrates that there will
be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. 40 CFR 268.6. If a
petition is granted, it can remain in
effect for no longer than ten years for
disposal in interim status land disposal
units and for no longer than the term of
the RCRA permit for disposal in
permitted units. 40 CFR 268.6(h)
6. Variances From the Treatment
Standards
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 BOAT treatment systems
are used. 40 CFR 268.44. Petitions must
demonstrate (among other things) that
the waste is significantly different from
the wastes evaluated by EPA hi
establishing the treatment standard and
the waste cannot be treated in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standard. This variance
procedure could result in the
establishment of a new treatability
group and corresponding treatment
standard that would apply to all wastes
meeting the criteria of the new waste
treatability group.
7. 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
surf ace .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
for subsequent management within one
year of entry into the impoundment and
are not placed into any other surface
impoundment. 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.
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
Storage of prohibited wastes is
prohibited except where storage is
solely for the purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities of wastes to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal. 40 CFR 268.50. A facility which
stores a'prohibited waste for more than
one year bears the burden of proof that
such storage is solely for this purpose.
EPA bears the burden of proof if the
Agency believes that storage of a
restricted waste by a facility for up to
one year is not necessary to facilitate
proper treatment, recovery, or disposal.
II. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
A. Regulatory Approach
On May 28,1986, EPA published a
notice in the Federal Register (51FR
19300) promulgating a schedule for
prohibiting the land disposal of
hazardous wastes. This schedule is
found in 40 CFR 268.10 for so-called
"First Third" wastes, 40 CFR 268.11 for
"Second Third" wastes, and 40 CFR
268.12 for "Third Third" wastes. In an
April 8,1988, Federal Register notice (53
FR 11742) EPA proposed treatment
standards and effective dates for
complying with the provisions of the
land disposal restrictions program
applicable to certain First Third wastes.
In addition, the Agency proposed an
interpretation of the "soft hammer"
provisions of section 3004(g)(6) of
RCRA, which allow disposal in a
surface impoundment or landfill of first-
and second-third scheduled wastes for
which EPA has not established
treatment standards by the statutory
deadline. Today's notice proposes
treatment standards and effective dates
for additional. First Third wastes not
addressed in the April 8,1988 proposal.
The proposed effective dates for
prohibitions for these wastes are b"ased
on a determination of available
alternative capacity derived from a
recently conducted survey of. treatment,
storage, disposal, and recycling
facilities. In addition, the Agency is
revising its proposal regarding effective
dates for the First Third wastes for
which treatment standards were
proposed in the April 8,1988, Federal
Register notice based on the new
capacity data derived from this survey.
The two notices do not propose
treatment standards and effective dates
for all of the First Third wastes listed in
40 CFR 268.10'. It was not possible to
develop and analyze treatment data for
all of the First Third wastes within the
time limits imposed by the statute. EPA
intends to promulgate regulations
prohibiting the land disposal of the.
wastes having proposed standards and
effective dates on August 8,1988. All
other wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10 will
be subject to the "soft hammer"
.provisions of RCRA section 3004(g)(6)
(42 U.S.C. 6924 (g)(6)). The Agency's
interpretation of these provisions will be
codified in final form when EPA
promulgates the First Third prohibitions
as a final rule.
-------
17582
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
B. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BOAT)
This notice discusses the technologies
the Agency considered in determining
proposed treatment standards for First
Third wastes addressed in this proposal.
Since the standards are expressed as
performance levels of treatment
determined by performance of BDAT,
any technology not otherwise prohibited
(e.g., impermissible dilution) may be
used to meet these concentration-based
treatment standards. The model BDAT
technologies on which these
performance standards are based are
summarized below.
For FOOB and K046 nonwastewaters,
the BDATperformance standard is
bused on stabilization; for F006 and
K046 wastewaters, the standard is "No
Land Disposal". For wastes K001 and
KOQB (solvent washes and sludges
subcategory), the performance standard
is based on incineration followed by
stabilization of nonwastewater
residuals and chromium reduction
followed by chemical precipitation for
wastewater residuals. BDAT for
nonwastewater forms of K022 is based
on fuel substitution followed by metals
stabilization and metals precipitation of
scrubber water. Fuel substitution or
incineration is the basis for BDAT for
K083TEPA is proposing rotary kiln
incineration as the basis for BDAT for
K087 and is soliciting information to
support a conclusion that total recycling
can be accomplished for some K037
subcategories. Proposed BDAT for K099
is based on chemical oxidation with
chlorine. The performance achieved by
incineration followed by metal
stabilization of ash residues represents
proposed treatment by BDAT for both
K101 and K102. Treatment standards are
based on thermal recovery for K108
nonwastewaters and sulfide
precipitation followed by filtration for
K106 wastewaters. "No Land Disposal"
is the proposed BDAT treatment
standard for K021, K025. K060, K044.
K045, and K047.
EPA is also proposing to revise the
performance standard for methylene
chloride in F001-F005 wastewaters from
the pharmaceutical industry to be based
on steam stripping. This would change
the actual performance standards for
these wastewaters in § 268.41(a).
Furthermore, EPA is soliciting additional
comment on an approach that would
amend the § 268.42(c)(2) treatment
standards to allow burning of California
list HOCs in industrial boilers and
furnaces in accordance with applicable
regulatory requirements.
BASIS FOR TREATMENT STANDARDS
[BDAT]
Waste code
F006:
Nonwastewaters —
Wastewaters J
K001
K022:
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
K046:
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
K083
KOS6 (solvent washes
and sludges
subcategory):
Nonwastewaters —
Wastewaters
K087
K099
K101 „
K102
K106:
Nonwastewater..
Wastewaters
K021
K025
K060
K044
K045
K047
BDAT
Stabilization.
["No land disposal"!!.
Rotary kiln incineration; sta-
bilization (nonwastewater
residuals); chemical pre-
cipitation (wastewater re-
siduals).
Fuel substitution; metals
stabilization; metals pre-
cipitation of scrubber
water.
["No land disposal"].
Stabilization.
["No land disposal"].
Liquid injection incineration
.or fuel substitution.
Incineration; stabilization of
ash.
Chromium reduction; chem-
ical precipitation; filtra-
tion.
Rotary kiln incineration.
Chemical oxidation using
chlorine.
Incineration; metal stabiliza-
tion.
Incineration; metal stabiliza-
tion.
Thermal recovery.
Sulfide precipitation; fittra-
tion.
["No land disposal"].
["No land disposal"].
["No land disposal"].
["No land disposal"].
["No land disposal"].
["No land disposal"].
C. Waste Analysis Requirements
Today's proposed treatment
standards are based on the
concentration levels of the hazardous
constituents in the waste/treatment,
residual, the extract of the waste/
treatment residual developed using the
TCLP, or both the total composition and
the extract. Wastes for which
destruction and/or removal technologies
are BDAT would require a total-
composition analysis. These wastes are
K001, K022, K086, K087, K099, K101,
K102, K106, and methylene chloride in
F001-F005 wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical industry. Wastes for
which stabilization technologies are
BDAT would require an extract
analysis. These wastes are FOOB and
K046. Proposed treatment standards for
wastes requiring a total composition
analysis are found in 40 CFR 268.43, and
proposed treatment standards for
wastes requiring an extract analysis are
found in 40 CFR 268.41.
D. National Variances from the
Effective Date
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
national variance from the August 8,
1988, effective date of the land disposal
restrictions for K106 wastes. The
Agency is not proposing to grant a
variance to wastes F008, K001, K022,
K046, K083, K086, K087, K099, K101 and
K102. We are proposing (consistent with
drafting in sections 268.30-268.32} that
the proposed August 8,1988, and August
8,1990 effective dates be codified in
§ 268.33 of the proposed regulations.
In addition, today's action proposes to
grant a two year variance from the
applicable effective dates for certain
contaminated soils that require solids
incineration capacity. EPA is also
proposing to change its proposed
decision (addressed in the April 8,1988
notice) to grant a variance from the
effective date to wastes K016, K018,
K019, K020, K024, K030, and K037. Based
on new data, it appears that there is
adequate treatment capacity for these
wastes and therefore the prohibition
effective date should be August 8,1988.
Among the wastes for which EPA will
not set treatment standards by August 8,
1988, are wastes K011, K013, and K014
resulting from production of
acrylonitrile. Information received from
•the industry trade association states
that currently, wastes K011 and K013
are all treated by filtering the wastes,
underground injecting the filtrate into
deep injection wells, and burning the
separated suspended matter. The
industry association also notes that the
producers of the wastes intend to file
"no migration" petitions for continued
underground injection of these wastes.
The Agency is preparing procedures
to evaluate "no migration" petitions for
underground injection wells. If the
petitions are granted, the waste could be
injected into a "no migration"
underground injection unit. If no (or
insufficient) "no migration" petitions are
granted, the Agency may not have
sufficient time to set treatment
standards for the K011 and K013 filtrate
by May 8,1990, the date these wastes
will be absolutely prohibited from land
disposal (except in "no migration"
units).
EPA is developing treatment
standards, which will be promulgated
after August 8,1988, for the separated
suspended matter filtered from K011 and
K013 wastes, and for K014 still bottoms;
these wastes are currently being burned,
thus resulting in a residue that will be
land disposed, at least in some cases, in
units that would not meet the "no
migration" standard. These residues
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17583
must therefore meet BDAT standards
before they are land disposed.
E, Rescission of National Variances for
Certain Solvents and California List
Wastes
The Agency is proposing today to
rescind parts of the November 7,1986,
nationwide variances from the
' prohibition effective date granted for
solvents and the July 8,1987 variances
granted for HOCs. The wastes which
would be covered by this action are:
(a) Spent solvent wastes identified as
EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. F001-F005
generated by small quantity generators
producing from 100-1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month;
(b) Solvent waste generated from
section 104 or 106 response actions
under CERCLA or any RCRA corrective
action, except where the waste is
contaminated soil or debris; and
(c) Hazardous wastes containing
HOCs in concentrations greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/1, except for California
list HOC contaminated soils.
Based on revised estimates of the
treatment capacity available to treat
these wastes, EPA has determined that
sufficient capacity exists to incinerate or
thermally combust these wastes. The
revised capacity estimates are discussed
in section HI.E. of this proposal.
F. Corrections to the April 8,1988
Proposal (53 FR11742)
Today's proposal also makes certain
corrections to the April 8,1988 proposal
(53 FR 11742). Specifically, these
corrections address the following errors:
(1) Neglecting to propose regulatory
language reflecting the Agency's
approach, as currently regulated by
§ 268.30(a)(3); (2) incorrectly identifying
a hazardous constituent in K103 and
K104 (2,4-dinitrophenol) as 2,3-
dinitrophenol and stating incorrect
levels for aniline, nitrobenzene, and
phenol in the regulatory text; (3)
incorrectly stating the total composition
treatment standard for toluene in K015
waste (0.148 mg/1) as 1.00 mg/1; (4)
incorrectly heading the wastewater
..treatment standard tables for K016 and
K018 wastes as "nonwastewater", and
the K051 tables in the preamble as
"K0(50"; (5) incorrectly stating the
hazardous constituent tetrachloroethene
as tetrachloroethane in the preamble
tables for K019 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters and K020
nonwastewaters; (6) stating the
incorrect treatment standard for
hexachloroethane in K016 wastewater
(preamble) and K030 wastewater
(regulatory text); and (7) neglecting to
include chlorobenzene in the preamble
table for K019 nonwastewater.
III. Regulatory Approach for the First
Third Wastes
A. Determination of Treatability Groups
and Development of BDAT Treatment
Standards
1. Waste Treatability Groups
For the First Third wastes, EPA used
the individual listed waste codes as the
starting point for developing waste
treatability 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 the waste characteristics
which affect treatment performance will
be similar for these different waste
codes. For example, two codes
pertaining to wastes from the production
of veterinary Pharmaceuticals (K101 and
K102) were combined into a single
treatability group.
2. Demonstrated Treatment
Technologies
As discussed in EPA's promulgated
methodology for determining BDAT (see
November 7,1986, 51 FR 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 some
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
following manner. The Agency first
characterized each waste for those
parameters which the Agency believes
affect the selection of applicable
treatment technologies (including
recycling). EPA then compared these
parameters to other wastes for which
these technologies are demonstrated. If
the parameters were similar, the Agency
considered the 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 o:rganic constituents, high
total organic content, and high filterable
solids, regardless of whether any facility
is currently incinerating these wastes in
a rotary kiln. 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 waste treatability group is
explained in the section III.A.10. in this
preamble which describes the waste-
specific treatment standards.
3. Selection of Facilities for Engineering
Visits and Sampling
In those instances where additional
data were needed to supplement the
Agency's cuirrent knowledge of
treatment performance on 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 were
accessible. During the visit, EPA also
would confiim that the facility appeared
to be well operated, although the actual
operation that occurs during sampling is
the basis for EPA's decisions regarding
whether the sampling data represented
the performance of a properly operated
treatment unit.
In general, the Agency considers a
well designed facility tp be 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 adversely 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 a system
is reasonably well designed, the
engineering visit is designed to examine
whether the facility has a measurable
way of describing the operation of the
treatment system during the time the
-------
17584
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
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 strip chart. In continuous
systems, such instrumentation is
important in determining whether the
treatment system was operating within
the design requirements during the
period in which the waste was being
treated and the samples obtained.
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) commercial TSDFs;
and (4) EPA in-house treatment. The
basis of this hierarchy is founded on two
major 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 (particularly wastes from
different treatability groups]. Therefore,
EPA prefers sampling from on-site
treatment facilities where the waste of
interest is treated alone or as a major
component of the total waste handled. If
such well designed on site facilities 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 still have
occurred. If no suitable TSDF facilities
are identified, EPA 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
same level of the hierarchy, EPA ,
selected sites for visits strictly on the
basis of what facility could be visited
most expeditiously 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 the
Agency's technical judgement. This
judgement 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'
technology is presented by treatability
group in Section III.A.10. of this
preamble.
4. Hazardous ^Constituents Considered
and Selected for Regulation (BOAT 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 BOAT
List. This BOAT 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; (2)
there are no analytical standards
available for calibrating the instruments;
or (3) the analytical method requires the
use of an extraction solvent in which the
compound would quickly dissociate
(break down). The remaining 221
compounds comprise the BOAT List.
For certain treatability groups, the
BDAT List was then shortened because
it was unlikely that particular
constituents would be present. EPA's
rationale for shortening the BDAT 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 wastes at
significant (i.e., treatable)
concentrations. EPA does not propose to
regulate constituents where data show
that they would be effectively treated by
use of BDAT and through the regulation
of other constituents (i.e., treatment of
the regulated constituent naturally
results in 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 (or
waste code) in question.
In some cases, control of indicator
pollutants or parameters serves as a
means of assuring proper treatment
performance. EPA has documented in
the record when and why it has selected
such indicator pollutants or parameters.
5. Compliance With Performance
Standards
All of 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'level 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 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 each of these
analytical tests is used is explained in
the following discussion.
For all 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 restrictions for
solvent waste codes F001-F005 (51 FR 40572}
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
17585
uses the TCLP value as a measure of
performance. At the time that EPA
promulgated the treatment standards for
F001-F005, useful data were not available on
total constituent concentrations in treated
residuals and, as a result, the TCLP data
were considered to be the best measure of
performance.
For inorganic constituents, EPA is
using either total constituent
concentration, the TCLP, or in some
cases, both, as the basis for treatment
standards. EPA is using total constituent
concentrations 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. EPA also believes
that it is important that any remaining
metal in a treated residual waste not be
in a state that is easily leachable;
accordingly, EPA also is using the TCLP
as a measure of performance. It is
important to note that, for wastes where
treatment standards are based on a
metal recovery process, the waste has to
meet both the total constituent
concentration and the TCLP
concentration 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 the measure of
the treatment technology's performance.
The Agency's rationale is that
stabilization is not meant to reduce the
concentration of metal in a waste but
only to chemically and physically
minimize the mobility of the metals in
the waste. These are parameters
measured by the TCLP protocol.
6. Identification of BDAT
A detailed discussion of the Agency's
general methodology for establishing
BDAT standards is provided in 51FR
40572 (November 7,1986) and is not
reopened for comment here. 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 treatment standards, EPA
screened the available treatment data
for a particular-treatability group with
regard to the design and operation of the
system, the quality assurance/quality
control analyses of the data, and the
analytical tests used to assess treatment
performance. This screening step is
consistent with EPA's promulgated
approach in the November 7,1986,
rulemaking for solvent waste codes
F001-F005. 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 versus TCLP
for stabilization) as discussed earlier.
EPA was able to emphasize the design
and operation of the treatment system
for the First Third wastes because its
field tests have been modified to gather
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 obtained in
order to take into account analytical
interferences associated with the
chemical makeup of the treated sample.
For' example, a treated residual data
point of 0.2 mg/kg with an analytical
recovery of 50 percent 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 proposed
rule, the proposed BDAT consists of an
operation or series of treatment
operations which generate additional
waste residues. For example, the
proposed BDAT treatment for wastes
K101 and K102 is based on incineration
followed by metals (ash) stabilization.
Incineration generates two residues
requiring treatment, namely the ash
residues and the scrubber waters.
Treatment of the scrubber waters (to
remove metals) may generate further
additional inorganic residues which also
may require stabilization. Ultimately,,
these additional wastes may require
land disposal and must, therefore, meet
the same standards as the stabilized ash
residues. With respect to these
additional wastes, the Agency wishes to
emphasize the following points:
(1) All of the residues from treating
the original listed wastes are likewise
considered to be the listed waste by
virtue of the derived-from rule contained
in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) (this point is
discussed more fully in the subsection
below). 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 constituent
concentrations for "wastewaters" and
constituent concentrations for
"nonwastewaters". The treatment
standards apply to all of the wastes
generated in treating the original
prohibited \vaste. Thus, for example, all
solids generated from tfeating K101 and
K102 would typically have to meet the
treatment standards for nonwastewaters
and all wastewaters generated from
treating these wastes would have to
meet the treatment standards for :
wastewaters.'(For the purposes of this
rule, the Agency defines wastewaters as
those wastes, mixed wastes, or derived-
from wastes that contain less than 1%
total organic carbon (TOG) and less
than 1% filterable solids. Those wastes,
mixed wastes or derived-from wastes
that do not meet this definition are
defined as nonwastewaters. A facility is
not allowed to dilute or perform partial
treatment on a waste in order to switch
the applicability of a nonwastewater
standard to a wastewater standard or
vice, versa.) . '
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 treatment
standards are based on treatment of the
most concentrated form of the waste.
Consequently, the Agency believes that
the less concentrated wastes generated
in the course of treatment also will be,
able to be treated to meet these
standards.
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
-------
17586
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
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
(40 CFR 261.3(a](2)(iv)), or because the
listed waste is contained in the matrix
(see, e.g., 40 CFR 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. By
assuming that the values used to
establish the treatment standard exhibit
a lognormal distribution, the Agency is
allowing for a reasonable amount of
process variability in the generation and
treatment of the waste. The waste also
might be amenable to a relatively
nonvariable form of treatment
technology such as incineration. Finally,
and perhaps most important, the rules
contain a treatment variance procedure
that allows a petitioner to demonstrate
that its waste cannot be treated to the
level specified in the rule (40 CFR
2B8.44(a). 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.
c. Residues from Managing Listed
Wastes, or that Contain Listed Wastes,
are Co vered by the Prohibitions for the
Listed Waste. In response to inquiries,
EPA confirms its long-standing
interpretation that residues (leachate,
for example) that derive from treatment,
storage, or disposal of wastes that were
disposed before the effective date of the
listing are nevertheless subject to the
derived-from rule. These residues
therefore could become subject to the
land disposal ban for the listed waste
from which they derive if they are
managed actively after the effective
date of the land disposal prohibition for
the underlying waste. This result follows
from direct application of the
regulations and the statute.
First, hazardous waste listings are
retroactive—that is, once a particular
material is identified as a hazardous
waste, all of that material, no matter
when disposed, is a listed hazardous
waste (albeit, not subject to Subtitle C
regulations if in an inactive unit, and not
subject to the land ban if disposed of
before the ban effective date and not
removed or exhumed thereafter). See
CERCLA section 103(c) (owners of
inactive sites that handled hazardous
waste identified or listed by EPA, where
the identification or listing occurred
after the site was closed, must still
notify EPA of their existence); 46 FR
22146, 22149 (April 15,1981) (same);
RCRA sections 3004(d)(3), 3004(e)(3),
and 3020(b) (application of RCRA
Subtitle C requirements to listed wastes
and residues from CERCLA response
actions, most of which involve wastes
disposed of before the listing date); 50
FR 1994 (Jan. 14,1985) (listing of dioxin-
containing waste applies to waste and
residues like contaminated soil,
disposed before the listing effective
date—and before the Subtitle C
regulation effective date). Second,
residues derived-from treating, storing,
or disposing (including leaking—see, e.g.
RCRA section 1004(3) and United States
v. Waste Industries, Inc., 743 F.2d 159,
164 (4th Cir. 1983)), of these wastes are
also hazardous by virtue of the derived-
from rule.
Thus, residues from managing First
Third wastes, listed California list'
wastes, and spent solvents and dioxin
wastes are all considered to be subject
to the prohibitions for the underlying
hazardous wastes. As explained above,
this result stems directly from the
derived-from rule in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2),
or in some cases because the waste is
mixed with or otherwise contains the
listed waste. The underlying principle
stated in all of these provisions is that
.listed wastes remain hazardous until
they are delisted.
Nor is there any argument that a
residue from managing a listed waste is
not considered to be the listed waste.
For example, the Agency's historic
practice in processing delisting petitions
addressing mixed residuals has been to'
consider them to be the listed waste and
to require that delisting petitioners
address all constituents for which the
original derived-from waste (or other
mixed waste) was listed. The language
in 40 CFR 260.22(b) states that mixtures
or derived-from residues can be delisted
provided a delisting petitioner makes
the identical demonstration that a
delisting petitioner would make for the
underlying waste. These residues
consequently are treated as the
underlying listed waste for delisting
purposes. The statute likewise takes this
position, indicating that soil and debris
that are contaminated with listed spent
solvents or dioxin wastes are subject to
the prohibition for these wastes even
though these wastes are not the
originally generated waste, but rather
are a residual from the waste's
management (RCRA section 3004(e)(3)).
It is EPA's view that all such residues
are covered by the existing prohibitions
and by the treatment standards for the
listed hazardous waste that these
residues contain and from which they
are derived.
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. 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, iir
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.
EPA 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 waste
characteristic data for identifying 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 performance
data are already available, EPA then
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17587
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 and
constituent can be found in the BDAT
background documents for each waste
or waste treatability group.
9. No Land Disposal as the BDAT
Treatment Standard
EPA is proposing "no land disposal"
as BDAT for several of the First Third
wastes. This standard is analogous to
the no discharge standard established
as Best Available Technology (BAT)
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 without generating a
prohibited residue; (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 BDAT would be to indicate
that the BDAT treatment standard is a
concentration level of "0" for all
hazardous constituents. This appears to
the Agency to be a less desirable way to
proceed, given that the analytical limit
of detection is always greater than zero.
Given that technologies exist that make
land disposal unnecessary, and that "0"
really means the analytic detection limit
and not truly zero, EPA thinks that
specifying no land disposal as BDAT is
a better way of expressing its intention.
The Agency notes that it could simply
allow the statutory prohibition to take
effect (at least by May 8,1990, the date
of the absolute statutory prohibition) to
achieve the intended result of no land
disposal. The drawback with this
approach is that it allows no possibility
of granting a variance from a treatment
standard for those wastes that might not
be amenable to the BDAT treatment
technology. In the absence of a
treatment standard, a facility 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 40 CFR 268.44. This
approach would also allow the waste to
be land disposed until May 8,1990,
under the "soft hammer" of section
3004(g)(6) of RCRA. Accordingly, the
Agency believes the best way to
proceed is to establish "no land
disposal" as the treatment standard.
EPA has recently learned that some
F008, K022 and K083 wastewaters may
be disposed through underground
injection. If this is the case, the "No
Land Disposal" standard proposed for
these wastewaters would preclude
continued injection of untreated
wastewaters unless a no migration
petition had been granted. The Agency
intends to seek clarification of the
circumstances in which these wastes are
being injected underground in order to
determine whether the "No Land
Disposal" standard should be modified.
The Agency thus seeks comment on the
circumstances surrounding injection of
F006, K022 and K083 wastes, and on the
nature of the wastes being injected.
10. Waste Specific Treatment Standards
This section describes the
development of BDAT treatment
standards for all of the First Third
treatability groups covered by today's
rule. It includes tables showing the
specific constituents regulated, as well
as the treatment standards.
a. F006—Wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations
except from the following processes: (1)
Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2)
tin plating on carbon steel; [3) zinc
plating (segregated basis) on carbon
steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum
plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/
stripping associated with tin, zinc and
aluminum plating on carbon steel; and
(6) chemical etching and milling of
aluminum.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste F006 is
primarily generated by facilities in the
electroplating or metal finishing
industries. However, F006 is often
generated by many industries where
electroplating is a secondary operation.
The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 4,500 facilities that
potentially generate F006. While this
waste is generated in just about all
portions of the United States, a large
proportion of the facilities generating
F006 are located in the Midwest,
Northeast, and Southeast.
Electroplating has been broadly
defined by the Agency to include
electrodeposition of common and
precious metals, anodizing, chemical
conversion coating, electroless plating,
immersion plating, chemical etching and
milling, and printed circuit board
manufacture (51 FR 43350). The overall
process is usually conducted in a series
of baths used for various operations
such as degreasing, acid etching,
prerinsing, passivation,
electrodeposition, and/or product
rinsing. These baths often generate
wastewater streams containing metals,
metal salts, acids, alkalis, and various
bath control compounds. These
wastewater streams are typically
combined and treated to generate a
precipitated, nonwastewater residual
defined as F006. The treated wastewater
is typically discharged to a POTW or to
a surface water under a NPDES permit.
Untreated F006 wastes are typically
aqueous sludges containing up to 60% by
weight filterable solids comprised
primarily of hydroxide or sulfide salts of
the metals used in the electroplating
process. Since at different plants,
different combinations of metals are
being plated and since a variety of rinse
waters and bath solutions are mixed
and treated in the wastewater treatment
systems, concentrations of BDAT List
metals can vary widely. Wastes
identified as F006 are typically
generated as sludges that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies, Because of the
high water content of the waste,
dewatering technologies such as vacuum
filtration, plate and frame pressure
filtration, and centrifugation have been
identified as applicable technologies for
reducing the water entrained in the
waste. This generally will reduce the
volume of solid residuals that require
disposal. These technologies, however,
are merely simple physical treatment
technologies. The Agency does not
believe that such technologies provide
any significant treatment of the metals
or cyanide contained in the sludge.
Dewatering technologies are not
designed to provide chemical binding of
constituents. Thus, little reduction in
teachability of metals and/or cyanide is
achieved. However, dewatering can be
considered an applicable technology
when incorporated into a treatment
train that includes wastewater
treatment technologies such as
chromium reduction, cyanide
destruction, metals precipitation,
settling, filtration (or centrifugation),
and solidification.
The Agency has identified a few cases
where metal recovery processes for F006
wastes have been performed. The
concentrations and identity of metals in
F006 wastes vary widely depending on
the specific metals used in the plating
process. The Agency has determined
that while metal recovery processes are
applicable technologies for some F006
wastes, at this time, it has not been able
to define any particular subcategories of
F006 wastes that would be amenable to
-------
17588
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
a particular recovery process. EPA is
currently investigating F006 wastes that
are now being recovered, in order to
determine the waste characteristics that
would define these subcategories.
Specifically, EPA is investigating high
temperature metals recovery for those
F006 wastes that contain greater than
2.5% zinc. EPA solicits comments and
data that can be evaluated for this
purpose.
EPA has identified stabilization as an
applicable technology for treatment of
nonwastewater forms of F006.
Stabilization is designed to chemically
bind metal constituents of the waste into
the microstructure of a cementitious
matrix. The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilization processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that these processes do not generate
wastewater residuals. The Agency has
data that indicate that this technology is
both applicable and demonstrated for
F008. EPA does not consider
stabilization to be an applicable
technology for the treatment of cyanide.
EPA has identified alkaline
chlorination, wet air oxidation,
ozonation, electrolytic Oxidation, and
other chemical oxidation as applicable
technologies for the treatment of
cyanide contained in F006 wastes. All of
these technologies are designed to
destroy cyanide by converting it to
carbon dioxide and nitrogen gas. The
Agency is currently investigating the use
of these technologies for F006 wastes
that contain treatable quantities of
cyanide to establish that it is
demonstrated for these wastes.
3. Data Base. The Agency has nine
TCLP data points for nonwastewater
F006 (sludges) treated at a commercial
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
using a stabilization technology. Cement
kiln dust was used as the chemical
binding agent. All of the data points
appear to represent well-designed and
well-operated treatment. These data
points were used for the development of
the BDAT treatment standards for the
metal constituents.
The Agency has three TCLP data
points for nonwastewater F006 (sludges)
treated at a generator's facility using a
stabilization technology. Analysis of the
quality assurance information for this
data was incomplete at the time of this
proposal. Therefore, these data points
were not used for the development of
the BDAT treatment standards for the
metal constituents. This data is
presented in the background document
for this waste.
4. Identification of BDAT. BDAT for
nonwastewater F006 (sludges) was
determined to be stabilization for the
metal constituents. Data and
information submitted by the
commercial hazardous waste treatment
industry indicates that this technology is
being widely used throughout the United
States. EPA has determined that this
technology is both applicable and
demonstrated for nonwastewater F006
sludges. The Agency currently has no
data demonstrating any other treatment
or recycling technology for metal
constituents that would be applicable to
all F006 wastes. Stabilization is judged
to be available to treat the metal
constituents of F006 wastes because (1)
it is commercially available or can be
purchased from the technology
developer and (2) it provides a
substantial reduction in the leaching
potential of hazardous constituents.
BDAT for F006 wastes that also
contain cyanide is stabilization of the
metal constituents preceded by a
pretreatment step to destroy the
cyanide. The Agency is currently.
investigating the use of technologies
such as alkaline chlorination, wet air
oxidation, ozonation, electrolytic
oxidation, and bther chemical oxidation
as applicable technologies for F008
wastes that contain treatable quantities
of cyanide. EPA will confirm these
technologies as BDAT when this data
becomes available.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as F006 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. The Agency •
believes that regulating these
constituents will ensure that other
BDAT List constituents will be
effectively treated by the technologies
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
• achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on analyses of
leachate from the TCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters. The units
of measure for all analyses of leachate
are mg/1 (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis).
(i) Nonwastewaters. For wastes
identified as F006 nonwastewaters, EPA
is proposing to regulate twelve
constituents from the BDAT List as
indicators of effective treatment of these
wastes. Eleven of these are metal
constituents including antimony,
arsenic, barium, cadmium, total
chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
selenium, silver, and zinc. At the time of
this proposal, the Agency has not
completed its evaluation of waste
characterization and treatment
information for antimony, arsenic,
barium, selenium and cyanide.
'Therefore, as noted above, the Agency
is proposing to reserve BDAT standards
for antimony, arsenic, barium, selenium
and cyanide until this evaluation can be
completed.
(ii) Wastewaters. F006 waste is a
sludge consisting of precipitated
residues generated following treatment
of electroplating wastewaters. The
treated wastewater is typically
discharged to a POTW or to a surface
water under a NPDES permit. No
additional wastewater is typically
generated during the stabilization of
nonwastewater F006 sludges.
EPA recognizes that wastewater
forms of F006 may be generated at a
CERCLA site, during a corrective action
at a RCRA facility, as a leachate from a
landfill, or as a residual from a
treatment process such as sludge
dewatering or a process other than
stabilization (one that can achieve the
same performance). Since generation of
these types of wastewaters may occur,
the Agency is, therefore, proposing a
"treatment standard" for F006
wastewaters of "No Land Disposal". By
establishing this standard, a facility that
generates and needs to treat a
wastewater, can submit a petition to the
Agency for a variance from this
treatment standard. The Agency
believes that few, if any, petitions for a
variance will be submitted because
facilities generally will discharge these
wastewaters to a POTW or surface
water under a NPDES permit. However,
EPA solicits comments from any facility
that believes that elimination of land
disposal of these wastewaters is not
feasible and that numerical treatment
standards should be promulgated.
EPA has recently learned that some
F006 wastewaters may be disposed
through underground injection. If this is
the case, the "No Land Disposal"
standard would preclude continued ,
injection of untreated wastewaters
unless a no migration petition had been
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17589
granted. The Agency intends to seek
clarification of the circumstances in
which FOOB wastewaters are being
injected underground in order to
determine whether the "No Land
Disposal" standard should be modified.
The Agency thus seeks comment on the
circumstances surrounding injection of
F006 wastewaters, and on the types of
wastes being injected.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
[Nonwastewaters]
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
(i)
(i)
(i)
(> \
(')
(')
(i)
(i )
(')
0 )
(>)
(2)
TCLP (mg/l)
(2)
(2)
(2)
0066
3.8
071
0.53
031
(2)
0.26
0.086
(s)
1 Not applicable.
2 Reserved.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
, [Wastewaters]
NO LAND DISPOSAL
b. K001—Bottom sediment sludge from
the treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K001 is
generated by facilities in the wood
preserving industry. The Agency
estimates that there are approximately
400 facilities that have wood preserving
processes that could potentially
generate K001 waste. While this waste
can be generated in just about all
portions of the United States, a large
proportion of the facilities generating
K001 are located in the Southeast,
Northwest, and Central parts of the
United States.
The preservation of wood using
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
generates wastewaters containing
hazardous constituents present in the
preservatives. The treatment by any
means (including simple settling) of
these wastewaters generates the listed
waste K001.
Untreated K001 sludges consist of
approximately 35% soil, 20% water, and
25% total organics. The organic
constituents present in the wastes
include pentachlorophenol, creosote,
phenolics, polynuclear arbmatics, and
some nonhalogenated volatiles. These
wastes also contain less than 1% BDAT
List metals. K001 wastes are :
characterized by their high filterable
solids concentration and high organic
content. These wastes are typically
generated as sludges that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. EPA has
identified incineration in a rotary kiln
followed by stabilization of the resultant
incinerator ash as applicable
technologies for treatment of all
nonwastewater forms of K001. Rotary
kiln incinerators are designed
specifically to handle sludges, solids,
tarry wastes, and containerized liquids
that are difficult to atomize through a
liquid injector. Many rotary kiln
incinerators are also designed to
simultaneously incinerate other liquid
wastes or supplemental fuel. The
purpose of incineration is to thermally
destroy (oxidize) the organic
constituents of a waste. The Agency
recognizes that any technology such as a
fluidized bed or multiple hearth
incinerator that is designed for thermal
destruction of sludges, solids, or tarry
wastes is potentially applicable to these
wastes. However, the Agency believes
that the performance of rotary kiln
incineration attains the performance
achievable by other thermal destruction
technologies that are well designed, well
operated, and can handle sludges of this
type. These incinerators generate ash
residues that, for the purposes of BDAT,
are classified as nonwastewaters.
Scrubber waters from air pollution
control devices are often generated and
are classified as wastewaters. Both of
these residues must meet the BDAT
treatment standards.prior to placement
in land disposal units.
EPA has identified stabilization as an
applicable technology for treatment of
certain nonwastewater forms of K001.
These include precipitated residues from
the treatment of wastewaters (such as
scrubber waters), as well as ash
residues from incineration. Stabilization
is designed to chemically bind metal
constituents of the waste into the
microstructure of a cementitious matrix.
The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilisation processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that these processes do not generate
wastewater residuals.
The Agency has also identified a
wastewater treatment system as an
applicable technology for removal of
metals from wastewater residuals (such
as scrubber waters) generated during
treatment or handling.of the
nonwastewater forms of K001, followed
by stabilization of the solid wastewater
treatment residues. This wastewater
treatment system includes a chemical
precipitation step to precipitate
dissolved metals as solids followed by a
filtration step to remove these solids.
The residues of this wastewater
treatment system include the treated
wastewater and the solids that are
classified, for the purposes of BDAT, as
nonwastewaters. Further application of
a stabilization process to these solids
may be necessary in order to conform
with the BDAT treatment standards for
nonwastewaters. •
EPA has not identified any facility
currently performing incineration and
metals (ash) stabilization of K001 on a
commercial scale. However, EPA
believes this technology is demonstrated
for K001 in that it is being used to treat
wastes similar to K001. EPA has
confirmed this judgment by using a test
facility to incinerate representative
samples of K001 wastes.
3. Data Base. For K001 waste, the
Agency tested rotary kiln incineration at
two facilities. The Agency has nine data
sets for incineration of K001 waste
collected from two facilities
representing both creosote waste and
pentachlcrophenol waste. Data
collected during the testing of rotary kiln
incineration technologies show that the
treatment systems were well operated.
The treatment residuals from rotary kiln
incineration (ash and scrubber water)
are expected to contain metals in
treatable concentrations. The Agency
has data for stabilization of metals in
other incinerator ash and for chemical
precipitation of BDAT List metals in
wastewaters. '.
The Agency examined all available
treatment data for stabilization of
similar incinerator ash as well as
chemical precipitation for similar
wastewaters. These data were used to
develop treatment standards for BDAT
List metals in the treatment residuals.
4. Identification of BDAT. EPA has
determined that the treatment train
consisting of rotary kiln incineration
followed by stabilization of
nonwastewater residuals, and chemical
-------
17590
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 05r / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
precipitation of metals for wastewater
residuals from incineration, achieves a
level of performance that represents
treatment by BDAT. The Agency
believes that these technologies are
available to treat K001 because (1) these
technologies are commercially available
technologies and (2) incineration
provides substantial reduction of
organic hazardous constituents,
stabilization reduces the teachability of
metals in the nonwastewater residual,
and chemical precipitation removes
BOAT list metals from the wastewater
residual.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K001 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. The Agency
believes that regulating these
constituents will ensure that other
BDAT Idst constituents will be
effectively treated by the technologies
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for all organic
constituents are based on analyses of
total constituent concentration.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on analyses of
leachate from the TCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters and
analyses of total constituent
concentration for all wastes identified
as wastewaters. The units of measure
for all total constituent analyses are mg/
kg (or parts per million on a weight by
weight basis) for the nonwastewaters
and mg/1 (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis) for
wastewaters. The units of measure for
all analyses of leachate are mg/1 (or
parts per million on a weight by volume
basis).
The Agency has recently become
aware that data exist that indicate the
presence of trace levels of
polychlorinated dibenzofurans and
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins in some
K001 wastes. At the time of this
proposal, EPA has not completed its
evaluation of these data and thus, defers
its decision to regulate these
constituents as indicators of BDAT
performance until after this evaluation
can be completed.
(i) Nonwastewaters. For wastes
identified as K001 nonwastewaters, EPA
is proposing to regulate six BDAT List
organic constituents as indicators of
effective incineration of these wastes.
These include naphthalene,
pentachlprophenol, phenanthrene,
pyrene, toluene, and xyleries. EPA is
also proposing to regulate three metal
constituents, copper, lead and zinc, as
indicators of effective stabilization of
these wastes (based on data from the
stabilization of the ash from
incineration). EPA's proposed standard
for pentachlorbphenol is the result of a
relatively high analytical quantitation
limit observed for this particular K001
waste. EPA solicits data reflecting the
quantitation limits attainable in other
K001 wastes.
(ii) Wastewaters. For wastes
identified as K001 wastewaters; EPA is
proposing to'regulate the same six
BDAT List organic constituents as
indicators of effective destruction of
organics in the combustion unit, thus
preventing accumulation of organics in
scrubber waters. EPA is also proposing
to regulate copper, lead and zinc as
indicators of effective precipitation of
metal constituents from these scrubber
waters. *.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K001
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol.;.
Phenanthrene .
Pyrene
Xylenes I
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
7.98
36.75
7.98
7.28
0.143
0.162
0)
0)
(')
TCLP (mg/l)
<*)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(l)
0.71
0.53
0.086
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K001
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Naphthalene ; , .
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene '. :
Pyrene..
Toluene
Xylenes I
Copper ^
Lead
Zinc
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.148
0.875
0.148
0.140
0.143
0.161
0.42
0.037
1.0
TCLP (mg/l)
(r)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
0)
(')
» Not applicable.
c. K022—Distillation bottom tars from
the production of phenol/acetone from
cumene.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K022 is
generated by facilities in the organic
chemicals manufacturing industry. The
Agency estimates that there are eight •
facilities that have this specific
production process that could
potentially generate K022 waste. These
are located in the Eastern, Central, and
Southern parts of the United States.
The cumene hydroperoxide process
used in manufacturing acetone and
phenol from cumene involves: (1)
Oxidation of cumene to a concentrated
cumene hydroperoxide; (2) acid
cleavage of the hydroperoxide to phenol
and acetone along with a variety of
other products (e.g., cumylphenols,
acetophenone, dimethylphenylcarbinol,
and alpha methylstyrene); (3)
neutralization of the cleaved products
with sodium hydroxide or other suitable
base or with ion-exchange resins; and
(4) separation of the phenol and acetone
using a series of distillation columns.
The still bottoms from the distillation
columns are RCRA waste K022.
As initially generated, K022 wastes
are still bottoms that are typically
pumped directly from the distillation
unit as viscous organic liquids, while
they remain hot. Upon cooling, the
viscosity of the waste will increase and
K022 can become tarry and viscous. It
can be kept fluidized by mixing it with
various light hydrocarbons, waste
olefinic oils or solvents. If not fluidized
or kept hot, the waste will eventually
harden into an organic solid. K022
consists primarily of partially
polymerized phenolics. Major
constituents include acetophenone,
phenol, and cumyl phenol. A total
carbon content of approximately 82-93%
makes the waste an excellent fuel
substitute with a very high heat content
reported as high as 35,300 BTU per
pound. A low ash content and a low
chlorine content are further indications
of its usefulness as a fuel substitute.
BDAT List organic constituents reported
in significant concentrations are
acetophenone, and phenol. Two other
BDAT list constituents also were
identified in the raw waste from one
plant but were claimed as confidential
business information. Wastes identified
as K022 are typically generated as still
bottoms that, for the purposes of BDAT,
are classified as nonwastewaters.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. EPA has
identified fuel substitution and liquid
injection incineration as applicable
technologies for treatment of BDAT List
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17591
organics contained in nonwastewater
K022 wastes. Fuel substitution involves
the use of combustible organic wastes
as substitutes for conventional fuels
burned in high temperature industrial
processes. In order for a waste to be a
good candidate for a fuel substitute, the
waste must have a reasonably high
concentration of organic chemicals with
sufficient heat content (BTU per pound).
It must also have relatively low
concentrations of noncombustible
• materials such as ash, water, metals,
and chlorine. Fuel substitution, as a
treatment process, has the same purpose
as incineration; to thermally destroy
(oxidize) the organic constituents of a
waste. The Agency believes that burning
of K022 in a well designed and well
operated high temperature industrial
boiler or kiln attains the performance
achievable by other thermal destruction
units such as liquid injection
incinerators. These thermal destruction
units often generate ash residues that,
for the purposes of BDAT, are classified
as nonwastewaters. Scrubber waters
from air pollution control devices are
not typically generated from the units
using K022 as a fuel substitute. If they
were generated, they would be
classified as wastewaters. Both of these
residues, if generated, must meet the
BDAT treatment standards prior to
placement in land disposal units.
EPA has identified stabilization as an
applicable technology for treatment of
BDAT List metals contained in the
inorganic nonwastewater forms of K022.
These include precipitated residues from
the treatment of wastewaters (mixed
with or derived from K022 wastes), as
well as ash residues from incineration.
Stabilization is designed to chemically
bind metal constituents of the waste into
the microstructure of a cementitious
matrix. The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize fee metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilization processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that these processes do not generate
wastewater residuals.
The Agency has determined that six
of the eight facilities that generate K022
are subsequently using the waste as a
fuel substitute. The Agency has data
that indicate incineration can achieve
treatment levels similar to these fuel
substitution processes on wastes with
similar waste characteristics. Therefore,
the Agency has determined that both
fuel substitution and incineration are
demonstrated for K022 nonwastewaters.
3. Data Base, For waste code K022,
the Agency has treatment data from two
facilities using fuel substitution. EPA
has twelve untreated and treated data
points.
4. Identification ofBDA T. EPA has
determined that fuel substitution
followed by metals (ash) stabilization
and metals precipitation of scrubber
water achieves a performance level that
represents the best demonstrated
available treatment technology (BDAT)
for nonwastewater forms of K022. While
no specific data are available on
incineration of K022 in a rotary kiln,
EPA believes that it would achieve the
same level of performance as fuel
substitution. This treatment system is
judged to be available to treat K022
because (1) the treatment system is
commercially available and (2) the
system provides a substantial reduction
in the concentration of BDAT List
organic constituents in K022.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K022 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. The Agency
believes that regulating these
constituents will ensure that other
BDAT List constituents will be
effectively treated by the technologies
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for all organic
constituents are based on analyses of
total constituent concentration.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on analyses of
leachate from the TCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters and
analyses of total constituent
concentration for all wastes identified
as wastewaters. The units of measure
for all total constituent analyses are mg/
kg (or parts per million on a weight by
weight basis) for the nonwastewaters
and mg/1 (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis) for
wastewaters. The units of measure for
all analyses of leachate are mg/1 (or
parts per million on a weight by volume
basis).
(i) Nonwastewaters. For wastes
identified as K022 nonwastewaters, EPA
is proposing to regulate eight
constituents from the BDAT List as
indicators of effective treatment of these
wastes. These include toluene,
acetophenone, phenol, diphenylamine,
diphenyl nitnosamine, sulfide, nickel and
total chromium. The standard for
diphenylamine and diphenylnitrosamine
is listed as the sum of these constituents. •
This is necessary because the two
compounds cannot be distinguished
using EPA's standard analytical testing
procedure. At the time of this proposal,
the Agency has not completed its
evaluation of waste characterization
and treatment data for sulfide.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
reserve a standard for sulfide until this
evaluation cain be completed.
A sample of untreated ash from the
burning of K022 as a fuel substitute was
analyzed for isomers of chlorinated
dibenzofurans and chlorinated
dibenzodioxLns. A trace amount (parts
per trillion) of tetrachlorodibenzofurans
(TCDF) was detected in this sample.
This amount was determined to be
below the typlical BDAT quantitation
level for these compounds. Therefore,
the Agency is. not proposing a treatment
standard for TCDF. The Agency is
currently reexamining the validity of the
quantification of this analysis. K022
wastes do not typically have any
chlorinated o:rganics that could be the
source or precursor of the TCDF. The
Agency is investigating potential
mechanisms lor its formation due to the
presence of other chlorinated organics in
the wastes that were blended with the
K022.
(ii) Wastewaters. No scrubber waters
are typically generated during the use of
nonwastewater K022 as a fuel
substitute. No additional wastewater is
typically generated during the
stabilization of the resultant ash
residues. EPA recognizes that
wastewater forms of K022 may be
generated at a CERCLA site, during a
corrective action at a RCRA facility, as
a leachate from a landfill, or as a
residual from an incineration process
that does generate a scrubber water.
Since generation of these types of
wastewaters may occur, the Agency is
therefore, proposing a "treatment
standard" for K022 wastewaters of "No
Land Disposal". By establishing this
standard, a facility that generates and
needs to treat a wastewater, can submit
a petition to the Agency for a variance
from this treatment standard. The
Agency believes that few petitions for a
-------
17592
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
variance will be submitted. However,
EPA solicits comments from facilities
that believe that land disposal of K022
wastewaters is unavoidable.
EPA has recently learned that some
K02Z wastewaters may be disposed
through underground injection. If this is
the case, the "No Land Disposal"
standard would preclude continued
Injection of untreated wastewaters
unless a no migration petition had been
granted. The Agency intends to seek
clarification of the circumstances in
which K022 wastewaters are being
injected underground in order to
determine whether the "No Land
Disposal" standard should be modified.
The Agency thus seeks comment on the
circumstances surrounding injection of
K022 wastewaters, and on the types of
wastes being injected.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K022
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Acotophonono
Phono) ..«.,. i«. «
Toluono
Sum of diphenylamine
and
diphonyln.trosamina ..
Sullido
Chromium (Total)
Nickol
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
19.0
12.0
0.034
13.0
Re-
served
(')
(')
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
n
0)
0)
3.4
0.25
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K022
[Wastewaters]
[No land disposal]
d. K048—Wastewater treatment
sludges from the manufacturing,
formulation, and loading of lead based
initiating compounds.
1, Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K046 is
generated by facilities in the explosives ,
manufacturing industry. The Agency
estimates that there are approximately
150 facilities that have processes that
could potentially generate treatment
sludges identified as K046.
Approximately 35 of these are
government owned military facilities.
While these wastes are generated in just
about all portions of the United States, a
large proportion of the nonmilitary
facilities are located in California, Utah,
Missouri and Pennsylvania and the
military facilities are located primarily
in Tennessee, Wisconsin, Virginia and
Illinois.
Wastewaters are produced during
various stages in the manufacture and
formulation of lead-based initiating
compounds [ones that initiate other
explosives] and during the fabrication of
these compounds into finished products
(such as ammunition). These
wastewaters are contaminated with
these initiating compounds and with
other feedstock chemicals. The
wastewater is treated by boiling and/or
addition of caustic to decompose
residual explosive material. A sludge is
generated from this wastewater
treatment and is identified as the listed
waste K046. |
K046 wastewater treatment "sludges"
are typically generated as a fluid
mixture consisting of approximately 95%
by weight water and total organic
carbon content of approximately 460
ppm. The primary BDAT List constituent
in K046 is lead. Wastes identified as
K046 are typically generated as sludges
that, for the purposes of BDAT, are
classified as nonwastewaters.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. EPA has
identified stabilization as an applicable
technology for treatment of
nonwastewater forms of K046.
Stabilization is designed to chemically
bind metal constituents of the waste into
the microstructure of a cementitious
matrix. The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilization processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that these processes do not generate
wastewater residuals.
EPA has not identified any facility
currently performing stabilization of
K046 on a commercial scale. EPA
believes stabilization is demonstrated
for K046, in that, it is being used to treat
wastes that EPA believes have
treatability characteristics similar to
K046. EPA has confirmed this judgment
by using a test facility to stabilize this
waste.
3. Data Base. The Agency has ten
data sets for K0^6 nonwastewaters.
Data were collected by the EPA at a
single test facility that employs
stabilization using various binder
materials. The ten data points for K046
waste were obtained using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure and
appear to represent proper design and
operation. These data points were
considered in the development of the
treatment standards for K046.
4. Identification ofBDA T. EPA has
determined that the performance
achieved by stabilization represents
treatment by BDAT. The Agency
performed an analysis of variance test
for TCLP performance levels achieved
by stabilization using three different
binder materials: Portland cement, kiln
dust, and lime/flyash. The results show
that stabilization using Portland cement
binder provides significantly better
reduction with regard to the
concentrations of metals in the leachate
than the other two binder materials
tested. Stabilization is judged to be
available to treat K046 because (1) the
treatment system is commercially
available and (2) the system provides a
substantial reduction in the leachable
levels of BDAT List metals present in
the K046 wastes.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K046 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. The Agency
believes that regulating these
constituents will ensure that other
BDAT List constituents will be
effectively treated by the technologies
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on analyses of
leachate from theJTCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters. The units
of measure for all analyses of leachate
are mg/l (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis).
(i). Nonwastewaters. For wastes
identified as K046 nonwastewaters, EPA
is proposing to regulate only lead as an
indicator of effective treatment of these
wastes. The Agency is also proposing a
treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal" for K046 nonwastewaters that
are explosive. If a K046 waste is
explosive and remains explosive after
treatment by solidification it should
meet the same requirements as the
explosive wastes identified as K044,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
17593
K045 and K047. The Agency specifically
requests comments on this approach.
(ii) Wastewaters, No additional
wastewater is typically generated
during the stabilization of
nonwastewater K046 sludges. EPA
recognizes that wastewater forms of
K046 may be generated at a CERCLA
site, during a corrective action at a
RCRA facility, as a leachate from a
landfill, or as a residual from dewatering
or a treatment process other than
stabilization (one that can achieve the
same performance). Since generation of
these types of wastewaters may occur,
the Agency is therefore, proposing a
"treatment standard" for K046
wastewaters of "No Land Disposal". By
establishing this standard, a facility that
generates and needs to treat a
wastewater, can submit a petition to the
Agency for a variance from this
treatment standard. The Agency
believes that few, if any, petitions for a
variance will be submitted because
these wastewaters usually will be
discharged to a POTW or to surface
waters following treatment to meet
NPDES requirements.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Lead
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
(l)
TCLP (mg/l)
0.176
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
[Wastewaters and Explosive NonwastewatersJ
No Land Disposal
e. K083—Distillation bottoms from
aniline production.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K083 is
generated by facilities in the organic
chemicals manufacturing industry. The
Agency estimates that there are six
facilities that have this specific
production process that could
potentially generate K083 waste.
Aniline is produced almost
exclusively by the vapor-phase
reduction of nitrobenzene in the
presence of a copper catalyst. In a
typical process, nitrobenzene is
vaporized and fed with excess hydrogen
into a reactor. The crude product
mixture leaving the reactor consists
primarily of aniline, water, hydrogen
and some unreacted nitrobenzene. This
mixture is condensed to separate the
aniline/water mixture from the
hydrogen gas stream. The two-phase
aniline/water mixture is then separated
in a decanter and the aniline phase is
purified by a two-stage distillation
process. The heavy ends from the
distillation process is the listed waste
K083,
Untreated K083 wastes are viscous
organic liquids consisting of 45 to 85%
by weight of a mixture of aniline,
diphenylamine, nitrobenzene,
phenylenediamine, and benzene. It also
contains approximately 15 to 55% by
weight of other unidentified organics.
The BDAT List organic constituents of
concern include aniline,
. phenylenediamine, diphenylamine,
nitrobenzene and benzene. The heat
content of the waste is approximately
„ 13,500 BTU per pound.,The total organic
halogen content of K083 has been
reported to range from 0.03 to 0.3% (as
Chlorine). Copper is the only metal
anticipated to be present and has been
measured at 2.5 ppm.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technology. The Agency has
identified liquid injection incineration
and fuel substitution as applicable
technologies for the nonwastewater
forms of K083. These technologies have
been selected due to the high heat (BTU)
content, the low halogen content, the
low metal content, and the fact that the
waste can be handled as a liquid.
EPA has identified fuel substitution as
an applicable technology for treatment
of liquid forms of nonwastewater K083.
Fuel substitution involves the use of
combustible organic wastes as
substitutes for conventional fuels
burned in high temperature industrial
processes. In order for a waste to be a
good candidate for a fuel substitute, the
waste must have reasonably high
concentrations of organic chemicals in
order to have sufficient heat content. It
must also have relatively low
concentrations of noncombustible
materials such as ash, water, metals,
and chlorine. Fuel substitution, as a
treatment process, has the same purpose
as-incineration; to thermally destroy
(oxidize) the organic constituents of a
waste. The Agency believes that burning
of K083 in a well designed and well
operated high temperature industrial
boiler or kiln attains the performance
achievable by other thermal destruction
units such as liquid incinerators. Ash
residues and scrubber waters are not
typically generated using these fuel
substitution processes.
EPA has identified incineration in
units with liquid injection as an
applicable technology for treatment of
nonwastewater forms of K083. Many
incinerators are designed specifically to
handle only Liquid wastes, while others
are designed to handle both liquids and
solids (or sludges). The purpose of
incineration is to thermally destroy
(oxidize) the organic constituents bf a
waste. The Agency recognizes that any
technology that is designed for thermal
destruction of liquids is potentially
applicable to these wastes. However,
the Agency believes that the
performance of liquid injection
incinerators attains the performance
achievable by other thermal destruction
technologies that are well designed and
well operated. While many liquid
incinerators generate ash residues and
scrubber water residues, the Agency
believes that all of the facilities that
currently incinerate K083 or use K083 as
a fuel substitute are not generating
either of these residue types.
Liquid injection incineration has been
demonstrated: on a commercial basis for
the treatment of K083 at two of the
facilities that generate K083. Fuel
substitution in a steam boiler has been
demonstrated on a commercial basis at
one of the facilities that generates K083.
3. DataBase. The Agency visited one
facility that employs liquid injection
incineration as a treatment for the listed
waste K083, According to plant
personnel, no residual ash or scrubber
wastewaters are generated from this
treatment technology. The analyses of
the ash content of untreated K083
confirmed that no ash could be detected
below the limit of 0.01% by weight. This
facility did not have a vent scrubber or
other pollution control device on the
liquid injection incinerator and,
therefore, did not generate any scrubber
water.
4. Identification of BDAT. EPA has
determined that the performance
achieved by liquid injection incineration
or fuel substitution represents treatment
by BDAT. EPA has determined that
liquid injection incineration of K063 can
be accomplished without generating any
residuals, either ash or scrubber water.
Therefore, the level of performance
achieved by liquid injection incineration
obviously cannot be improved upon.
Liquid injection incineration has been
demonstrated on s commercial basis.
The Agency also believes this
technology is available because: (1) This.
technology is commercially available or
can be purchased from a proprietor and
(2) this technology achieves substantial.
reduction of the hazardous organic
constituents present in waste K083. Fuel
substitution of K083 is also considered
by the Agency to be BDAT. Fuel
substitution has been demonstrated on a
commercial basis.
-------
17594
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95!/ Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The Agency is
proposing that, since no residuals are
anticipated from the use of either BDAT
technology, the BDAT "treatment
standard" for wastes identified as K083
is "No Land Disposal". The Agency
recognizes that the possibility exists
that these wastes may be generated at a
CERCLA site, during a corrective action
at a RCRA facility, or from the use of a
treatment technology that does produce
a residual. Dy establishing the standard
as "No Land Disposal", a facility that
does generates a treatment residual, can
submit a petition to the Agency for a
variance from this treatment standard.
The Agency believes that few petitions
for a variance will be submitted.
EPA strongly urges facilities that have
K083 wastes that they believe will
generate a treatment residual, to
comment on this rule. Specifically,
comments should provide the following:
(1) Reasons why the K083 waste
generated at their site is believed to be
different than the waste described in
this preamble; (2) a description of the
treatment technology currently being
used to treat the K083 generated at their
site; and (3) analytical data, including
analyses for total constituents, on the
residuals (either ash or scrubber water)
that are generated by the treatment
technology.
EPA has recently learned that some
K083 wastewaters may be disposed
through underground injection. If this is
the case, the "No Land Disposal"
standard would preclude continued
injection of untreated wastewaters
unless a no migration petition had been
granted. The Agency intends to seek
clarification of the circumstances in
which K083 wastewaters are being
injected underground in order to
determine whether the "No Land
Disposal" standard should be modified.
The Agency thus seeks comment on the
circumstances surrounding injection of
K083 wastewaters, and on the types of
wastes being injected.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
CfJonwastewaters and Wastewaters]
No Land Disposal
f. K086—Solvent washes and sludges,
caustic washes and sludges, or water
washes and sludges from the cleaning
tubs and equipment used in the
formulation of ink from pigments, driers,
soaps, and stabilizers containing
chromium and lead.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K086 is
generated by facilities in the ink
formulation industry. The Agency
estimates that there are approximately
460 facilities that formulate ink and may
potentially generate K086 waste. While
this waste can be generated in just
about all portions of the United States, a
large proportion of the facilities
generating K086 are located in
California, New Jersey, and in states
surrounding the Great Lakes.
By definition K086 wastes can be from
one of three major subcategories
(depending on the material used for
washing). These are: (1) Solvent washes;
(2) solvent sludges; and (3) caustic/
water washes and sludges. However,
EPA is not establishing treatment
standards at this time for the latter two
subcategories. Thus, the discussion that
follows relates only to the solvent
washes subcategory. K086 solvent
washes can also vary depending upon
which solvent is used to clean the ink
formulating equipment. The principal
solvents used include acetone, n-butyl
alcohol, cyclohexanone, 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, ethyl acetate, ethyl
benzene, methanol, methyl isobutyl
ketone, methyl [ethyl ketone, methylene
chloride, naphthalene, nitrobenzene,
toluene, 1,1,1,-trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, and xylenes. It is
important to note that some of these
solvents also fall under the F001-F005
solvent listings. In such cases, the
treatment standards for the F001-F005
wastes that were promulgated in
November, 1986, are already in effect. It
should be noted, however, that
elsewhere in this notice, the Agency is
proposing to modify one of the solvent
standards. This change is not expected
to impact the standards applicable to
ink formulators.
For the purposes of investigating
BDAT. the solvent washes subcategory
js defined as those K086 wastes which
are derived from processes which have
used any of the following chemicals as a
solvent: Acetone, n-butyl alcohol,
cyclohexanone, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl
ketone, methylene chloride,
naphthalene, nitrobenzene, toluene,
1,1,1,-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
and/or xylenes.
The solvent washes usually contain
relatively high concentrations of the
cleaning solvents used and low
concentrations of solids. The solvent
sludges contain relatively high
concentrations of solids. This difference
in solids content changes the
applicability of the type of incineration
unit or fuel substitution unit that would
be necessary to destroy the organic
constituents in the waste.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. EPA has
identified fuel substitution as an
applicable technology for treatment of
K086 solvent washes. Fuel substitution
involves the use-ol; combustible organic
wastes as substitutes for conventional
fuels burned in high temperature
industrial processes. In order for a
waste to be a good candidate for a fuel
substitute, the waste must have a
reasonably high concentration of
organic chemicals in order to have
sufficient heat content. It must also have
relatively low concentrations of
noncombustible materials such as ash,
water, metals, and chlorine. Fuel
substitution, as a treatment process, has
the same purpose as incineration; to
thermally destroy (oxidize) the organic
constituents of a waste. The Agency
believes that burning of K086 as a fuel in
a well designed and well operated high
temperature industrial boiler or kiln
attains the performance achievable by
other thermal destruction units such as
liquid incinerators. Any treatment
residues generated from the use of these
fuel substitution processes must meet
the BDAT treatment standards prior to
placement in land disposal units.
Batch distillation and fractional
distillation can be used to separate
components having different boiling
points. Distillation technologies can be
used to recover solvents from the
solvent washes subcategory. These
technologies reduce the amount of
material to be treated; nevertheless, the
bottoms from this process would require
treatment by incineration prior to land
disposal.
EPA has identified incineration in
units with liquid injection as an
applicable technology for K086 solvent
washes as well as incineration in a
rotary kiln. Liquid injection incinerators
are designed to only handle liquid
wastes. Rotary kiln incinerators are
designed specifically to handle sludges,
solids, tarry wastes, and containerized
liquids but, simultaneously can also
incinerate injected liquid wastes. The
purpose of all incineration is to
thermally destroy (oxidize) the organic
constituents of a waste. The Agency
recognizes that any technology such as a
fluidized bed or multiple hearth
incinerator that is designed for thermal
destruction is potentially applicable to
these wastes. However, the Agency
believes that the performance of liquid
injection incinerators attains the
performance achievable by other
thermal destruction technologies that
are well designed and well operated. For
the purposes of BDAT, any solid ash
residues are classified as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
17595
nonwastewaters. Scrubber waters from
air pollution control devices are
classified as wastewaters. Both of these
residues must meet the BDAT treatment
standards for the ,K086 solvent washes
subcategory prior to placement in land
disposal units.
EPA has determined that the
applicable technology for scrubber
waters is a wastewater treatment
system that includes a hexavalent
chromium reduction step to convert any
hexavalent chromium to the trivalent
state and a chemical precipitation step
to precipitate dissolved metals as solids
followed by a filtration step to remove
these solids. The residues of this
wastewater treatment system include
the treated wastewater and the solids
that are classified, for the purposes of
BDAT, as nonwastewaters. Further
application of a stabilization process to
these solids may be necessary in order
to conform with the BDAT treatment
standards for K086 nonwastewaters.
EPA has identified stabilization as an
applicable technology for treatment of
K086 nonwastewater residues that do
not meet the BDAT standards for K086.
These include precipitated residues from
the treatment of K086 scrubber waters,
as well as ash residues which may be
potentially generated from either
incineration or fuel siibtitution. •
Stabilization is designed to chemically
bind metal constituents of the waste into
the mjcrostructure of a cementitious
matrix. The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilization processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are considered
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that the majority of these processes do
not generate residuals that are
considered wastewaters.
3. Data Base. The Agency's preference
is for total recycling for the K086 solvent
washes. However, residues from batch
distillation are still bottoms that need
additional treatment (i.e., incineration
and stabilization) prior to land disposal.
Therefore, the Agency tested
incineration for treatment of the K086
solvent washes subcategory.
At an EPA testing facility, K086
wastes from the solvent washes
subcategory were incinerated in a rotary
kiln/liquid injection incinerator. The
data were collected by EPA at its in-
house facility. Operating data collected
during the treatment test show that the
facility was properly operated during
the time that the waste was being
treated. Treatment standards for the
BDAT List metals are being transferred
from wastewater metals treatment data
for similar wastes that have been
previously developed by the Agency.
4. Identification of BDAT. Incineration
is demonstrated for treatment of BDAT
List organics in K086 solvent washes.
The resultant quench waters or scrubber
waters are, for the purposes of BDAT,
classified as wastewaters. Treatment for
the removal of BDAT metals contained
by these wastewaters will result in a
sludge, which for the purposes of BDAT,
are classified as nonwastewaters.
Further details regarding BDAT
development and data transfer are
provided in the Background Document
for this waste code.
Incineration of BDAT List organics
contained in the solvent washes
generated a scrubber water that
contained BDAT List Metals. EPA does
not have treatment data specifically for
treatment of this scrubber water. The
Agency does have performance data on
a metal bearing wastewater judged to be
similar to the K086 scrubber water.
These data consist of eleven data points
from one facility using chromium
reduction followed by lime precipitation
and sludge filtration. The BDAT List
metals contained by the solid residual
generated from this treatment system
did not require further treatment
because TCLP leachate concentrations
were not found at treatable levels.
These technologies are judged to be
available to treat these wastes because:
(1) They are commercially available or
can be purchased from a proprietor and
(2) they provide substantial reduction of
the concentration of hazardous
constituents released into the
environment.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. As noted above,
the Agency is not, at this time, proposing
treatment standards for K086 wastes in
(1) the solvent sludges subcategory or
(2) the caustic/water washes and
sludges subcategory. Since no standards
are being proposed for these
subcategories, the "soft hammer"
provisions apply.'
For the purposes of proposing BDAT
treatment standards, the solvent washes
subcategory is defined as those K086
wastes which are derived from
processes which have used any of the
following chemicals as a solvent:
Acetone, n-butyl alcohol,
cyclohexanone, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl
ketone, methylene chloride,
naphthalene, nitrobenzene, toluene,
1,1,1,-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
and/or xylenes. These solvents are
chemicals on the BDAT List that are
typically used in rinsing inks and could
become KO£I6 wastes.
The proposed regulated constituents
and BDAT treatment standards for
wastes identified as K086 in the solvent
washes subcategory are listed in the
tables at the end of this section. The
Agency believes that regulating these
constituents! will ensure that other
BDAT List constituents will be
controlled by the technologies,
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented; in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for all organic
constituents are based on analyses of
total constituent concentration.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on analyses of
leachate from the TCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters and
analyses of total constituent
concentration for all wastes identified
as wastewaters. The units of measure
for all total constituent analyses are mg/
kg (or parts per million on a weight by
weight basis) for the nonwastewaters
and mg/1 (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis) for
wastewaters. The units of measure for
all analyses of leachate are mg/1 {or
parts per million on a weight by volume
basis).
The Agency has data that suggests
that approximately sixteen different
BDAT List solvents could be used to
clean ink formulating equipment. EPA is
concerned that regulation of only the
solvents that were found in the tested
waste matrix would present an
incentive to simply switch to the use of
other solvents. For this reason, EPA is
proposing to regulate all sixteen BDAT
List solvents. EPA transferred the
performance data achieved for some of
these sixteen solvents from performance
data for other solvents that had similar
physical and chemical properties. The
Agency believes that the solvents that
have been determined to be similar, can
be incinerated to the same treatment
concentrations. Details on the transfer
of standards can be found in the BDAT
Background Document for this waste
code. EPA solicits comments on this
transfer of performance data. The
-------
17596 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
comments should provide data that
document that the proposed BDAT
treatment standards are not achievable.
For wastes identified as K086
nonwastewaters and wastewaters in the
solvent washes subcategory, EPA is
proposing to regulate seventeen organic
constituents and two metal constituents
from the BDAT List as indicators of
effective treatment of these wastes.
These include acetone, n-butyl alcohol,
ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl
ketone, methylene chloride, toluene,
1,1,1,-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
xylene8,bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
cyclohexanone, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
naphthalene, nitrobenzene, total
chromium, and lead.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K086
[Nonwastewaters; soivent washes subcategory]
Constituent
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol „
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Mothanol
Methyl isobutyl
ketone
Mothyl ethyl ketorte
Methylene chloride —
Toluone ...«..,«.»...«
1,1,1-Trichtofoethane ...
Trichloroathytene
Xylones «...»..
Ks(2-
othylhoxyljphthatate..
Cyclohexanone . —
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ....
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Chromium (Total)..-
Lead
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.031
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.037
0.031,
0.044
0.031
0.015
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
(')
('),
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
0)
(')
(')
(')
0)
(')
0)
(')
(')
0)
(')
0.094
0.37
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KQ86
[Wastewaters; solvent washes subcategory 1
Constituent
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol .....
Ethyl benzene ....
Mothanol — ....
Mothyl isobutyl ketone..
Methyl ethyl ketona —
MethytortQ chloride
Toluene ««
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ....
TrichtoroBthytone
b:s(2-
ethylhexyQphthalate...
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.015
0.031
0.031
0.015
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.029
0.031
0.029
0.015
0.044
TCLP (mg/l)
C1)
0)
0)
0)
(*)
('
(>
('
('
('
0
«')
C)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K086—Continued
[Wastewaters; solvent washes subcategory]
Constituent
Cyclohexanone
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Chromium (Total) J.
Lead
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.022
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.32
0.037
TOP (mg/l)
(l)
(')
(')
0)
(')
(')
1 Not applicable. ,
g. K087—Decanter tank tar sludge
from coking operations.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description, The listed waste K087 is
generated by facilities in the coking
industry. The Agency estimates that
there are 36 facilities that have coking
plants with decanter tanks and,
therefore, could potentially generate
K087 waste. The majority of these
facilities are located in the Eastern
United States!
In the production of coke, gases
evolved from the coke ovens are
collected and subsequently cooled. The
condensates and any entrained
particulates are channeled to a decanter
tank where tar products and ammonia
liquor are separated. The heavy residue
(sludge) that settles to the bottom of the
tank is K087 waste.
K087 waste generally contains from
six to eleven percent water and 89 to 94
percent organic compounds, up to
twenty percent of which are BDAT List
semivolatile organics. The principal
BDAT List metals present are arsenic,
lead, copper, arid zinc; the maximum
concentrations for these metals
measured in these wastes are 6, 85, 5,
and 66 ppm, respectively. The waste, a
viscous semisolid tar, has a heating
value of approximately 15,000 Btu/lb.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. EPA has
identified fuel substitution and rotary
kiln incineration as applicable
technologies for treatment of K087
nonwastewaters. Fuel substitution
involves the use of combustible organic
wastes as substitutes for conventional
fuels burned in high temperature
industrial processes. In order for a
waste to be a ;good candidate for a fuel
substitute, the waste must have a
reasonably high concentration of
organic chemicals with sufficient heat
content (BTU per pound). It must also
have relatively low concentrations of
noncombustible materials such as ash,
water, metalsi and chlorine. Fuel
substitution, as a treatment process, has
the same purpose as incineration; to
thermally destroy (oxidize) the organic
constituents of a waste. The Agency
believes that burning of K087 in a well
designed and well operated high
temperature industrial furnace or kiln
attains the performance achievable by
other thermal destruction units such as
rotary kiln incinerators. These thermal
destruction units often generate ash
residues that, for the purposes of BDAT,
are classified as nonwastewaters.
Scrubber waters, from air pollution
control devices of units using K087 as a
fuel substitute, generally contain less
than 1% TOG and less than 1% filterable
solids and, therefore, are classified as
wastewaters for the purposes of BDAT.
Both of these residues must meet the
BDAT treatment standards prior to
placement in land disposal units.
Total recycling has been identified as
a potentially applicable technology for
K087 wastes. Total recycling involves
treating the K087 waste for (1) reuse in
the coke ovens or (2) production of a
commercial tar product. Treatment prior
to reuse frequently involves mixing the
waste with a flushing liquor, grinding in
a ball mill, and mixing the milled
material with coal. This K087/coal
mixture is fed back to the coke ovens for
coke production. Alternatively, the
waste may be added to hot tar, ground
in a ball mill, and packaged as a
saleable product. At this time, however,-
EPA has little data available to define
which K087 materials can be benefically
recycled. Specific data were submitted
by the American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI) to the EPA with respect to the
practice of recycling K087 wastes (See
Wednesday, May 6,1987, FR17019 and
17020). These data characterize the final
products (e.g. coal tar and coke) that
result from recycling of K087 and from
processing that did not involve
recycling. Only one data point from AISI
characterized the raw K087 decanter tar
sludge. Therefore, the Agency solicits
comments and data to assist in
definition of K087 wastes that can be
recycled.
Wastewater residuals are generated
by some of the technologies that are
designated as applicable to the
nonwastewater forms of K087. The
applicable technology for these
wastewaters is a wastewater treatment
system that includes a chemical
precipitation step to remove metals from
solution and precipitate them as a solid
residue and a filtration step to remove
these solids'. This wastewater treatment
system results in a solid residue that
generally contains greater than 1%
filterable solids and is considered, for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17597
the purposes of BDAT, a
nonwastewater. This solid residue must
conform with the treatment standards
for nonwastewaters. As described
below, further application of a
stabilization process to this residue may
be necessary in order to meet the BDAT
standards for metals proposed for
nonwastewaters. •
EPA has identified stabilization as an
applicable technology for treatment of
BDAT List metals constituents in the
nonwastewater K087 wastes identified
as treatment residuals. These
nonwastewaters include precipitated
residues from the treatment of
wastewaters forms of K087, and ash
residues from incineration or fuel
subtitution of'K087, and any other
nonwastewaters resulting from the
."mixture" or,"derived-from" rules.
Stabilization is designed to chemically
bind metal constituents of the waste into
the niicrostructure of a cementitious
matrix. The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilization processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that these processes do not generate
wastewater residuals.
All of the applicable technologies for
BDAT List organics in K087 waste are
demonstrated. Data submitted by
industry indicate that recycling and fuel
substitution are commonly practiced.
EPA has identified seven facilities that
use recycling and one facility that uses
fuel substitution, and believes many
other facilities also use these
technologies. The Agency has identified
one facility that has used rotary kiln
incineration of K087 wastes and three
generators that send their wastes offsite
for multiple hearth incineration of their
K087 wastes.
3. Data Base. For K087
.nonwastewaters, the Agency has five
treated data points (ash residues)
showing treatment of BDAT List
organics by rotary kiln incineration of
K087 at an EPA test facility. Also, the
•Agency has stabilization performance
data using lime and fly ash as binders
from the treatment of wastes judged to
have similar chemical and physical
characteristics to K087 ash residues.
These stabilization data demonstrate
treatment for BDAT List metals.
For K087 wastewaters, the Agency
has six treated data points showing the
treatment of BDAT List organics by
rotary kiln incineration. Also, the.
Agency has eleven data points showing
the treatment of BDAT List metals by
chemical precipitation followed by
sludge filtration from the treatment of
wastes judged to have similar chemical
and physical characteristics to K087
scrubber waters.
4. Identification of BDAT. EPA is
proposing rotary kiln incineration as
BDAT for BDAT List organics. EPA is
soliciting comments and data that
support the fact that total recycling can
be accomplished for some subcategory
of K087. If EPA receives comments and
data that support a determination that
total recycling can be accomplished,
then EPA will promulgate "No Land
Disposal" as a BDAT treatment
standard for that subgroup of K087
wastes. EPA has determined that rotary
kiln incineration is demonstrated and
available, based on its use treating
BDAT List organics contained in K087
and on its use for wastes with chemical
and physical characteristics similar to
K087.
EPA has determined that stabilization
of K087 ash is demonstrated for BDAT
List metals contained in K087 ash based
on a waste judged to have similar
chemical and physical characteristics to
K087 wastes. With regard to K087
wastewaters, EPA has identified
chemical precipitation followed by
sludge filtration is demonstrated and
available, based on the performance
treatment data from wastewaters judged
to have similar chemical and physical
characteristics to K087 wastewaters.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K087 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. EPA's
rationale for selecting the regulated
constituents is presented in the BDAT
Background Document for this waste
code. Facilities must comply with these
treatment standards prior to placement
of these wastes in land disposal units.
Those wastes that as generated
naturally meet these standards are not
prohibited from disposal in these units.
Dilution to achieve these treatment
standards is forbidden.
Treatment standards for all organic
constituents are based on analyses of
total constituent concentration.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on analyses of
leachate from the-TCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters and
analyses of total constituent
concentration for all wastes identified
as wastewaters. The units of measure
for all total constituent analyses are mg/
kg (or parts per million on a weight by
weight basis) for the nonwastewaters
and mg/1 (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis) for
wastewaters. The units of measure for
.all analyses of leachate are mg/1 (or
parts per million on a weight fay volume
basis).
Standards for BDAT List organic
constituents in K087 wastewaters are
based on concentrations found in
scrubber waters from rotary kiln
incineration. Thermal destruction in a •
well-designed and well-operated unit
results in levels that are at or near the
detection limit. Standards for metal
constituents in K087 nonwastewaters
are based on the transfer of metals
precipitation/removal data for treatment
of wastewaters containing metals of
similar concentrations. These levels are
believed to represent performance of the
best demonstrated available
technologies for these constituents in
this waste type.
Standards for BDAT organic
constituents in K087 nonwastewaters
are based on the concentration found in
K087 ashes from rotary kiln incineration.
For BDAT List metal constituents,
however, EIPA transferred stabilization
performance data from a waste judged
to have similar chemical and physical
characteristics to K087 incinerator
ashes.
For wastes identified as K087
nonwastewaters and wastewaters, EPA
is proposing to regulate nine organic
constituents and two metal constituents
from the BDAT List as indicators of
effective treatment of these wastes.
These include acenaphthalene, benzene,
chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno (1,2,3-cd)
pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
toluene, xylenes, lead, and-zinc.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K087
[Nonwastewaters]
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Constituent
Acenaphthalene
Benzene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)
pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Lead
Zinc
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
34
0071
34
34
34
34
34
065
0070
-------
17598 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K087
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Acenaphlhalene
Bonzond ......................
ChrysonEi. .................. . .
Fluoranlheno .......
Indono (1.2,3-cd)
Dvrono ....... «.. ...
Nophlhalono .»»»«..»».
Phonanlhrone
Totuono .....
Xytones -
Lood ..............
Zinc
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.028
.014
.028
.028
.028
.028
.028
.008
.014
.037
1.0
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
0)
(')
(')
(M
(')
1 Not applicable.
h. K099—Untreated wastewater from
the production of 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K099 is
generated by facilities in the organic
chemicals manufacturing industry
(specifically pesticides]. The Agency
estimates that there is only one facility
that produces 2,4-D and currently
generates K099 waste.
The manufacturing process for 2,4-D
includes the reaction of 2,4-
dichlorophenol with chloroacetic acid in
the presence of sodium hydroxide,
hydrochloric acid and a catalyst. The
2,4-D is recovered using a solvent and is
then water washed to form the final
product. The wastewater generated from
the recovery and water-wash processes
is RCRA waste K099.
The listed waste K099 principally
consists of water, 2,4-D and 2,4-
dichlorophenol. The specific
concentrations have been claimed by
the facility as confidential; however, the
organic content of the waste is less than
one percent.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. The treatment
technologies that the Agency believes
are applicable are chemical oxidation,
wet air oxidation (a specialized form of
chemical oxidation), carbon adsorption
followed by incineration of the carbon,
and biological treatment followed by
incineration of the biological sludge.
Oxidation is a treatment process that
chemically destroys organics found in
solution by reaction with an oxidizing
agent such as oxygen, chlorine or
hydrogen peroxide. Wet air oxidation is
a treatment process that chemically
destroys organics and some inorganics
by reaction with molecular oxygen at
elevated temperatures and pressures.
Carbon adsorption is the adsorption of
hazardous constituents (from a liquid or
a gas) by surface attraction within the
internal pores of the carbon granules.
Biological treatment involves the use of
naturally occurring, acclimated
microorganisms to degrade organic
contaminants in wastewater.
Incineration technologies such as
fluidized bed, rotary kiln, and liquid
injection incineration, are destruction
technologies that convert the waste to
carbon dioxide, water, and other
combustion products.
Of the applicable technologies, the
Agency is aware of one facility using
oxidation to treat K099. The Agency is
not aware of any facility using wet air
oxidation, carbon adsorption followed
by incineration of the carbon, or
biological treatment followed by
incineration of the sludge to treat the
waste. The Agency did not test these
technologies on the waste.
3. Data Base. For waste code K099,
the Agency has treatment data from one
facility. At this facility, the Agency
collected two treatment data sets for
chemical oxidation of K099 waste using
chlorine. :
4. Identification of BOAT. The best
demonstrated available treatment
technology (BDAT) for K099 waste was
determined to be chemical oxidation
using chlorine, This treatment system
shows substantial treatment for 2,4-
dichlorophenqxyacetic acid (2,4-D). EPA
believes that chemical oxidation with
chlorine is demonstrated on K099. This
treatment system is judged to be
available to treat K099 because (1) the
treatment system is commercially
available and i(2) the system provides a
substantial reduction in the
concentration of the BDAT List organic
constituents present in the largest
concentrations in K099.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K099 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. The Agency
believes that regulating these
constituents will ensure that other
BDAT List constituents will be
effectively treated by the technologies
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for all organic
constituents are based on analyses of
total constituent concentration. The
units of measure for all total constituent
analyses are mg/kg (or parts per million
on a weight by weight basis) for the
nonwastewaters and mg/l (or parts per
million on a weight by volume basis) for
' wastewaters.
For wastes and treatment residues
identified as K099 nonwastewaters or
wastewaters, EPA is proposing to
regulate seven organic constituents from
the BDAT List as indicators of effective
treatment of these wastes. These include
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and six
chlorinated dioxins and chlorinated
dibenzofurans. The 1 ppb analytical
detection limit for these constituents
described in the final rule for dioxin-
containing wastes (51 FR 40643) also is
used here. This level represents the
analytical limit of detection that can be
routinely achieved.
EPA specifically requests comment on
the selection of chlorine oxidation as
BDAT for K099. Chlorine oxidation was
selected as the treatment technology for
the destruction of 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. The data
indicate that this technology provides
significant reduction of this chemical.
However, the data appear to indicate a
slight increase in the concentration of
chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans
(all values below the routine
quantitation limit of 1 part per billion)
from the untreated waste to the treated
residuals. At this time, EPA is not
certain that this implies that the chlorine
oxidation process is responsible for this
slight increase. The Agency is
specifically requesting comments and
data that would indicate the existence
of an alternative treatment technology
that could achieve the same
performance for the 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid without an
increase in the chlorinated dioxins and
dibenzofurans.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K099
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
2,4-
Dichlorophenoxya-
cetic acid ...
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo-
furans '.
Pentachlorodibenzo-
D-dioxiris
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.15
0.001
0.001
0.001
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
<>l
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17599
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K099—Continued
[Non waste waters]
Constituent
Pentachlorodibenzo-
furans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.001
o.oot
0.001
TCLP (mg/t)
('*
('}
(l)
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K099
CWastewaters]
Constituent
2,4-
Dichlorophanoxya-
cefic acid1. _ —
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins - „-
Hexachlorodibenzo-
furans
Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins. ...-...».._..«..
Pentachlorodibenzo-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-
furans
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Totar
composition
(mg/l)
0.15
0.001
0.00t
0.00t
o.oot
0.001
aoot
TCUP (mg/l)
(')
O
n
t1)
0
<»>
ti>
1 Not applicable.
i. K101—Distillation tar residues from
the distillation of aniline-based
compounds in the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organo-arsenic compounds.
K102—Residue from the use of
activated carbon for decolonisation in
the production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description'. The listed wastes K101 and
K102 are generated by facilities in the
veterinary Pharmaceuticals
manufacturing industry. The Agency
estimates that there are only two
facilities that have production processes
that could potentially generate K101 or
K102 wastes.
Wastewaters containing arsenic are
generated in the manufacture of organo-
arsenic veterinary Pharmaceuticals.
These wastewaters are combined with
process area wash waters and are
pumped into a treatment system that
consists of chemical precipitation and
resin adsorption. The resin column is
regenerated by a backwash of acetone.
The spent acetone solvent mixture is
recovered in a distillation column. The
distillation tar residues from the acetone
recovery column constitute the listed
K101 waste.
The manufacture of arsenic-
containing Pharmaceuticals requires the
reaction of an organic compound with
inorganic arsenic to form the organic
arsenical product, and generates
arsenic-containing solid wastes
including K102 waste. The Agency has
detailed process flow information
concerning the manner in which K102
waste is generated. This information,
however, has been claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI).
K101 wastes are viscous organic still
bottoms containing approximately 19%
by weight orthornitroaniline and less
than 1% arsenic. The heat content of
these wastes is approximately 7,000
BTU per pound. K102 wastes consist
primarily of spent activated carbon
contaminated with approximately 300
parts per million of ortho-nitrophenoh
BOAT List organic constituents
identified as present in K102 include
phenol and ortho-nitf ophenol. BOAT
List metal constituents identified as
present in K101 and K102 include
antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
total chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
selenium, and zinc.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies, EPA has
identified incineration in a rotary kiln as
an applicable technology for treatment
of nonwastewater forms of K101
identified as distillation tar residues and
nonwastewater forms of KIOZ identified
as activated carbon residues. Rotary
kiln incinerators are designed
specifically to handle sludges, solids,
tarry wastes, and containerized liquids
that are difficult to atomize through a
liquid injector. Many rotary kiln
incinerators are also designed to
simultaneously incinerate other liquid
wastes or supplemental fuel. The
purpose of incineration is to thermally
destroy (oxidize) the organic
constituents of a waste. The Agency
recognizes that any technology such as a
fluidized bed or multiple hearth
incinerator that is designed for thermal
destruction of sludges, solids, or tarry
wastes is potentially applicable to these
wastes. '.However, the Agency believes
that the performance of rotary kiln
incineration attains the performance
achievable by other thermal destruction
technologies that are well designed and
well operated. These incinerators
generate ash residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. Scrubber waters from
air pollution control devices are often
generated and are classified as
wastewaters. Both of these residues
must meet tfie BDAT treatment
standards prior to placement in land
disposal units.
Wastewaters are generated as
residuals by many of the incineration
technologies that are designated as
applicable tci the nonwastewater forms
of K101 and KIOZ. EPA has determined
that the applicable technology for these
wastewaters is a wastewater treatment
system that includes a chemical
precipitation step to precipitate
dissolved metals as solids followed by a
filtration step to remove these solids.
The residues of this wastewater
treatment system include the treated
wastewater and the solids that are
classified, for the purposes of BDAT, as
nonwastewaters. Further application of
a stabilization process to these solids
may be necessary in order to conform
with the BDAT treatment standards for
nonwastewaters.
EPA has identified stabilization as an
applicable technology for treatment of
inorganic nointwastewater forms of K101
and K102. Thiese include precipitated
residues from the treatment of
wastewatera, as well as ash residues
from incineration. Stabilization is
designed to chemically bind metal
constituents of the waste into the
microstructure of a cementitious matrix.
The purpose of stabilization is to
immobilize the metal constituents and
thereby reduce their leaching potential.
A variety of agents, including Portland
cements, cement kiln dust, hydrated
limes, quick lime, fly ash and other
pozzolanic materials, have been
demonstrated to act as binding agents
for various types of wastes containing
metals. Stabilization processes generate
hardened solid residues that, for the
purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that these processes do not generate
wastewater residuals.
EPA has not identified any facility
currently performing incineration and
metals (ash) stabilization of K101 or •
K102 on a commercial scale. However,
EPA believes this technology is
demonstrated for K10I and KI02 in that
it is being used to treat wastes similar to
them in regard to parameters affecting
treatment selection. EPA has confirmed
this judgment by using a test facility to
incinerate this waste.
3. DataBase. For waste code K101,
the Agency has treatment data from one
full-scale facility. The Agency has four
data points off untreated K101 waste and
three data points representing residual
concentrations found in the ash from
rotary kiln incineration. The Agency has
-------
17600 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
four scrubber water data points that
represent destruction of organic
compounds in the afterburner of the
rotary kiln incinerator.
For waste code K102, the Agency has
treatment data from one full-scale
facility. The Agency has four data sets
of K102 waste treated by rotary kiln
incineration. The Agency has six
scrubber water data points that
represent destruction of organic
co'mpounds in the afterburner of the
rotary kiln incinerator.
4. Identification of BOAT. EPA has
determined that the performance
achieved by incineration followed by
metal stabilization of ash residues
represents treatment by BDAT for both
K101 and K102. Incineration followed by
metal stabilization is judged to be
available to treat these wastes because:
(1) These technologies are commercially
available and (2) they provide
substantial reduction in the levels of
organic constituents and substantial
reduction in the mobility of metal
constituents present in these wastes.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K101 and K102 are listed in
the tables at the end of this section. The
Agency believes that regulating these
constituents will ensure that other
BDAT List constituents will be
effectively treated by the technologies
determined to be BDAT. EPA's rationale
for selecting the regulated constituents
is presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
Treatment standards for all organic
constituents are based on analyses of
total constituent concentration.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based-on analyses of
leachate from the TCLP for all wastes
identified as nonwastewaters and
analyses of total constituent
concentration for all wastes identified
as wastewaters. The units of measure
for all total constituent analyses are, mg/
kg (or parts per million on a weight by
weight basis) for the nonwastewaters
and mg/1 (or parts per million on a
weight by volume basis) for
wastewaters. The units of measure for
all analyses of leachate are mg/1 (or
parts per million on a weight by volume
basis).
Standards for organic constituents are
based on concentrations found in
scrubber waters from thermal ,
destruction units. Thermal destruction in
a well designed and well operated unit
results in levels that are at or near the
detection limit. Standards for metal
constituents are based on the transfer of
metals precipitation/removal data for
treatment of wastewaters that contain
metals at similar concentrations. These
levels are believed to represent
performance of the best demonstrated
available technologies for these
constituents in this waste type.
(i) Nonwastewaters. For wastes
identified as K101 and K102
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing to
regulate two specific organic
constituents that are not included on the
BDAT List but have been selected as
indicators of effective incineration of
these wastes. A standard for ortho-
nitroaniline is proposed for K101 and a
standard for ortho-nitrophenol is
proposed for K102.
EPA is also proposing to regulate nine
metal constituents including antimony,
arsenic, barium, cadmium, total
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc
as indicators of effective stabilization of
these wastes (based on stabilization of
the ash from incineration). At the time of
this proposal, the Agency has not
completed its evaluation of waste
characterization and treatment data for
antimony, arsenic and barium.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
reserve standards for antimony, arsenic
and barium until evaluation can be
completed. The standards for the other
metals are transferred from the .
treatment'of wastes judged to have
similar chemical and physical
characteristics to K101 and K102,
incinerator ashes.
(ii) Wastewaters. For wastes
identified as K101 and K102
wastewaters, EPA is proposing to,
regulate two different organic
constituents as indicators of effective
incineration of these wastes. A standard
for ortho-nitroaniline is proposed for
K101 and a standard for ortho-
nitrophenol is proposed for K102.
For wastes identified as KlOl or K102.
wastewaters, EPA is proposing to
regulate five metal constituents from the
BDAT List as indicators of effective
treatment of these wastes. These include
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
mercury. At the time of this proposal,
the Agency has not completed its
evaluation of waste characterization
and treatment data for antimony.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
reserve a standard for antimony until
evaluation can be completed.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K101
[Nonwastewaters]
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Constituent
Ortho-Nitroaniline
Antimony
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
14.0
(i
(i
(i
(i
('
(i
(')
(')
(')
TCLP (mg/1)
(i)
(2)
(2)
(2)
0.066
3.8
0.71
0.53
0.31
0.086
1 Not applicable.
2 Reserved.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K101
[Wastewaters]
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Constituent
Ortho-Nitroaniline
Antimony
Cadmium
Lead
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.266
(2)
2.036
0.238
0.110
0.027
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(i)
(')
(')
(i)
(i)
> Not applicable
2 Reserved.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K102
[Nonwastewaters]
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Constituent
Ortho-Nitrophenol
Barium
Chromium (Total).; ».
Lead
Nickel
Zinc:
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
13.3
(')
(')
0)
(')
(')
(>)
(')
P)
(')
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
V)
(2)
(2)
0.066
3.8
0.71
0.53
0.31
0.086
1 Not applicable.
2 Reserved.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K102
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Ortho Nttropheno!
Antimony ...
Arsenic
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total I
composition TCLP (mg/l)
(mg/l)
0.028
2.036
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17601
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB
K102—Continued
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Lead -
Mercurv ,
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.238
0.110
0.027
TCLP(mg/l)
0)
(')
H
1 Not applicable;
2 Reserved.
j. K106—Wastewater treatment
sludges from the mercury cell process in
chlorine production.
1. Industry Affected and Waste
Description. The listed waste K108 is
generated by facilities in the inorganic
chemicals industry (specifically chlorine
manufacturing by the mercury cell
process). The Agency estimates that
there are 20 facilities that have specific
production processes that could
potentially generate K106 waste. While
these facilities are distributed in just
about all regions of the United States, a
large proportion of them are located in
the Southeast.
Chlorine is produced by the
electrolytic decomposition of a
saturated sodium chloride brine
solution. One type of electrolytic cell
uses mercury as an electrode. At such
facilities, process wastewaters will
contain soluble and elemental mercury.
Treatment of this wastewater stream is
performed using chemical precipitation
of the mercury (primarily as sulfide)
followed by sedimentation or filtration
of the precipitates. These residuals are
the listed waste K106.
Untreated K106 wastes consist
primarily of water (60%), mercury sulfide
(3%), other metal sulfides (2%), and
diatomaceous earth or other filter aid
(35%). K106 wastes are sludges and, for
the purposes of BDAT, are classified as
nonwastewaters. Treatment of K106
results in the generation of solid
residuals (nonwastewaters) and
wastewaters.
2. Applicable/Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies. The Agency
has identified thermal recovery
(retorting) as an applicable technology
for nonwastewater K106. Retorting is a
metal recovery process, whereby heat is
added to volatilize the mercury from the
waste. Elemental mercury is
subsequently condensed as a reuseable
material. The residual waste from
retorting contains significantly lower '
concentrations of mercury. Retorting has
been demonstrated on K106 at one
facility. Retorting is also demonstrated
on ores consisting primarily of mercury
sulfides that the Agency believes have
chemical and physical characteristics
similar to K106 nonwastewaters. Thus,
while EPA estimates that there are no
facilities currently retorting K106, EPA
has identified at least one facility that
performs retorting of mercury ores that
are comparable to the listed waste.
Therefore, the Agency considers that
retorting is a demonstrated technology
for K106 nonwastewaters.
The Agency considered stabilization
as an applicable technology and
performed testing on nonwastewater
K106. Analyses indicated that no
significant reduction in teachability of
mercury from the waste was achieved
by the stabilization process. Therefore,
the Agency concludes that stabilization
is not a demonstrated technology for
this waste.
The Agency has identified sulfide
precipitation followed by filtration as an
applicable technology for K106
wastewaters. EPA believes that K106
wastewaters have similar waste
characteristics as wastewater generated
from the treatment of K071 (brine
purification muds from the mercury cell
process in chlorine production, where
separately prepurified brine is not used).
Sulfide precipitation (followed fay
filtration) of mercury containing
wastewaters is demonstrated at
nineteen or more facilities. Therefore,
the Agency believes that sulfide
precipitation is both applicable and
demonstrated for wastewaters
generated from treatment of K106
nonwastewaters.
3. Data Base. The Agency has nine
untreated and treated data points from
EPA testing of one facility on treatment
of K106 nonwastewaters by
stabilization. Data collected during
these tests show that these technologies
were properly operated. These data
indicated that no significant reduction in
teachability was achieved. Therefore,
the Agency concluded that stabilization
should not be considered a
demonstrated treatment technology for
K106.
The Agency has five untreated and
treated data points from a literature
source on the treatment of K106
combined with K071 nonwastewaters
using dewatering followed by retorting.
Since the source reports that K106
comprised only 0.5% of the feed to the
retort furnace, the Agency believes the
waste mixture does not sufficiently
represent the majority of K106 wastes.
Therefore, EPA did not consider these in
the development of the BDAT treatment
standards.
The Agency has seven treated data
. points from Ihe treatment of K106 by
retorting. However, the K106 treated
was not generated by the conventional
method of sulfide precipitation, but
consisted of elemental mercury that was
concentrated in the residual from
membrane filtration of wastewater from
the mercury cell process. EPA did not
consider these data to be representative
of K106 nonwastewaters because
nineteen of the twenty facilities
generating K106 currently generate a
mercury sulfide sludge or residual.
Therefore, these data were not
considered in the development of the
BDAT treatment standards.
As noted previously, the Agency also
has data from the retorting of mercury
sulfide ores, EPA believes that the
similarities in chemical and physical
composition of these ores and K108
nonwastewaters are sufficient to allow
the transfer of the retorting performance
data. These data were used for the
development of the BDAT treatment
standards for K106 nonwastewaters.
EPA does not have data oil treatment
of K106 wastewaters generated as part
of the retorting operation. EPA believes
that these wastewaters are similar in
chemical and physical composition to
wastewaters: generated in treatment of
K071 by acid leaching. Therefore, EPA
has transferred these performance levels
to K106 wastewaters. The data base for
K071 wastewaters consists of three
untreated and treated data points using
sulfide precipitation followed by
filtration. All of these data represent a
well designed and well operated system
and were used in the development of the
BDAT standards for K106 wastewaters.
4. Identification of BDAT. EPA is
proposing to set BDAT standards for
K106 nonwastewaters based on the
performance achieveable by the
retorting of mercury sulfide ores. The
Agency has determined that this
technology iis both demonstrated and
available. EPA is proposing to set BDAT
standards for K106 wastewaters based
on sulfide precipitation followed by
filtration. The Agency has determined
that sulfide precipitation is
demonstrated and available for
wastewaters; generated from treatment
of K106 nonwastewaters (the sulfide
residues mu«t meet the standards for
nonwastewaters). These technologies
are judged to be available to treat these
wastes because: (1) They are
commercially available or can be
purchased and (2) they provide a
substantial reduction in the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents that have to be placed on
the land.
-------
17602
Federal Register / Vol. 53,.No. 95 /Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
The question of identifying BDAT for
K106 also requires some discussion of
several other 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 residual which results
from retorting of this waste.
The initial question is whether
wastewater treatment sludge from the
mercury cell process is a RCRA solid
and hazardous waste when it is sent to
an industrial furnace for retorting. 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 wastewater treatment
sludge (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(4)). Because
the material is a listed sludge, it is
therefore defined as a solid waste under
40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).
The Agency believes that this is an
appropriate classification because a
strong element of waste treatment
would characterize this recycling
activity (as noted, retorting of K106 is
not currently practiced). 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
wastewater treatment sludge is a waste.
For a 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
by giving to another person for
recycling, the material is a "discarded
material" within the meaning of RCRA
section 1004 (27). An example used in
the opinion is used oil given by the
original generator to a second pe'rson for
recycling (824 F. 2d at n. 14). The
wastewater treatment sludge 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 chlorine and caustic
soda process. Thus, it is not the type of
in-process, undis'carded 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
K106 waste was not deemed to be a
waste when it is reclaimed in processes
unrelated to chlorine production, EPA
still could establish BDAT standards for
K106 that is being disposed, or
otherwise ensure that the waste is
recycled by retorting rather than by
being land disposed. For example, the
Agency could simply prohibit land
disposal of the waste and indicate that
retorting is BDAT. 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 BDAT standard, it must
consider whether it has authority to set
treatment standards for the residuals
that result from retorting. The fact that
K106 is a solid and hazardous waste
when it is sent for retorting 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 cease 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, 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
proposal in 52 FR 17034, May 6,1987).
The Agency suggested other possible
alternatives in the May 6 proposal,
including classifying wastes that
contained insignificant concentrations
of Appeiidix VIII constituents in the
waste which are not normally found in
the feed material to be indigenous.
The K106 sludges would not be
considered indigenous, under the May 6
proposal, to the retort furnaces used as
the basis for the proposed treatment
standard. However, if an alternative
such as classifying wastes that
contained insignificant concentrations
of other Appendix VIII constituents to
be indigenous were finalized, the waste
may not be considered indigenous. The
Agency solicits comments on the
similarities of the concentrations of
other Appendix VIII constituents (other
than mercury) that are present in both
K106 and the mercury ores that are
retorted in mining operations.
If such a determination of indigenous
is made for KlOS, it would cease to be a
solid waste when it is retorted. This
would mean that the residuals produced
by the furnace during the retorting of the
sludge 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 K106 waste would
no longer be a hazardous waste at the
moment of burning). Thus, the residual
would be a hazardous waste only if it
exhibited a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. Depending upbn the
type of device doing the retorting, and
the feed materials to that device, the
residual 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 6,1987). Under these
circumstances, the Agency probably
could not set treatment standards for the
residual which does not exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste, since
the land disposal prohibitions apply
only to "hazardous wastes". In addition,
any prohibition for residuals 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 leachable mercury
concentrations in the residual, EPA
solicits comment on the issues with the
view that EPA could establish either
"total recycle" or "no land disposal" as
the treatment standard for K106 should
it determine not to set treatment
standards for the residual.
5. Regulated Constituents and
Treatment Standards. The proposed
regulated constituents and BDAT
treatment standards for wastes
identified as K106 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section. EPA is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules 17603
proposing that mercury is the only
constituent that needs to be regulated
for wastes identified as K106. EPA's
rationale for selecting mercury is
presented in the BDAT Background
Document for this waste code. Facilities
must comply with these treatment
standards prior to placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. Those
wastes that as generated naturally meet
these standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden.
The treatment standards are based on
analyses of total constituent
concentration and leachate from the
TCLP for all wastes identified as
nonwastewaters and analyses of total
constituent concentration for all wastes
identified as wastewaters. The units of
measure for total constituent analyses
are mg/kg (or parts per million on a
weight by weight basis) for the
nonwastewaters and mg/1 (or parts per
million on a weight by volume basis) for
wastewaters. The units of measure for
analyses of leachate are mg/1 (or parts
per million on a weight by volume
basis).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Mercury
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
630
TCLP (mg/l)
0.028
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Mercury
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.030
TCLP (mg/l)
0)
1 Not applicable.
k. Revision of BDAT Treatment
Standard for Methylene Chloride in
Wastewaters from the Pharmaceutical
Industry Listed as F001, F002, F003, F004
and/orF005.
On November 7,1986, EPA
promulgated treatment standards for
regulated constituents in F001-F005
spent solvent wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Since that time, EPA
has collected additional data on steam
stripping of methylene chloride in
wastewaters, at similar concentrations
as those wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical industry. Where EPA
has set a treatment standard, it is not
precluded from revising that standard
after the statutory date provided that .
rulemaking procedures are followed.
RCRA section 3004(m)(l) specifically
states that treatment standards are to be
revised as appropriate. Therefore, in
light of the new data collected, EPA is
today reproposing the treatment
standard for methylene chloride in
F001-F005 wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical industry. The treatment
standards for all other hazardous
constituents in F001-F005 wastewaters,
and all hazardous constituents in F001-
F005 nonwastewaters are not being
reproposed and therefore remain as
promulgated on November 7,1986 (51 PR
40572). The Agency also is not
reproposing the standard for methylene
chloride in F001-F005 wastewaters other
than those from the pharmaceutical
manufacturing industry.
EPA established two separate waste
treatability groups for wastewaters:
Methylene chloride in F001-F005
wastewaters from the Pharmaceuticals
manufacturing industry and all other
F001-F005 wastewaters containing
methylene chloride. A BDAT treatment
standard of 12.7 mg/l was promulgated
for methylene chloride in wastewaters
in the Pharmaceuticals manufacturing
industry treatability group, based on the
performance data for steam stripping. A
BDAT treatment standard of 0.20 mg/l
was promulgated for all other F001-F005
wastewaters containing methylene
chloride, based on performance data for
biological treatment.
BDAT for methylene chloride in
wastewaters from the pharmaceutical
industry has been confirmed to be steam
stripping. Data was obtained from the
treatment of wastewaters with influent
concentrations of methylene chloride
that are similar to the influent
concentrations in wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical industry. The Agency
has determined that the wastewaters
that were tested, are in the same
treatability group as the Wastewaters
from the pharmaceutical industry and is
transferring the data and standards to
the pharmaceutical industry.
The Agency is aware of at least two
facilities that use steam stripping to
treat methylene chloride in wastewater.
EPA has determined that steam
stripping is demonstrated to treat F001-
F005. Steam stripping is judged to be -
available to treat these wastewaters
because: (1) Steam stripping is
commercially available or can be
purchased and (2) steam stripping
provides a substantial reduction in the
concentration of methylene chloride in
F001-F005 wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical industry.
The revised BDAT treatment standard
proposed for methylene chloride in
wastewaters identified as F001, F002,
F003, F004 and/or F005 from the
Pharmaceuticals industry is listed in the
table at the end of this section. (Note
that the proposed treatment.standard is
reflected in the regulations by amending
§ 268.41 by removing methylene chloride
(from the pharmaceutical industry) and
its corresponding concentration, and
adding the revised treatment standard in
§ 268.43.) Facilities must comply with
this treatment standard prior to
placement of these wastes in land
disposal units, Those wastes that as
generated naturally meet these
standards are not prohibited from
disposal in these units. Dilution to
achieve these treatment standards is
forbidden. Thes treatment standard is
based on analysis of total constituent
concentration and is expressed in mg/l
(or parts per million on a weight by
volume basis).
The data and analyses used to
develop this standard have been placed
in the docket for today's proposed rule
and are available as an addendum to
the background document for the final
rule for F001-F005 solvent wastes.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F001,
F002, F003, F004, AND F005
[Wastewaters; Pharmaceuticals industry
subcategory]
Constituent
Methylene chloride
Maximum for any single '
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.44
TCLP (mg/l)
0)
1 Not applicable.
1. K021—Aqueous spent antimony
catalyst waste from fluoromethanes
production.
K025—Distillation bottoms from the
production of nitrobenzene by the
nitration of benzene.
K060 Ammonia still lime sludge from
coking operations.
Based on available information, the
Agency believos that these wastes are
no longer generated, and therefore, are
not currently being 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
-------
17604
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
wastes may be generated at a CERCLA
site or during a corrective action at a
RCRA facility and may require a
variance from the treatment standard.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K021.K025. ANDK060
[Nonwastewaters and Wastewaters]
No Land Disposal.
m. K044—Wastewater treatment
sludges from the manufacturing and
processing of explosives.
K045—Spent carbon from the
treatment of wastewater containing
explosives.
K047—Pink/red water from TNT
operations.
EPA has determined that a proposed
standard of "No Land Disposal" is
appropriate for K044. K045, and K047
wastes. This determination is based on
the fact that open burning and open
detonation of reach've wastes is not
considered land disposal. So long as no
reactive constituents remain after
detonation, there would be no land
disposal of a hazardous waste (40 CFR
261.3(aH2)(iii)).
EPA's listing of K044, K045. and K047
was based solely on the potential of
these wastes to explode. The Agency
does not have any data to suggest that
any hazardous residuals are present
following open burning or open
detonation. However, EPA solicits
comments providing data that show the
presence of BDAT List constituents in
treatable concentrations in residuals
from managing these wastes in this
manner.
In the absence of such data, EPA
concludes that the current practices of
open burning and open detonation
provide complete destruction of the
hazardous components of K044, K045,
and K047 and subsequent land disposal
of residuals is unnecessary. Therefore,
EPA is proposing "No Land Disposal" as
the requirement for these wastes. This
standard is consistent with EPA's
general approach in that the standard
provides a significant reduction in the
hazard presented by these wastes and is
based on demonstrated and available
technology.
EPA recognizes alternative
technologies, such as incineration in
specially designed units, is being
investigated for wastes similar to K044,
K045, and K047. By establishing a
treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal" rather than allowing the
statutory bans to take effect, a petition
for a variance from the standard can be
submitted to the Agency for evaluation.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K044, K045, AND K047
[Nonwastewaters and Wastewaters]
[No Land Disposal]
n. Wastes for Which EPA is Proposing
No Treatment Standards (Including all
Chemical Specific P and U Wastes).
F007—Spent cyanide plating bath
solutions from electroplating operations.
F008—Plating bath sludges from the
bottom of plating baths from the
electroplating operations where
cyanides are used in the process.
F009—Spent stripping and cleaning
bath solutions from electroplating
operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
F019—Wastewater treatment sludges
from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum.
K011—Bottom stream from the
wastewater stripper in the production of
acrylonitrile.
K013—Bottom stream from the
acetonitrile column in the production of
acrylonitrile.
K014—Bottoms from the acetonitrile
purification column in the production of
acrylonitrile.
K017—Heavy ends (still bottoms)
from the purification column in the
production of epichlorohydrin.
K031—By-product salts generated in
the production of MSMA (monosodium
methanearsenate) and cacodylic acid.
K035—Wastewater treatment sludges
generated in the production of creosote.
K084—Wastewater treatment sludges
generated during the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organo-arsenic compounds.
K085—Distillation or fractionation
column bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzenes.
All remaining "First Third" wastes
originally listed under § 261.33 (e) and
(f) (i.e., those beginning with a "P" or
"U").
The Agency has not completed its
evaluation of BDAT for these wastes
and is not proposing treatment
standards at this time. Therefore, the
Agency will not promulgate standards
for these wastes by their statutory
deadline of August 8,1988. RCRA
section 3004(g)(6) (42 U.S.C. 6924(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 FR
19300) by the statutory deadline, such
waste may be land disposed in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if the
facility meets certain statutory
requirements and only until May 8,1990.
These requirements have been termed
the "soft hammer" provisions.
Wastes identified as K011, K013, and/
or K014 are wastes generated from the
production of acrylonitrile. Information
supplied by industry trade associations
indicate that many of the facilities are _
combining K011 and K013 and removing
filterable solid materials prior to
disposal of the filtrate in underground
injection wells. The filtered K011 and
K013 residues are often combined with
K014 and incinerated in a hazardous
waste incinerator. The Agency
anticipates that many facilities will
submit petitions for evaluation of "no
migration" from these underground
injection units into which filtrates of
K011 and K013 are being injected. At
this time, EPA has not completed its
investigation of the incineration of the
filtered residuals nor has it evaluated a
"no migration" petition specific to these
waste codes. EPA anticipates that it will
establish treatment standards based on
analysis of the performance of
incineration or based on an
extrapolation of data for wastes with
similar physical and chemical
characteristics. This investigation of
K011, K013, and K014 will not be
completed in time for proposal and
promulgation by the statutory deadline
of August 8,1988. Therefore, until EPA
promulgates treatment standards (and
until May 8,1990), the "soft hammer"
provisions would apply to these wastes
if they are placed in land disposal units.
Finally, EPA notes that many of these
wastes, when existing as untreated
wastes, are already prohibited from land
disposal because they are California-List
wastes. The liquid cyanide wastes, for
example, could exceed the statutory
prohibition levels for cyanide. Several of
the organic hazardous wastes
undoubtably exceed the statutory levels
for wastes containing halogenated
organics (HOC wastes). To the extent
that these wastes are prohibited under
the California List rule (52 FR 25773, July
8,1987) or statutory provisions (RCRA
section 3004(d)(2)) and also fall under
the soft hammer, the California List
prohibitions and treatment standards (if
any) apply. Thus, for example, any
prohibited HOC wastes that also are
First Third "soft hammer" wastes would
have to be incinerated before land
disposal.
o. Burning in Industrial Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces as BDAT for HOC's.
EPA has also decided to repropose for
additional comment a notice that '
appeared in the May 6,1987, proposed
rule on boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous wastes. 52 FR 17021.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17605
This proposal would have allowed
burning in industrial boilers and
furnaces to be considered BDAT for
California List HOCs. Although most of
the comments supported this approach,
EPA is soliciting further comment. We
note that this rule might become
effective a short time before final
permitting and interim status standards
for emissions from these devices
become effective (current schedules call
for the boiler and industrial furnace
rules to be promulgated early in 1989).
EPA is tentatively prepared to accept
this possibility because these devices
are likely to be operated efficiently so as
to achieve substantial destruction of the
HOCs in the waste. This is because
industrial boilers and industrial furnaces
have a commercial purpose which
requires relatively efficient burning (see
§ 260.10 definitions of "boiler" and
"industrial furnace" which require, for
boilers, energy recovery efficiency of 60
percent and 75 percent export and
utilization of recovered energy, and, for
industrial furnaces, that the device be
an integral part of a manufacturing
process). In addition, non-industrial
boilers, some of which might be
expected to destroy HOCs less
efficiently, are essentially prohibited
from burning hazardous waste at all.
Section 266.31(b).
The rule as proposed would amend
§ 268.42(a)[2) to say that boilers and
industrial furnaces burning in
accordance with applicable regulatory
standards could burn HOCs. When Part
266 standards exist for these devices,
the devices thus must meet these
standards. Until then, they would have
to meet other applicable Federal, state,
and local standards.
11. Requirement that Hazardous
Waste Derived Products Used in a
Manner Constituting Disposal Meet
BDAT in Order to Remain Exempt from
Regulation
Under the Agency's rules, hazardous.
secondary materials being used in a
manner constituting disposal are defined
as solid and hazardous wastes. 40 CFR
261.2(c)(l). Examples are use of
hazardous waste as dust suppressants,
road base material, or fertilizers.
.Products produced from hazardous
secondary materials, which are placed
on or applied to the land, are likewise
defined as solid and hazardous wastes
(assuming the waste-derived product
remains hazardous, per the definitions
in § 261.3). 40 CFR 261.2(c)(l)(B). If the
hazardous waste component has
"undergone a chemical reaction in the
course of producing the product so as to
become inseparable by physical
means", then such waste-derived
products used in a manner constituting
disposal are not presently subject to
federal regulation. 40 CFR 266.20{b).
Commercial waste-derived fertilizers
are likewise presently exempt from
Federal Subtitle C regulation. The
question we are addressing here—and
also addressed in a more specific
content for waste-derived fertilizers
produced from waste K061 in the April
8,1988 proposed rule—is whether
waste-derived products whose
placement on the land is presently
exempt from Federal regulation should
be allowed to be placed on the land if
they don't meet the BDAT treatment
standards for each prohibited hazardous
waste that they contain.
The Agency is proposing to qualify the
exemption from regulation for
hazardous waste-derived products that
are used in a manner constituting
disposal (§ 266.20(b)) to provide that
such waste-derived products must meet
any (and all) applicable treatment
standard(s) in Subpart D of Part 268 for
the waste. The Agency believes that this
approach is warranted for the following
reasons.
First, this type of use constituting
disposal consists of placing wastes
directly on the land, a form of land
disposal under section 3004(k). Under
the land disposal prohibition program,
untreated hazardous wastes are riot to
be placed directly on the land (i.e., land
disposed) except in "no migration"
units.
Second, the Agency (with few
exceptions) has not evaluated whether
the placement of hazardous waste-
derived products on the land is safe. The
Agency has merely deferred regulation
while it studies the problem to
determine an appropriate regulatory
regime. See 50 FR 646-647 (January 4,
1985). Thus, continuation of the current
exemption from regulation in § 266.20(b)
appears to directly thwart the policy,
and indeed the express command, of the
land disposal prohibition statutory
provisions. There is not even a
countervailing environmental objective
at stake since the Agency has no data
demonstrating the safety of most of
these practices. Indeed, the existing
exemption in § 266.20(b) may create an
incentive to avoid treatment (or to avoid
BDAT-level treatment) and to utilize this
form'of disposal instead. It consequently
appears to the Agency that all
hazardous waste-derived products, in
order to be exempt from regulation
when they are placed on the land,
should have to meet any applicable '
.treatment standard~for the waste
established in Subpart D of Part 268. At
that point, even though hazardous
wastes were being placed on the land,
they at least would be meeting,the
treatment standard required for all other
wastes of the same type.
The Agency consequently solicits
comment on whether the existing
exemption ira § 266.20(b) should be
conditioned by requiring that any such
waste-derived product meet applicable
treatment standards. EPA notes further
that if the Agency adopts this proposal,
it would not necessarily be finding that
further regulation of this type of use
constituting disposal is unnecessary, or
finding that use constituting disposal of
waste-derived products that meet the
treatment standard is necessarily safe.
Disposal of hazardous waste would still
be occurring in unregulated units.
Rather, this type of placement on the
land would .at least be meeting the
minimum statutory requirements in
section 3004 (d),(e), (g) and (m).
In order to implement this type of
requirement, the Agency would need to
have some type of tracking scheme in
place, and some means for persons
producing waste-derived products to
demonstrate that they are meeting the
applicable treatment standard. Of
course, hazardous wastes utilized to
produce waste-derived products that are
used in a manner constituting disposal
are already subject to regulation until
the waste-derived product is produced,
and so are subject to § 268.7 tracking
controls (as well as the other applicable
Subtitle.C requirements) until that point.
The issues on which we are soliciting
comment are how should the producer
document that the waste-derived
product meets BDAT—for instance, is
there any reason not to follow the
testing procedures in § 268.7(b)—and
whether any further tracking to the
ultimate user (as occurs normally under
§ 268.7(b) (1) and (2)) is needed.
Finally, the Agency reiterates that
there does not appear to be any question
that waste-derived products that are
placed on the land are "solid wastes"
under RCRA. Nothing in American,
Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F. 1177
(D.C. Cir. 1987) is to the contrary. The
hazardous wastes in the waste-derived
product are. being gotten rid of by
disposing of them, and so are being
discarded. See generally, 53 FR 521-522
(January 8,1988), and underlying record
materials.
The following examples show how the
Agency envisions the proposal would
operate.
1. A generator generates a listed
wastewater treatment sludge which is
prohibited from land disposal and for
which the Agency has established
treatment standards. The sludge is
-------
17608
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
combined with virgin materials in a way
that causes the hazardous waste to
undergo a chemical reaction so as not to
be separable from the product matrix by
physical means. The waste-derived
product is then sold to the public as
road base material.
Assuming that the activity is not sham
recycling (i.e., that the listed hazardous
waste and its hazardous constituents
really contribute legitimately to the
waste's use as road base material), then
the waste-derived product would have
to meet the BOAT standard for the listed
hazardous waste or it could not legally
be placed on the land. The generator of
the product also would have to
document that the waste-derived
product meets the treatment standard.
2. An aggregate kiln burns a variety of
prohibited hazardous wastes generated
by other generators along with virgin
materials to generate waste-derived
aggregate, which is sold to the general
public for direct placement on the land.
Assuming that the activity is not sham
recycling (i.e., that the prohibited
hazardous wastes and their hazardous
constituents do contribute legitimately
to producing aggregate), then the
aggregate would have to meet the
treatment standard for each prohibited
hazardous waste that it' contains. The
kiln operator would also have to
document that each batch meets these
standards.
12. Corrections to the April 8,1988
Proposal (53 FR11742)
Although there were several
typographical and editorial errors in the
April 8,1988 proposal, this preamble
section addresses only the most
pertinent
First, on page 1177(0 of the April 8th
proposal, the Agency discusses the
availability of the 2-year nationwide
variance for solvent wastes which
contain less than one percent total F001-
F005 solvent constituents. Although the
Agency did not propose to change its
approach from the existing regulation in
§ 268.30(a)(3), EPA stated that it was
proponing regulatory language and
soliciting comment on this approach.
The Agency, however, inadvertently
neglected to include the proposed
regulatory language. Today's proposed
regulatory language corrects this
oversight by proposing the existing
regulatory language, as discussed in the
April 8th preamble.
Second, an error was made in
identifying a hazardous constituent for
K103 and K104 wastes in both the
preamble and in the regulatory
language. On pages 11758 and 11790 of
the April 8 proposal, the treatment
standard tables for nonwastewater and
wastewater K103 and K104 list 2,3-
dinitrophenol. The actual constituent, •
however, is 2,4-dinitrophenol, as stated
in the background document for these
wastes. Also, regarding the regulatory
text for K103 and K104 nonwastewaters
on page 11790, an error was made in
stating the total composition levels for
aniline, nitrobenzene, and phenol. The
correct level, 5.44 mg/kg, is correctly
stated in the preamble discussion on
page 11758. Although the BOAT .
background document supports these
corrections, anyone confused by this
may submit further comment addressing
the point.
Third, on pages 11763 and 11791 of the
April 8 proposal, the concentration level
for toluene in K015 waste is stated
incorrectly. The tables in the preamble
and regulatory language for K015 list the
total composition level for toluene as
1.00 mg/1. The actual value, as stated in
and supported by the background
documents is 0.148 mg/1. Even though
the treatment standard is stated
correctly in the background document,
anyone confused by the April 8
preamble may submit comment on the
toluene treatment standard up until the
date for comment on this proposed rule.
Fourth, on page 11789 of the April 8
proposal, an error was made in the
headings for the treatment standard
tables for K016 and K018 wastes (the
"wastewater" tables are incorrectly
labeled as second "nonwastewater"
tables). These tables are correctly
labeled in the preamble discussion on
page 11756. Also, on page 11762 the
second and third tables in the first
column are incorrectly labeled K050
wastes. These tables actually present
the treatment standards for K051
wastes, as is -correctly stated in the
regulatory language. The Agency will
accept further comment on this issue
from anyone confused by these
corrections.
Fifth, the tables for K019 wastewater
and nonwastewater, and K020
nonwastewater on page 11756
incorrectly state the hazardous
constituent tetrachloroethene as -
tetrachloroethane. The constituent is,
however, correctly stated in the
regulatory language.
Sixth, in the preamble for K016
wastewater on page 11756 and in the
regulatory text for K030 wastewater on
page 11790, the total composition
treatment standard for
hexachloroethane is incorrect. The
correct treatment standard is 0.033 mg/1,
as supported by the background
document. EPA will accept comment on
these corrections from anyone confused
by the change throughout the comment
period on this proposed rule.
Finally, EPA neglected to include a
hazardous constituent in the preamble
table for K019 nonwastewaters on page
11756. This constituent, chlorobenzene
(with a total composition treatment
standard of 5.66 mg/kg), is correctly
included in the regulatory text and is
supported by the background document.
B. Determination and Measurement of
Applicable Treatment Standards
1. Relationship to Restrictions on
California List Wastes
Certain First Third wastes having
proposed treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates are also
California list wastes. The California list
covers a broad group of corrosive
wastes and specific metal-, cyanide-,
and halogenated organic-containing
wastes, for which EPA has promulgated
treatment standards and/or effective
dates in the July 8,1987 rule (52 FR
25760). Once the standards and dates
proposed today are finalized, they
supersede the applicable California list
waste treatment standards and effective
dates. Under 40 CFR 268.32(h) this
interpretation, pursuant to which a
waste-specific determination supplants
a California list waste determination,
has been applied to solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes which have treatment
standards and effective dates and are
California list wastes.
The April 8,1988, rule (53 FR 11742)
proposed a reading different from that
stated above for First Third wastes
which have waste-specific treatment
standards and are also California list
wastes, but for which, due to a
significant shortage of alternative
capacity, the Agency grants a national
variance from the effective date. EPA
solicited comment on an approach
where, for these wastes, the applicable
California list waste treatment
standards and effective dates would
remain in effect, superseding the waste-
specific determinations for the duration
of the variance. This rule also proposed
that First Third wastes for which the
Agency has not set treatment standards
and effective dates by August 8,1988
.(wastes covered by the "soft hammer"
requirements), are subject to any
applicable California list waste
treatment standards and effective dates.
Comments addressing these proposed
interpretations are also requested here.
C. 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
17607
"available" treatment technologies. One
criterion required that treatment
technologies not present greater total
risks than land disposal waste
management practices. See 51FR 40592-
40593 (November 7,1986). Although the
Agency conducted comparative risk
assessments in the development of
regulations prohibiting land disposal of
certain spent solvent and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes (November
7,1986 final rule) and California list
wastes (July 8,1987 final rule), the
analyses did not affect the
determinations that treatment was
available.
Upon further consideration of the
existing comparative risk analysis, the
Agency has decided not to utilize
comparative risk assessment in this
rulemaking because it is problematic. 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 situations 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 treat or 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
comparative risk assessments would not
deter the use of treatment found to
present greater total risk
In light of these considerations, EPA
has not used the existing comparative
risk assessment approach in this
proposal and is reconsidering its
application as a decision tool in future
rulemakings 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. In the
April 8,1988 proposal the Agency
solicited comment on this new
approach.
D. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for First
Third Wastes
1. Capacity Data Base and Methodology
EPA has developed a new data base
for capacity analyses. This data base is
comprised of information from
responses to the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal and Recycling Facilities (the
TSDR Survey).
EPA conducted the TSDR Survey
during 1987 and early 1988. One major
objective of the survey was to obtain
comprehensive data on hazardous waste
management capacity and on volumes
of hazardous waste being land disposed.
The TSDR Survey was sent to all RCRA
permitted or RCRA interim status
facilities that have or plan to have
treatment, disposal or recycling
capabilities. The TSDR Survey was also
sent to a statistical sample of facilities
that have only storage. This new data
base is the primary source of data for
evaluation of capacity for this rule, with
supplemental data used as needed. (See
the Background Document for First
Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part
268 Land Disposal Restrictions, Part II.,
referred to hereafter as the "Capacity
Background Document," for a complete
description of the TSDR Survey data set
and other supplemental data.)
The general approach for capacity
analyses for this rule is similar to that
used for the past land disposal
restrictions rules, but the new data set
provides for more comprehensive
analyses. Major changes in the capacity
methodology include an analysis of
volumes being treated in surface
impoundments that meet the minimum
technology .requirements, an analysis of
planned closure of surface
impoundments through replacement
with tanks, and an analysis of the
sequences of management processes
that minimizes the possibility of double
counting. (See the Capacity Background
Document for a detailed description of
the capacity data set and methodology.)
2. Capacity Analysis of First Third
Wastes, Solvent Wastes, California List
Wastes, and Soil and Debris
The following discussion presents
EPA's capacity analyses for the First
Third wastes for which EPA is
proposing treatment standards. These
analyses were performed using the new
TSDR Survey data. EPA is also
presenting updated capacity analyses
for the wastes addressed in the
Proposed First Third Rule on April 8,
1988 (53 FR 11742). The Agency
explained in-this recent notice that the
new TSDR Survey data would be used
to reassess available treatment capacity
for those wastes as soon as it was
available (see 53 FR 11742).
Section III.E briefly covers new
capacity analyses of waste volumes
requiring alternative capacity pursuant
to the Solvents Rule (51 FR 40572) and
the California List Rule (52 FR 25760).
Section III.F presents our analysis of soil
and debris wastes. These waste
volumes are not included in the
analyses of the First Third wastes.
However, it is important to note that the
discussion of capacity available for
treating First Third wastes does reflect
only the amount of available capacity
remaining after accounting for the
treatment of wastes restricted from land
disposal under the Solvents Rule and
HOCs under the California List Rule.
a. Total Quantity of Land Disposed
First Third Wastes. EPA has estimated
the total quantities of all of the
scheduled First Third wastes that are
land disposed annually based on the
results of the TSDR Survey. These waste
quantities, and the methods by which
the wastes are stored, treated, and
disposed, are presented in the table
below. Underground injection, one
method of land disposal, is not included,
but will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking. Other methods of land
disposal that Eire affected by today's
proposal (e.g., utilization of salt dome
and salt bed formations and
underground mines and caves) are not
addressed in the capacity analyses
because of insufficient data.
TABLE 1.— TOTAL VOLUME OF LAND
DISPOSED FIRST THIRD WASTES
[Million gallons/year]
Storage:
Waste piles :
Surface impoundments..
Treatment:
Waste piles ,
Surface impoundments.,
Disposal:
Landfills
Land treatment
Surface impoundments..
48
6
29
612
303
77
78
Total..
1,153
About 78 million gallons of First Third
wastes are disposed of in surface
impoundments annually. Ultimately, all
of this waste will require alternative
treatment capacity. Approximately 6
million gallons of First Third wastes are
stored in surface impoundments
annually. Since storage means 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 (i.e., counting
-------
17608
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
them once when they are stored and
then again when they are finally
disposed of) 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
these wastes will eventually require
alternative storage capacity because of
the restrictions on placement of wastes
into surface impoundments.
In addition to the wastes stored and
disposed in surface impoundments,
about 612 million gallons of First Third
wastes are treated annually in surface
impoundments that do not meet the
minimum technology standards or are
residuals that have been removed from
those surface impoundments that do
meet the minimum technology
standards. Additionally, about 48
million gallons were stored in waste
piles, 29 million gallons were treated in
waste piles, and 380 million gallons
were disposed of by landfill and land
treatment.
The Agency has also estimated the
quantities of land disposed First Third
wastes for which treatment standards
are being proposed today and for which
standards were proposed on April 8,
1988.
WASTE CODES—STANDARDS BEING PROPOSED TODAY
F006
K044
K08S
K001
K045
K087
K021
K046
K099
K022
K047
K101
K025 '
K060
K102
1K02S—originally a Second Third waste (51 FR 19300, May 28,1986), but treatment standards are being proposed today.
WASTE CODES—STANDARDS PROPOSED APRIL 8,1988
K004
K020
K049
K069
K008
K024
K050
K071
K015
K030
K051
K073
K016
K036
K052
K1001
K018
K037
K061
K103
K083
K106
K0191
K048
K062
K104
> K019—originally a Second Third waste. K100—originally a Third waste. Treatment standards were proposed on April 8,1988.
Waste quantities for these codes and
the method by which they are disposed
are presented in the table below.
TABLE 2.— VOLUME OF LAND DISPOSED
FIRST THIRD WASTES FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BEING PROPOSED
[Million gallons per year]
Storage:
Waste piles 40
Surface impoundments 4
Treatment
Waste plies -... 27
Surface Impoundments 321
Disposal:
Landfills 286
Land treatment 77
Surface.impoundments - 78
833
Total •»•
In addition to the quantities presented
above, the Agency also has estimated
the amount of land disposed First Third
wastes for which treatment standards
are not being proposed before August 8,
1988. This group of wastes is subject to
the "soft hammer" provisions and
includes all of the First Third P and U
wastes as well as the following F and K
wastes:
F007 F008 F009 F019 K011 K013
K014 K017 K031 K035 K084 K085
Waste quantities for these codes and
the method by which they are land
disposed are presented in the table
below.
TABLE 3.—VOLUME OF LAND DISPOSED
FIRST THIRD WASTES FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE NOT BEING PROPOSED
[Million gallons per year]
Storage:
Waste piles 8
Surface impoundments 2
Treatment:
Waste piles 2
Surface impoundments 291
Disposal: ' ,
Landfills 17
Land treatment ,. <1
Surface impoundments <1
Total..
320
b. Required Alternative Capacity. In
order to complete our capacity analyses,
EPA had to assess the requirements for
alternative treatment capacity that
would result from the promulgation of
today's proposed rule. EPA first
characterized the volumes of First Third
wastes for which treatment standards
are being proposed, since these wastes
will require alternative treatment. "
Waste streams were characterized on
the basis of land disposal method, waste
code, and physical/chemical form. Using
this information, the Agency then
determined which treatment
technologies are applicable to the waste
volumes and placed the wastes into
treatability groups (groups of wastes for
which proposed treatment standards are
based on the same technology). Finally,
EPA determined the volumes of.
alternative treatment capacity that
would be required when owners/
operators comply with the land disposal
restrictions being proposed today.
Based on this analysis, the Agency
estimates that today's proposed rule
could potentially,affect about 833
million gallons of First Third wastes that
are land disposed annually. Of this total,
about 789 million gallons will require
alternative treatment capacity (the
remainder is stored). As explained
elsewhere in this preamble, EPA is
proposing treatment standards that are
expressed as concentration limits and is
identifying the technology basis of the
standards (the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology or BDAT). EPA is
not requiring that the specified
treatment technologies be used to
comply with the standards, but these
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17609
technologies, as described below
(Section III.D.3), were generally used as
the basis for determining available
capacity.
The volumes of First Third wastes
that require alternative treatment/
recycling capacity are presented in
Table 4. This table includes only the
quantities of wastes that require
alternative commercial capacity; the
volumes given do not include wastes
that can [>e treated on-site by the
generator.
TABLE 4.—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COM-
MERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING CA-
PACITY FOR FIRST THIRD WASTES
BEING PROPOSED TODAY
[Million gallons/year]
Waste code
F006
K001
K021
K022
K025
K044
K045
K046
K047
K060
K083
K086
K087
K099
K101/102
K106 « .
Required
capacity
1269
2.4
10.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
00
1 6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1 4
00
01
04
1 See section III.D.3 for a discussion of wastes not
requiring alternative treatment capacity.
TABLE 5.—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COM-
MERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING CA-
PACITY FOR FIRST THIRD WASTES PRO-
POSED APRIL 8, 1988
[Million gallons/year]
Waste code
K004
K008
K015 .......
K016 :
K018
K019
K020
K024
K030 _
K036
K037
K048 .'
K049 ; j
K050 _
K051
K052
K061 : '.
K062 .... ..
K069 .'
K071 _ _
K073 . ~~.i
K100
K103 .'
Required
capacity
00
0.0
00
0.3
00
01
02
0.0
37.1
31.7
11.5
78.D
12.3
82.8
40.3
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
TABLE 5.—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COM-
MERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING CA-
PACITY FOR FIRST THIRD WASTES PRO-
POSED APRIL 8,1988—Continued
[Million gallons/year]
Waste code
K104
Required
capacity
<0 1
See Section III D.3 for a discussion of wastes not
requiring alternative treatment capacity.
3. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates
The table below also presents the
volumes of First Third wastes that
require alternative treatment capacity,
but, in this case, the volumes are given
according to the technology description
of the type of alternative treatment
required. This table also presents the
amount of capacity that is available in
each case.
It is important to note that the
volumes given for each treatability
group represent figures derived by
summing volumes reported as land
disposed in the TSDR Survey for each
waste code. Some of these wastes,
because of their actual physical form,
cannot meet treatment standards simply
by using the technology designated as
BDAT (e.g., a waste, in the form of a
sludge cannot undergo liquid injection
incineration, even though this may have
been identified as BDAT for a particular
waste code). These wastes must be
treated through several steps, called a
treatment train (in the example given,
the sludge would require de-watering
and possibly other types of treatment
before the residuals could undergo
incineration). EPA has assumed that the
residuals in such cases will be treated
using alternative technologies prior to
land.disposal and, therefore, EPA has.
assigned the total volumes reported to
appropriate technologies. See the
Capacity Background Document for a
complete description of the alternative
treatment technologies and treatment
trains that were included in the analysis.
TABLE 6.—ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL
TREATMENT/RECYCLING CAPACITY FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES
[Million gallons per year]
Technology
Incineration:
Liquids
Solid/sludge
Stabilization _ ',
Mercury retorting
High temperature
metals recovery
Available
246
7 :
427 1
o1
34
Required
<1
j 157 (5)
145
<1
83
TABLE 6.—ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL
TREATMENT/RECYCLING CAPACITY FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES^Continued
[Million gallons per year]
Technology
Wastewater treatment:
Cyanide oxidation,
chemical
precipitation,
settling/filtration
Chromium reduction,
chemical
precipitation,
settling/filtration
Carbon adsorption,
chromium
reduction,
chemical
precipitation,
settling/filtration ...;..
Sludge treatment:
Acid leaching,
chemical
oxidation, sludge
dewatering
Available
164
195
12
0
Required
<1
41
1
4
1 Numbers in parentheses denote the volume of
waste that still requires alternative capacity when
K048-K052 wastes are not included in the analyses
(as explained, a capacity variance is being proposed
for K048-K052).
Liquid Incineration. EPA estimates
that about one million gallons per year
of First Third wastes would require
liquid incineration treatment as a result
of the treatment standards proposed
today and on April 8,1988. Treatment
standards for the wastes K015, K083 and
K086 are based on liquid incineration.
Using the new TSDR survey data, the
Agency has evaluated commercial
capacity and has determined that there
is ample capacity available to treat
these wastes (approximately 246 million
gallons). Thus, EPA does not propose to
grant a capacity variance for K015, K083,
or K086 wastes.
Solid/Sludge Incineration Capacity.
EPA estimates, that about 157 million
gallons per year of First Third wastes
would require solid/sludge incineration
capacity as a result of the treatment
standards proposed today and on April
8,1988. Treatment standards for the
wastes K001, K016, K019, K020, K022,
K024, K030, K037, K048-K052, K087, K101
and K102 are based on solid/sludge
incineration.
Uoing the new TSDR Survey data, the
Agency has evaluated commercial
capacity and has determined that there
is only about 7 million gallons of solid/
sludge incineration capacity available.
Therefore, EPA proposes to grant a two-
year national capacity variance from the
effective date for the wastes K048-K052.
The total volume for these wastes
dominates the analysis. If they are
granted a variance, all of the remaining
-------
17610
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17, 1988 / Proposed
wastes in this treatability group may be
treated.
As explained previously,
contaminated soil and debris wastes are
not included in this section of the
preamble, but are discussed in section
1II.F. However, note that this discussion
of incineration capacity demonstrates
that there is insufficient commercially
available treatment capacity for certain
contaminated soils that would require
aolids incineration to comply with the
land disposal restriction standards.
Stabilization. EPA estimates that
about 145 million gallons per year of
First Third wastes would require
stabilization capacity as a result of the
treatment standards proposed today .and
on April 8,1988. Treatment standards
for the wastes F006 and K046 are based
on stabilization.
Using the new TSDR survey data, the
Agency has evaluated commercial
capacity and has determined that there
is more than enough capacity available
to treat these wastes (approximately 427
million gallons). Therefore, the Agency
does not propose to grant a capacity
variance to wastes for which treatment
standards are based on stabilization.
Mercury Retorting and High
Temperature Metals Recovery. EPA
estimates that less than one million
gallons of First Third wastes would
require mercury retorting and about 83
million gallons would require high
temperature metals recovery capacity
per year as a result of the treatment
standards proposed today and on April
8,1908. Treatment standards for the
wastes K061 and K106 are based on high
temperature metals recovery and
mercury retorting, respectively.
Using the new TSDR survey data; the
Agency has evaluated commercial
capacity and has determined that there
is not enough capacity available to treat
K061 or K108. Therefore, EPA proposes
to grant a 2-year national capacity
variance from the ban effective date for
these wastes.
Wastewater Treatment. EPA
estimates that less than 43 million
gallons per year of First Third waste
would require various types of
wastewater treatment as a result of the
treatment standards proposed today and
on April 8.1988. (See Table 6 for
descriptions of the various types of
wastewater treatment.) Treatment
standards for the waste K062 are based
on wastewater treatment (chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation'and
filtration).
Using the new TSDR survey data, the
Agency has evaluated commercial
capacity and has determined that there
is adequate capacity available for
wastewater treatment. Therefore, the
Agency does not propose to grant a
capacity variance for K062.
Sludge Treatment. EPA estimates that
about four million gallons per year of
First Third wastes would require sludge
treatment as a result of the treatment
standards proposed today and on April
8,1988. Treatment standards for the
waste K071 are based on sludge
treatment (acid leaching, chemical
oxidation, and sulfide precipitation and
filtration).
After analyzing the new TSDR Survey
data, the Agency has determined that
there is not enough treatment capacity
commercially available to treat K071.,
Therefore, EPA proposes to grant a 2-
year national capacity variance from the
ban effective date to K071.
Wastes for Which Treatment
Standards Are Based on Solvent
Recovery or Solvent Extraction.
Proposed treatment standards for the
wastes K103 and K104 are based on
solvent recovery. BOAT for K103 is
solvent extraction, followed by steam
stripping, followed by carbon
adsorption, followed by carbon
regeneration. BDAT for K104 is solvent
extraction fpllpwed by liquid
incineration and followed by steam
stripping, followed by carbon
adsorption, followed by carbon
regeneration.
Using the new TSDR Survey data,
EPA has determined that the only
volumes of these wastes that require
alternative commercial capacity are
those not amenable to solvent recovery
or solvent extraction because of their.
physical forms. Therefore, the Agency
has assumed that the K103 and K104
wastes requiring alternative treatment
will^indergo incineration, followed by
stabilization of the ash. Again, the
Agency believes that this treatment can
achieve the standard and the volumes of
K103 and K104 requiring alternative
treatment have been included in the
incineration and stabilization totals
presented in Table 6. •
Wastes Not Requiring Alternative
Capacity. After reviewing the new
.TSDR Survey, EPA has determined that
many First Third wastes do not require
alternative capacity, even though
treatment standards are being proposed.
These wastes are: K021, K025, K044,
K045, K047, K060, K099, K004, K008,
K015, K018, K036, K069, K073, and KlOO.
Each of these is discussed below.
Proposed treatment standards for
K044, K045 and K047 wastes are based
on open detonation, for which there is
no capacity constraint provided the
residuals are not hazardous. The
Agency believes that when open •
detonation is properly conducted, no
reactive residues remain and the
residuals exhibit no other characteristic.
Therefore, no K044, K045, or K047 would
require alternative commercial capacity
and no further analysis is necessary.
Proposed treatment standards for the
First Third waste K099 are based on
chlorine oxidation. The Agency has
determined that this waste is only being
generated at one facility, and that the
generator is able to treat the waste on-
site. Therefore, no volumes were
reported as requiring alternative
commercial capacity and no further
analysis is necessary.
Proposed treatment standards for the
First Third waste K015 are based on
liquid incineration and standards for
waste K018 are based on solid/sludge
incineration. However, after analyzing
the new TSDR Survey data EPA has
determined that neither of these wastes
requires alternative treatment capacity.
There are several possible explanations
for this. First, it is possible that all of
these wastes now being generated are
being treated on-site, and do not require
commercial capacity. Second, it is
possible that these wastes are simply
not being land disposed or are being
land disposed by a method either not
covered in the TSDR Survey or not
included in the proposed rule (e.g., the
wastes may be land disposed in an
underground mine or maybe deep-well
injected). Finally/the waste may not
have required alternative capacity in
1986, the reporting date covered by the
TSDR Survey.
Proposed treatment standards for the
First Third waste K069 are based on
total recycle; this waste cannet be land
disposed. Available information shows
that all K069 wastes currently being
generated are now being recycled and
that no land disposal is occurring.' Thus,
this waste does not require alternative
capacity.
The'Agency has determined that
several First Third wastes are no longer
being generated. The treatment
standards for these wastes are "no land
disposal." These wastes are: K021, K025,
K060, K004, K008, K036, K073, and KlOO.
Since none of these wastes were
reported as being land disposed in the
TSDR Survey, no further capacity
analysis was required.
Finally, EPA notes that these new
TSDR data have implications for soft
hammer certifications. EPA will be very
skeptical about and will probably
invalidate any soft hammer certification
for a waste amenable to treatment by a
treatment method for which ample
capacity is now known to exist.
Examples are any waste amenable to
liquid injection incineration or to
stabilization.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17611
E. Alternative Capacity and Effective
Dates for Solvent Wastes and California
List Wastes
Using the new capacity data, EPA has
reevaluated waste volumes requiring
alternative capacity because of the
Solvents Rule (51FR 40572) and the
California List HOC rule (52 FR 25760).
As described above, the new analysis .
indicated significant changes in waste
management practices and capacity,
including significant increases in
incineration capacity. Consequently,
some national capacity variances are no
longer'necessary. Specifically, capacity
variances are no longer needed for: (1)
Solvents (F001-F005) generated by small
quantity generators, CERCLA response
action and RCRA corrective action sites
addressed in § 268.30(a) (1) and (2) -
(except solvent contaminated soils) and
for (2) California List HOCs (except
HOC soil's). The BOAT treatment for
these wastes is incineration, and the
new capacity data indicate significant
increases in incineration capacity,
assuring adequate capacity for these
wastes (See Table 6).
E. National Variance From the Effective
Date for Contaminated Soils
1. Legal Authority
Under RCRA sections 3004 (d)(3) and
(e)(3), Congress provided that the land
disposal restriction provisions for
disposal of certain "contaminated soil"
and "debris" from CERCLA 104 and 106
response actions and from RCRA
corrective actions would not apply until
48 months from the enactment of
HSWA. These provisions apply
specifically to soil and debris
contaminated with spent solvents,
certain dioxin-containing wastes, and
California list restricted hazardous
wastes. November 8,1988, therefore, is
the applicable effective date established
under RCRA 3004 subsections (d)(3) and
(e){3) for CERCLA and RCRA corrective
action contaminated soil and debris.
Congress provided no such alternative
statutory effective date for CERCLA and
RCRA soil and debris contaminated
with First Third (or Second Third)
wastes. Thus, the statutory effective
date for these wastes is the same as for
any other hazardous waste which is
included in the first one-third of the
schedule—August 8,1988.
EPA has considered carefully the
argument that the statutory effective
date for solvent, dioxin, and HOC
contaminated soils and debris from
CERCLA response action and RCRA
corrective actions cannot be extended
because the national effective date for
the underlying hazardous waste already
has been extended for the maximum
two years. EPA does not find this
argument persuasive. First, sections 3004
(d)(3) and (e)(3) appear to establish a
November 8,1988 effective date for a
' particular category of wastes, namely
contaminated soil and debris from
CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions. Section 3004(h)(2)
then gives the Agency the authority to
extend effective dates that otherwise
would apply under subsection (d) or (e)
for up to two years. The scheme, in fact,
is similar to that for solvent, dioxin and
California list wastes land disposed by
underground injection, which are
prohibited from land disposal on August
8,1988 (RCRA section 3004(f)), which
effective date likewise may be extended
due to a lack of protective alternative
capacity for up to two years.
Second, it is logical that Congress
would have intended a later effective
date for these wastes. An extra measure
of environmental protection and
accountability is afforded for these
wastes due to the CERCLA and RCRA
corrective action processes. These
processes provide a documented
connection with a regulatory process.
Such a connection is not present for
normal disposal of restricted wastes,
and thus makes less pressing the need
for an immediate prohibition effective ...
date. Most important, however, is
Congress' evident acknowledgment that
it would take extra 'time to develop
treatment capacity for soils and debris
at the cleanup sites contaminated with
these wastes. Foreseeing this potential
shortfall, Congress placed these wastes
on an alternative schedule
approximately the same as the one for
the first group of wastes prohibited
under section 3004(g). Restricted
hazardous wastes are normally
prohibited from land disposal as soon as
the statutory deadline passes. (RCRA
section 3004(h)(l)). If, however, there is
a lack of adequate alternative protective
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity to treat the wastes, the Agency
may set an alternative effective date
based on the earliest date on which such
adequate capacity becomes available,
not to exceed two years. (RCRA section
3004(h)(2)).
2. Summary of the Proposed Agency
Action
In today's action, the Agency is
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for certain contaminated soils
that require solids incineration capacity.
This variance applies to the following
specific categories of soils contaminated
with the following wastes: (a) Soils
contaminated with spent solvent (F001-
F005) and dioxin-containing (F020-23
and F026-28) wastes (restricted under
section 3004(e)) from a response action
taken under CERCLA section 104 or 106
or a RCRA corrective action; (b) soils
contaminated with California list HOC
wastes (under 3004(d)J from a response
action taken under CERCLA section 104
or 106 or RCRA corrective actions; and
(c) soils contaminated with certain First
Third wastes for which the proposed
treatment standards are based on
incineration. (This final capacity
variance does not apply exclusively to
soils from CERCLA response and RCRA
corrective actions. This is because there
is no statutory distinction as to effective
date between CERCLA/RCRA 3004(g)
soils and all other soils as there is for
3004 (d) and (e) soils.) The applicable
First Third wastes include K015, K016,
K018, K019, K020, K024, K030, K037, and
K048-K052 wastes addressed in the
April 8,1988 proposed rule (53 FR
11742), and K001, K083, K087, K101 and
K102 wastes addressed in this proposal.
Today's action proposes a 2-year
national capacity variance from the
applicable statutory effective date for
these wastes. As such, the 'soils
contaminated with the specified First
Third wastes would receive a variance
that extends the effective date for the
land disposal restrictions to August 8,
1990. On the other hand, CERCLA and
RCRA soils contaminated with spent
solvent, certain listed dioxin-containing
wastes and California list HOC wastes
would be covered by the capacity
variance until November 8,1990—two
years from the end of the statutory
effective date applicable to these
wastes. The following chart summarizes
the Agency's proposal:
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED
EFFECTIVE DATES
Restricted hazardous
waste
1. Solvent and dioxin-
containing soil and
debris:
a. Soil from CERCLA
or RCRA
corrective actions
contaminated with
section 3004(e)
solvent or dioxin
hazardous waste. ....
b. Debris from
CERCLA or RCRA
corrective actions
contaminated with
section 3004(e)
solvent or dioxrn
hazardous waste
Current
prohibition
effective
date
11-8-88
il-8-88
Proposed
prohibition
effective
date
11-8-90
No change.1
-------
17612
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED
EFFECTIVE DATES—Continued
Restricted hazardous
waste
c. Soil NOT from
CERCLAorRCRA
corrective actions
contaminated with
section 3004(e)
solvent or dtoxin
hazardous waste.....
II. Soil and debris
contaminated with
CaMomla list HOC
containing
hazardous wastes:
a. Sol from CERCLA
orRCRA
corrective actions....
b. Debris (ram
CERCLA or RCRA
corrective actions....
c. SoH NOT from
CERCLA or RCRA
corrective actions....
III. Soil and debris
contaminated with
First Third wastes:
a, So9 from CERCLA
or RCRA
corrective actions
for which BOAT is
based on
Incineration ~
b. Debris from
CERCLAorRCRA
corrective actions....
c. Soil NOT from
CERCLA or RCRA
corrective actions
for which BOAT is
based on
(ndneratton
Current
prohibition
effective
date
11-8-88
7-8-89
7-8-89
7-8-89
8-8-88
8-8-88
8-8-88
Proposed
prohibition
effective
date
No change.
11-8-90
No change.1
No change.1
8-8-90
No change.1
8-8-90
1 However, see section F.4. of todays preamble.
With respect to soils contaminated
with spent solvent and dioxin-
containing wastes, only those that result
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 106 of CERCLA or a
corrective action required under RCRA
would be included under this capacity
variance. For all other soils
contaminated with these wastes, an
application for a case-by-case extension
may be submitted if adequate
alternative capacity cannot reasonably
be made available by the applicable
effective date. (See section 3004(h)(3).)
Similarly, the proposed variance does
not apply to California list HOC
contaminated soils except those
resulting from a CERCLA 104 or 106
response action or RCRA corrective
action. Note that even though today's
action proposes to rescind parts of the
July 8,1987 variances granted for HOCs,
the existing capacity variance remains
in place until July 8,1989 for California
list HOC contaminated soils.
Furthermore, the proposed variance
does not apply to soils contaminated
with First Third waste for which
treatment standards have not been
established (i.e., those wastes subject to
the "soft hammer" provisions). As a
general matter, EPA is not proposing
capacity variances'for any soft hammer
wastes. This is because the soft hammer
itself provides a mechanism for
ascertaining availability of treatment
capacity (for wastes whose intended
disposition is a landfill or
impoundment), by placing the burden of
investigating and certifying on the
person managing the prohibited waste.
3. The Facts Justifying a National ,
Capacity Variance for These Soils
Soils require rotary kiln incineration
to meet BOAT standards. As mentioned
in the sectipri on capacity.
determinations (specifically III.D.4.), the
evaluation of commercial rotary kiln
incineration capacity required for solids
incineration, shows that there is only
about 2 million gallons of available
commercial capacity (i.e., available after
the effective dates for the non-soil
solvents wastes, the non-soil California
list HOC wastes and non-soil First Third
wastes).
The amount of soil estimated to
require solids incineration is shown
below (These amounts represent the
quantity of soils handled by commercial
treatment facilities in 1986. Note, that
the amount of soils requiring solids
incineration that are generated hy
CERCLA response or RCRA corrective
actions is not currently known.):
• Solvent—12 million gal/yr.
• Dioxin—(none reported in 1986)
• California List HOC's (other than
First Third wastes for which treatment
standards have been proposed)—4
million gal/yr.
• First Third (for which treatment
standards have been proposed)—10
million gal/yr.
Thus, all of the solids incineration
capacity would be utilized as a result of
other actions taken today, and there will
be a lack of capacity for soils
incineration.
EPA acknowledges that in proposing a
national capacity variance for
contaminated soils, it is making a policy
choice. That is, instead of proposing to
rescind the variance for other HOC and
solvent wastes requiring solids
incineration, and not proposing a
variance for certain First Third wastes
requiring this type of treatment, EPA
instead could try and carve out some
segment of CERCLA and RCRA
corrective action soils for immediate •
prohibition (leaving in place, or
proposing a variance for these other
waste). EPA is not pursuing this course
for several reasons. First, it would be
hard, if not impossible, to carve out a
discrete segment of contaminated clean
up soils to fit the available treatment
capacity. More importantly, the precise
amount of CERCLA and RCRA
corrective action soils to be generated
over the next 24 months is not certain
(due to the unpredictable pace of clean
up actions), whereas the amount of the
other surface disposal wastes discussed
above that require solids incineration
capacity is much better quantified. By
rescinding, or not proposing, variances
for the wastes whose volume is better
quantified, EPA is far more certain that
the existing treatment capacity will
actually be utilized. That is, EPA will
not be reserving scarce solids
incineration capacity for contaminated
soils that might never be generated. EPA
thus is structuring these proposed
variances to make certain that scarce
solids incineration capacity will actually
be utilized.
This is not to say that EPA will
invariably allocate treatment capacity to
prohibited wastes whose generation rate
is qualified. For. example, if the Agency
were required to allocate between
corrective action/response wastes and
wastes presently disposed of in
underground injection wells or surface
units other than impoundments and
landfills, the Agency might choose to
allocate the capacity to the corrective
action/response wastes, given that they
are customarily generated at sites
actually posing a risk. EPA plans to
discuss this point further in regulations
dealing with First Third wastes that are
injected into underground wells.
4. Request for Comment on Variance for
Contaminated Debris
EPA is not proposing to grant a
capacity variance for contaminated
debris. Debris encompasses so many
different types of materials—many of
them highly out of-the-ordinary—mat
generic determinations as to type of
treatment needed, and amount
generated, are difficult.
EPA, however, solicits comment on
whether a variance for contaminated
debris should be granted. Such a
variance would apply to all debris from
r CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions which is
contaminated with solvents, certain
dioxins or HOCs above 1,000 ppm. It
would also apply to debris
contaminated with first third wastes
whose treatment standard is based on
incineration. Although it is difficult to
pinpoint exactly how much debris will
be generated, much of it will be solids
(see 51 FR 40577, November 7,1986)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53.-No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
17613
defining "debris" to include "wood,
stumps, clothing, equipment building
materials, storage containers, and
liners"). The treatment standard for
these solids will be based on
incineration, and as noted above, EPA
has allotted available solids incineration
capacity for wastes other than soils and
debris. Put another way, if there is not
enough solids incineration capacity to
accommodate contaminated soils, there
also is not enough solids incineration
capacity to accommodate both
contaminated soils plus contaminated
debris. In addition, Congress linked
contaminated soils and debris when it
established a different effective date for
these wastes in sections 3004 (d)(3) and
(e)(3). EPA thus solicits comment on
extending the scope of the variance to
include contaminated debris.
5. No Proposed Variance for Other
Contaminated Soils
EPA is not proposing a national
capacity variance for any of the
following hazardous wastes: (a) Soils
contaminated with solvents or dioxins
which do not result from CERCLA
response actions or RCRA corrective
actions; and (b) soils contaminated with
wastes whose treatment standard is not
based on incineration. (See chart:
Summary of Current and Proposed
Effective Dates). With respect to soils
that are not generated in the course of
CERCLA or RCRA clean up activities,
the applicable statutory effective date of
November 8,1986 has already passed
and cannot be extended further (any
person who manages such wastes may,
however, submit an application for a
case-by-case extension to the effective
date). With respect to contaminated
soils not requiring incineration to
achieve the treatment standard, there is
ample treatment capacity (for example,
stabilization) so that a capacity variance
is not warranted.
6. Definition of "Soil"
For the purpose of determining
whether a contaminated material is
subject to this national variance, some
definition of the term "soil" is needed.
Soil is defined as materials that are
primarily geologic in origin such as silt,
loam, or clay, and'that are indigenous to
the natural geological environment. In
certain cases soils will be mixed with
liquids, sludges or debris. The Agency is
soliciting comment with respect to
appropriate methods for determining
whether such mixtures should be
considered a soil waste. Soils ordinarily
do not include any wastes withdrawn
from hazardous waste management
units, however, such as impoundment
dredgings. EPA has calculated that
treatment capacity exists for these
wastes, and in addition, they are
sludges, not soils. In addition,
contaminated soils would ordinarily
have to result from some type of cleanup
activity not associated with a hazardous
waste management unit currently
subject to regulations under Parts 264
and 265.
The Agency also notes that the
proposed variance obviously would not
apply to materials produced as a result
of the deliberate addition of soil or dirt
to a restricted hazardous waste. Such a
practice is forbidden by the provisions
of the dilution prohibition (40 CFR
268.3).
7. Notes on Drafting of the Regulatory
Language
To implement these changes in the
various capacity variances, EPA is
proposing to amend regulatory language
in §§ 268.30-268.33. With respect to the
solvent wastes covered in § 268.30, the
Agency is proposing to add a new
§ 268.30(a)(4) dealing with Contaminated
soil and debris from CERCLA response
and RCRA corrective actions. This
provision would replace existing
§ 268.1(c)(3). New § 268.30(a)(5)-(7)
would then indicate that certain
residues from treating solvent wastes
also would have prohibition effective
dates other then November 7,1986.
(Incidentally, we note that the final
changes in new § 268.30(a)(5) refers by
cross-reference to treatment residues
that have less than 1 percent solvent
(treatment residues in the (a)(3)
treatability group) but not to
contaminated soils; this is because the
contaminated soils in proposed
§ 268.30(a)(4) would never be generated
as residues from treating another
restricted solvent waste).
New § 268.30(b) would then group all
the solvent wastes having a November
8,1988 prohibition effective date (the
<1% wastes in § 268.30(a)(3), the
treatment residues in proposed
§ 268.30(a)(5), and CERCLA response
and RCRA corrective action debris, and
residues from treating the debris). New
§ 268.30(c) would group the wastes
having an earlier effective date: i.e.,
Small Quantity Generator, CERCLA
response and RCRA corrective action
non-soil and debris wastes and residues
from their treatment. New § 268.30(d)
would set forth the 1990 effective date
for CERCLA response and RCRA
corrective action wastes. We also have
added language indicating that if these
wastes are to be disposed in landfills or
impoundments until the prohibition
effective date then the landfill or
impoundment unit must meet the section
3004(o) minimum technology
requirements. (See 53 FR11769 (April 8,
1988)).
The Agency is proposing to make
similar changes in § § 268.31, 268.32, and
268.33 (this last provision still is
proposed form) to reflect the proposed,
revised effective dates. The language in
§ 268.33(c) would indicate that the 1990
effective date would apply to all soils
contaminated with First Third wastes
where the treatment standard for the
waste is based on incineration.
Appendix II of Part 268 will list the
technology basis; for treatment
standards, and so provide a ready
means of ascertedning which standards
are based on incineration.
IV. Modifications to the Land Disposal
Restrictions Framework and to Proposed
Soft Hammer Provisions
A. Applicability (40 CFR 268.1)
The Agency is proposing to add a new
§ 268.1(d) to clarify that the Part 268
standards do nol: apply invariably to
prohibited wasteis generated from
CERCLA response actions. Rather, such
wastes could be subject to one or more
of the waivers from otherwise
applicable standards, which waivers are
contained in CERCLA section 121(d)(4)
(A)-(F). The same is true, of course, of
all other RCRA provisions, but EPA
believes it particularly important to
mention this with respect to Part 268
because there are regulatory provisions
that deal explicitly with prohibited
wastes from CERCLA response actions
(see e.g. proposed §§ 268.30{a)(4) and
268.30(c)).
B. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 268.7)
The November 7,1986, rule (51 FR
40572) established a tracking system for
wastes subject tci the land disposal
restrictions requiring treatment facilities
to have records of the notices received
from generators or other treatment
facilities, and disposal facilities to have
copies of the notifications and
certifications provided by generators or
treatment, storage and disposal facilities
as codified in 40 CFR 268.7. The April 8,
1988, notice (53 FR 11742) proposed to
modify the tracking system by having
storage facilities maintain files of the
notices and certifications sent by
generators and treatment facilities. This
proposal also developed a similar
tracking system for wastes subject to
the "soft hammer" provisions which
would require generators and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities to keep
records of the nolices and 40 CFR 268.8
demonstrations and certifications.
Today's notice proposes to further,
modify the tracking system to include in
-------
17614 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR 268.7 (8)(1}. (a)(2). (a)(3), (a)(4),
and (a)(5) provisions stating that
generators and storere must retain
copies of the notifications and
certifications forwarded to treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities and
received from storage facilities. The
Agency believes that these changes will
enhance the enforceability of the land
dispoaal restrictions regulations and will
make generator and storage
recordkeeping requirements consistent
with the recordkeeping requirements of
treatment and disposal facilities.
Today EPA is also proposing an
additional amendment to 40 CFR
268.7(a)(3) specifying that generators of
wastes which are the subject of case-by-
case extensions or national variances,
or disposers of wastes with "no
migration" exemptions must notify
treatment and storage facilities
receiving the wastes, a change that
supplements, and is consistent with, the
existing requirement to notify disposal
facilities. In addition, the Agency is
proposing that generators must retain
records of this notification.
EPA is also proposing to add 40 CFR
268.7(a)(5) to require generators to retain
records of data from testing the waste,
treatment residual, or extract of the
waste or treatment residual developed
using the TCLP. The Agency believes
that this addition to the regulations will
establish consistency with the existing
provisions requiring that data supporting
decisions to restrict wastes based on
knowledge of the wastes must be
maintained in the generator's files.
Furthermore, this action appears to
enhance the enforceability of the
regulations. EPA is requesting comment
on the proposed recordkeeping changes
explained in this section of the
preamble.
EPA is also proposing to modify
§ 268.7(a) to provide for a limitation on
the time period that records are required
to be retained by generators. Although
the current regulations require owners
and operators of facilities to maintain
§ 268.7 records for a finite period of
time, i.e., until closure of the facility (see
§§ 264.73(b) and 265.73(b)), the
regulations currently provide that
generators must maintain, for an
indefinite period of time, all supporting
data used to determine that a waste is
restricted based solely on the
generator's knowledge. See existing
§ 268.7(a)(4) (proposed to be
redesignated as § 268.7(a)(5) in today's
notice). In light of the indefinite time
period stated in this existing
requirement and today's proposal to
require generators to maintain
additional information (i.e., copies of the
§ 268.7 notices, certifications, and all
waste analysis data), the Agency
believes that a finite time period may be
a more appropriate burden on
generators, while preserving the
Agency's enforcement ability. Therefore,
EPA is today proposing a 5-year
limitation on the retention requirement
for all records generators produce to
comply with § 268.7 of the land disposal
restrictions.
Similar to the generator manifest
retention requirements in § 262.40, EPA
is proposing that the 5-year time period
would begin on the date that the
restricted waste is sent to on-site or off-
site treatment, storage, or disposal. Also
similar to the § 262.40 manifest
provision, the 5-year retention
requirement would be extended
automatically during the course of any
unresolved enforcement action
regarding the regulated activity or as
requested by the Administrator.
Unlike the generator manifest
requirements in § 262.42, which provide
that generators must submit an
Exception Report to EPA if they have
not received a signed copy of the
manifest from the designated owner or
operator within 45-days from when the
waste is accepted by the initial
transporter, EPA is not proposing to
create an exception reporting
requirement for § 268.7 generator
records. The Agency believes that an
additional exception reporting
requirement would be an undue burden
on generators. Instead, EPA believes
that requiring generators to retain for a
5-year period the § 268.7 records they
produce is a more reasonable
requirement, and that this would be
adequate to support the Agency's
enforcement program. The Agency
recognizes that the proposed 5-year limit
is unlike § 262.40, which requires
generators to maintain.a copy of the
manifest for a 3-year period (subject to
the automatic extension mentioned
above). EPA believes that a 5-year limit
is an appropriate compromise to
imposing an additional exception
reporting requirement, particularly in
light of the additional concerns
Congress has expressed regarding the
proper management of wastes that are
prohibited from land disposal. However,
the Agency also solicits comment on the
need for a 5-year limit versus the usual
3-year limit.
EPA also recognizes that the proposed
5-year retention requirement may, as a
practical matter, result in a de facto
change in the manifest retention
requirement from three years to five
years because many generators are
putting the § 268.7 notices and
certifications directly onto their
manifests. The Agency does not intend
to discourage the practice of putting this
§ 268.7 documentation on the manifest
to the extent that such practices comply
with State requirements. However, EPA
is requesting comment on the generator
record retention requirement proposed
in today's notice, including comment on
whether a finite period should be
specified and, if so, whether five years
or some other time period is appropriate.
C. National Variance for Spent Solvent
Waste Residues (4O CFR 268,30)
EPA is also proposing to make a
minor correction to 40 CFR 268.30(b)
which will cross-reference rule language
in the July 8,1987, regulations (52 FR
25760). Under this rule the Agency
added 40 CFR 268.30(a)(4) stating that
residues from treating the wastes
described in section 40 CFR 268.30(a) (1),
(2), and (3) are eligible for a two-year
variance from the effective date of the
restrictions. EPA. omitted, inadvertently,
to cross-reference paragraph (a)(4) in 40
CFR 268.30(b). We are proposing to
correct the omission in this rule. EPA is
not soliciting further comment on 40
CFR 268.30(a)(4) or any other provision
in 40 CFR 268.30(8) which does not
address the rescission of the variance
for solvent-containing wastes (with the
exception of § 268.30(a)(3) on which
EPA has solicited comment; see 53 FR
11770).
EPA is proposing the following minor
changes to the provisions implementing
the section 3004(g)(6) soft hammer,
which EPA proposed on April 8,1988.
D. Section 268.8(a)(3)
EPA is proposing a small change in
the language of proposed § 268.8(a)(3),
proposed at 53 FR 11788. The language
should refer to landfills and surface
impoundments rather than all land
disposal facilities, since the soft
hammer, which proposed § 268.8(a)(3)
implements, restricts disposal only to
landfills and surface impoundments.
E. Section 268.8(b)(2)
We are proposing language identical
to that proposed on April 8, except that
we would delete the final clause which
would allow the Regional Administrator
to require a given method of treatment
upon invalidating a certification. The
soft hammer does not appear to allow
EPA to affirmatively specify a type of
treatment.
F. Section 268.8(c)
We are also proposing a change in
proposed § 268.8(c) to indicate more
clearly that prohibited soft hammer
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules 17615
wastes can be disposed of in
impoundments or landfills until the
occurrence of the first of three events:
(1) The certification is invalidated; (2)
EPA establishes a treatment standard;
or (3) the hard hammer falls.
G. Section 268.33(g)
We are proposing modified language
to clarify a generator's testing
obligations when a treatment standard
specifies concentration levels in the
total waste versus the waste extract,
and also proposing to delete the final
three words ("in this section") since this
reference was overly restrictive
(omitting reference to no migration
variances or treatability variances, to
maintain only two of the omissions).
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR Part 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the federal program hi
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 noriauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do,
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
Today's rule is proposed pursuant to
sections 3004 (d) through (k), and (m), of
RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924 (d) through (k),
and (m)). Therefore, it will be added to
Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all
States, regardless of their authorization
status. States may apply for either
interim or final authorization for the
HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
discussed 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. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's proposal in authorized States
until their programs are modified to
adopt these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for 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. 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.
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 affect 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 the land disposal
restrictions would have to demonstrate
that it had the requisite authority to
administer section 3004 (f) and (g) of
RCRA. The conditions under which such
an authorization may take place are
summarized below and are discussed in
50 FR 28728, et seq., July 15,1985.
C. State Implementation
The following four aspects of the .
framework established in the November
7,1986, rule (51 FR 40572) affect State
implementation of today's proposal and
impact State actions on the regulated
community:
1. Under Part 268, Subpart C, EPA is
proposing land disposal restrictions for
all generators, Ixeaters, storers, 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 is
proposing to grant and rescind two-year
national variances from the effective
dates of the land disposal restrictions
based on an analysis of available
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity. Under § 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 dates 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
-------
17616
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. Under § 268.44, the Agency may
grant waste-specific variances from
treatment standards in cases where it
can be demonstrated that the physical
and/or chemical properties of the
wastes differ significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standards, and the wastes 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 new waste treatability
groups. All wastes meeting the criteria
of these new waste treatability groups
will also be subject to the variances,
and thus, granting such variances has
national impacts. Therefore, this aspect
of the program is not delegated to the
States.
4. Under § 268.6, EPA may grant
petitions of specific duration to allow
land disposal of certain hazardous
wastes 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 restrictions may be authorized
under RCRA section 3006 to grant
petitions for exemptions from the
restrictions. Decisions on site-specific
petitions do not require the national
perspective required to restrict wastes
or grant extensions. However, the
Agency is planning to propose an
interpretation of the "no migration"
language in the Federal Register for
public comment. Because of the
controversy surrounding the
interpretation of the statutory language,
and the potential for changes in policy,
EPA will be handling "no migration"
petitions 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 Agency's final decision on.
petitions in the Federal Register.
States are free to impose their own
disposal restrictions if such actions are
more stringent or broader in scope than
the actions of Federal programs (RCRA
section 3009 and 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Where
States impose such restrictions, the
broader and more stringent State
restrictions govern.
VI. Effect 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
restrictions program, some generators
might switch from land disposal of
restricted First Third wastes to
discharge to publicly^owned treatment
works (POTWs) in order to avoid
incurring the costs of alternative
treatment. In shifting from 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 might illegally discharge their
wastes to surface waters without
treatment, which could cause damage to
the local ecosystem and potentially pose
health risks from direct exposure or
bioaccumulation.
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
f scrubber waters could be discharged to
' surface waters. 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 and4ocal regulations.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
Management of some First Third
wastes could be shifted from 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 were not available.
Although there may be economic
incentives to manage restricted First
Third wastes by ocean dumping and
ocean-based incineration, 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
alternatives, be considered before
permits 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 emissions
to air. Some constituents, such as
chromium, can be more toxic if inhaled
than if ingested. Therefore, 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 Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Purpose
The Agency estimated the costs,
benefits, and economic impacts of
today's proposed rule. These estimates
are required for "major" regulations as
defined by Executive Order 12291. The
Agency is also required under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to assess
small business impacts resulting from
the proposed rule. The cost and
economic impact estimates serve,
additionally, as measures of the
practical capability of facilities to
comply with the proposed rule.
The results indicate that today's
supplementary proposed rule is not a
major rule. (However, in combination
with the previous proposal (April 8,
1988; 53 FR11742), the 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.
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. In addition, treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17617
standards were set in the proposed rule
for certain wastes which did not appear
in the database used for the RIA and
which were therefore not analyzed.
These discrepancies will be addressed
in the RIA for the First Third final rule.
2. Executive Order No. 12291
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to assess the effect of proposed Agency
actions and alternatives during the
development of regulations. Such an
assessment consists of a quantification
of the potential benefits and costs of the
rule, as well as a description-of any
beneficial or adverse effects that cannot
be quantified in monetary terms. In
addition, Executive Order No. 12291
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 and
has concluded that the supplementary
proposed rule is not a major rule. The
annual cost to the economy of the
supplementary proposed rule would be
approximately $36 million. (However, in
combination with the previous proposal
(April 8,1988, 53 FR 11742), the rule
would be a major rule with an annual
cost of $717-732 million.)
3. Basic Approach
EPA is proposing to set treatment
standards for a subset of the First Third
F and K wastes. The effects of the
proposed rule were estimated by
comparison of post-regulatory costs,
benefits, and economic impacts with
those resulting under baseline
conditions. The baseline is defined to be
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 arid
facilities was to characterize waste
streams based on available
characterization reports and
professional judgement. (See Section C
for references.) This characterization
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 populations
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 that
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 wastes streams
in the affected population. For example,
for some facilities, the costs of land
disposing 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 these
wastes and that these Wastes are no
longer part of the population of wastes
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 few
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 the
affected population for this rule.
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
may include:
• 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 (SQGs),
which send their waste off-site to
commercial TSDFs.
b. Cost Methodology. Once waste
quantity, type and method of treatment
were known for the population of
affected facilities, EPA developed
estimates of costs of compliance for
'individual facilities, based on cost
estimates for surveyed facilities
representing the affected population.
EPA estimated baseline and compliance
waste management costs using
engineering judgment. Wastes
amendable 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-cost method of compliance
with land disposial restrictions for each
facility and calculating the increment
between that and 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 facility outlay
incurred for conEitruction and
depreciable assets. Capital costs were
restated as annual values by using a
capital recovery factor based on a
nominal interest rate of nine percent.
These annualized capital costs were
then added to yearly O & M costs to
derive an annual compliance cost.
c. Economic Impact Methodology—(1)
Non-Commercial TSDFs and SQGs. EPA
assessed economic impacts on non-
commercial TSDFs and SQGs in several
steps. First, the Agency employed a
-------
17618
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17. 1988 / Proposed Rules
general screening analysis to compare
facility-specific incremental costs to
financial information for firms,
disaggregated by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and number of
employees per facility. (See Section C
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
relating cash from operations to costs of
compliance. This ratio represents the
number of times that facility gross
margin covers the regulatory compliance
cost if the facility fully absorbs 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 facility is likely to be
significantly affected. These ratios
bound possible effects on individual
firms.
Once facilities experiencing adverse
economic effects were identified using
the two screening ratios, a more detailed
financial analysis was performed to
verify the results and to focus more
closely 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 five percent were possible.
Those facilities for which the coverage
ratio was less than two were considered
likely to close.
(2) Commercial TSDFs, For this group
of facilities, there exists no Census SIC
from which to draw financial
information. Two SICs which might be
used as proxies, 4953 and 4959, 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 services.
Because of data limitations in the RIA
Mail Survey, EPA did not develop plant-
specific waste characterizations,
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 were evaluated
by considering the reduction in human
health risk that would result from using
alternative treatment for First Third
wastes rather than employing baseline
management practices. Due to time and
budget constraints, the benefits from
human health risk reduction were
analyzed qualitatively. Estimates of risk
reduction from previous RIAs were used
for certain wastes in this RIA where
there was correspondence between the
wastes in terms of waste codes, physical
forms, baseline and alternative
management practices, and quantities.
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. 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
previous RIAs 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, and 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
arid 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-r-were not quantified. As
a result, the benefits of the land disposal
restrictions for First Third wastes are
likely to be understated.
5. Results
a. Population of Affected Facilities.
Most of the affected facilities were
generators. Of 138 affected facilities, 95
were generators, 23 were non-
commercial TSDFs, and 20 were
commercial TSDFs. No SQGs were
affected.
b. Costs. The annualized incremental
cost of the supplemental proposed rule
is approximately $36 million, making the
rule a niinor rule. (However, in
combination with the previous proposal
(April 8,1988; 53 FR11742), the rule
would be a major rule with an annual
cost of $717-732 million.) Most of the
cost of the rule is associated with the
treatment of K086 and K087 wastes..
Most of the waste affected by the
proposed rule was land disposed in the
baseline (as opposed to being stored or
treated in surface impoundments or
treated under California list land
disposal restrictions); the post-
regulatory practice for most of the waste
was incineration. All of the waste stored
in surface impoundments in the baseline
dropped put of the analysis because
storage in tanks was found to be less
expensive than retrofitting surface
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17619
impoundments to meet Part 264
requirements. Nearly all of the waste,
treated in surface impoundments
.dropped out of the analysis, since
treatment was less costly than
compliance with Part 264 requirements.
The small quantity of dredged material
from these impoundments requiring
treatment caused these costs to be low.
c. Economic Impacts. Twenty-six
facilities would be significantly
impacted by the proposed rule. Of these,
21 are generators and 5 are non-
commercial TSDFs. Commercial TSDFs
were assumed to pass all compliance
costs through to generators; therefore,
the number of significantly affected
commercial facilities was not calculated.
The significantly impacted non-
commercial TSDFs are from the
Chemicals and Allied Products industry
and the Primary metals industry (SICs
28 and 33, respectively). Significantly
impacted generators are from the
Primary Metals industry (SIC 33],
Fabricated Metals industry (SIC 34), and
Transportation Equipment industry (SIC
34). Commercial TSDFsjEall primarily
into the Electric, Gas, and Sanitary
Services sector (SIC 49); those facilities
specializing in land disposal services
could be adversely affected.
d. Benefits. Quantitative estimates of
human health risk reduction, derived
from previous RIAs, were available for
four of the 19 waste streams included in
the cost analysis. These four waste
streams represent approximately 25
percent of the total waste volume
included in the cost analysis. The total
benefits for these four waste streams are
a reduction of 20 cases of adverse health
effects over 70 years, or an annual
reduction of 0.29 cases. All of these
benefits are due to one K087 waste
stream.
Benefits for another six waste streams
were assessed qualitatively and found
to be low or zero. Data for assessing the
benefits of the remaining nine waste
streams were not available.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for a proposed rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) 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 proposed rule on small entities, here
defined as concerns employing fewer
than 50 persons. 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
TSDFs employing fewer than 50 persons
and all SQGs which were also small
businesses.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting an RFA, if over 20 percent of
the population of small businesses,
small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions is likely to
experience financial distress based on
the costs of the 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 RFA. EPA has examined the
proposed rule's potential effects on
small entities as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility.Act. Only small
businesses were identified as being
affected by the proposed rule, and fewer
than 20 percent of the small businesses
were significantly affected based on the
EPA guidelines. EPA has therefore
concluded that today's proposed rule
will not have a significant effect on a
substantial number of small entities. As
a result of this finding, EPA has not
prepared a formal RFA in support of the
rule. More detailed information on small
business impacts is available in the RIA
for this rule.
C. Paperwork 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
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1447) and a copy may be
obtained from Rick Westlund,
Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401M
Street SW. (PM-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, 726 Jackson
Place NW., Washington, DC 20503
marked "Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA." The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements.
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 undiar RCRA in 1981" (the
RIA Mail Survey) (April 1984). EPA's "
"National Small Quantity Hazardous
Waste 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 Part 261 Waste
Profiles," Vols. I and II (August 1985);
• "Characterization of Constituents
from Selected Waste Streams Listed in
40 CFR Part 261," Vols. I and II (August
1985);
• RCRA background and listing
documents for 40 CFR Part 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. Financial information
for the economic impact analysis was
obtained from the 1982 Census of
Manufacturers and 1984 Annual Survey
of Manufacturers. Producer price indices
were .used to restate 1984 dollars in 1987
terms.
E. Rescission of National Variance for
Certain Solvent and California List
Wastes
EPA is proposing to rescind p&rts of
the variances granted under the
November 7,1086 and July 8,1987 rules.
Specifically, variances would be
rescinded for small quantity generator
(SQG) solvent wastes; non-wastewater
HOCs with concentrations greater than
1,000 mg/1; and! solid HOCs with
concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg
(except HOC soils). Rescission of these
variances would have two impacts.
First, affected waste generators would
have to comply with waste treatment
standards at an earlier date. In the case
of SQG solvents, rescission of the
variance would cause post-regulatory
costs to be incurred in August 1988
rather than in November 1988. In the
case of California list HOCs, rescission
of the variance would cause post-
regulatory costs to be incurred in August
1988 rather than in July 1989. The
movement of the post-regulatory costs
forward in times would result in only
minor increases in overall post-
regulatory costs (approximately five
percent of pre-rescission post-regulatory
costs for the wastes affected). (Refer to
the background materials on the
rescission of land disposal restriction
variances for a discussion of the
-------
17620 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
methodology and results of the
rescission analysis.)
The second impact of the rescission
would be to prohibit wastes from land
disposal at an earlier date. This would
result in short-term benefits to human
health and the environment to the extent
that alternative treatment is less risky
than land disposal.
VIK. Implementation of the Land'
Disposal Restrictions Program
The generator or owner/operator of a
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
must follow the waste management
procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 268
which are applicable to the restricted
hazardous wastes subject to the
provisions in today's proposal. These
wastes are listed in Subpart C of Part
268. The corresponding treatment
standards and effective dates are found
in Part 268 Subpart D. After the
applicable effective date, a generator of
a waste must determine, at the point of
initial generation, if the waste meets the
treatment standard. This determination
can be made based on knowledge or
analysis of the hazardous constituents
in the waste, treatment residual, or
extract of the waste or treatment
residual Data supporting a
determination based on knowledge must
be kept hi the generator's files.
A waste which meets the treatment
standard or is the subject of a national
variance, case-by-case extension, or "no
migration" exemption can be land
disposed. The generator must satisfy the
notification and certification
requirements of 40 CFR 268.7(a) (2) and
(3). The land disposal facility is required
by 40 CFR 288.7(c) to keep a record of
the notice and certification and verify
that the treatment standard was met by
testing according to the frequency
specified hi the facility's waste analysis
plan.
A waste which does not meet the
treatment standard can be land
disposed after adequate treatment The
generator must notify the treatment
facility in accordance with 40 CFR
268.7(a)(l). The treatment facility must
maintain a record of the notification and
test the treated wastes according to the
frequency specified in the facility's
waste analysis plan. For treated wastes
which meet the standard the treatment
facility must provide the notice and
certification required under 40 GFR
288.7(b) (1) and (2) to the land disposal
facility. For treated wastes which do not
meet the standard the treatment facility
must comply with the notice
requirements of 40 CFR 268.7{a)(l) if the
waste will be managed at a different
treatment facility.
In the April 8,1988, rule (53 FR 11742)
EPA solicited comment .on modifications
to 40 CFR 268.7 which would enable the
Agency to track, from generator to
treatment and/or disposal facility, the
management of restricted hazardous
wastes subject to the "soft hammer"
provisions. For today's proposal these
are wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10 which
do not have treatment standards
proposed in this notice or the April 8,
1988 notice. Comments pertaining to the
proposed demonstration, certification,
and notification requirements for these
wastes should be addressed to the
April 8,1988 notice.
Although EPA has stated in earlier
rules (see 51 FR 40572, November 7,
1986; 52 FR 21010, June 4,1987; 52 FR
25760, July 8,1987) that restricted wastes
are subject to certain Part 268
requirements (e.g., the § 268.7
recordkeeping requirements and the
§ 268.3 dilution prohibitions) even if
such wastes are subject to an
exemption, extension, or variance
making them eligible for land disposal,
the Agency has become aware of some
confusion in the regulated community
regarding this point. The confusion
seems to have been created through-the
interchanging use, by both the regulated
community and, in some instances, by
EPA, of the terms "restricted" and
"prohibited." To eliminate this
confusion, EPA is clarifying,-the
distinction between "restricted1' and
"prohibited" wastes in. today's notice.
"Restricted" wastes are those
categories of hazardous wastes that are
prohibited from land disposal either by
regulation or statute (regardless of
whether subcategpries of such wastes
are subject to a § 268.5 extension,
§ 268.6 "no migration" exemption, or
national capacity variance, any of which
makes them currently eligible for land
disposal). In other words, a hazardous
waste is "restricted" no later than the
date of the deadline established in, or
pursuant to, RCRA section 3004,
Therefore, the F001-F005 solvent wastes
and the F020-F023 and F026-F028
dioxin-containing wastes were
"restricted" as of November 8,1986,
despite the fact that several
siibcategories of these wastes obtained
2-year national capacity variances
allowing them to be land disposed until
November 8,1988. Similarly, California
List wastes were "restricted" as of July
8,1987, despite the fact that several
subcategories of such wastes obtained
2-year national capacity variances
allowing continued land disposal until
July 8,1989. Wastes contained in the
schedule of thirds/(51 FR 19300, May 28,
1986) are considered "restricted" no
later than the dates specified in the
schedule promulgated at 40 CFR 268.10,
268.11, and 268.12.
Generators must determine whether
their wastes are "restricted" at the point
of initial generation, i.e., when the waste
is first considered a hazardous wastes
subject to RCRA regulation. To
determine whether a hazardous waste is
"restricted," generators need only
determine whether the waste belongs to
a category of wastes that has been
prohibited from land disposal by
regulation or by the automatic
"hammer" provisions of RCRA.
"Prohibited" wastes are a subset of
"restricted" wastes, 'i.e., they are those
"restricted" wastes that are currently
ineligible for land disposal. Therefore, a
hazardous waste that is not "restricted"
cannot be "prohibited" under RCRA
section 3004. However, once a waste is
considered "restricted," at least some of
the Part 268 requirements apply.
The first Part 268 requirement
applicable to "restricted" wastes is that
generators must determine whether their
waste currently is eligible for land
disposal pursuant to the requirements of
§ 268.7. If the wastes currently is not
eligible for land disposal [i.e., the
prohibition effective date has passed,
the waste does not meet all applicable
treatment standards or prohibition
levels, and no § 268.5 extensions, § 268.6
"no migration" exemptions, or national
capacity variances apply), then the
waste currently is "prohibited" from
land disposal as well as "restricted." If,
however, the waste currently is eligible
for land disposal (i.e., the prohibition"
effective date has passed but the waste
meets the applicable treatment
standards or prohibition levels or is
subject to a § 268.5 extension, § 268.6
"no migration" exemption, or national
capacity variance) then the waste is
considered "restricted" but not currently
"prohibited." All wastes that are
"restricted" must comply with the
§ 268.3 dilution prohibition (assuming
the wastes are land disposed or
otherwise managed after the prohibition
effective date), the § 268.7 waste
analysis and recordkeeping
requirements, and all other applicable
Part 268 requirements.
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—Part IL" U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC 1987.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17621
(2) U.S. EPA, "National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities." U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, 1987.
(3) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background Document
for K046", Volume 11, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(4) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background Document
for K101, K102," Volume 12, U.S. EPA,
OSW, Washington, DC, May 1988.
(5) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document
for F006", Volume 13, U.S. EPA, OSW
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(6) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document
for K087" Volume 14, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(7) U.S. EPA "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document
for K086", Volume IS, U.S. EPA, OSW
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(8) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document
for K001", Volume 16, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(9) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document
for K106", Volume 17, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(10) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background Document
for K022", Volume 18, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, May 1988.
(11) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background Document
for F002", Volume 19, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC
(12) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document
for K099", Volume 20, U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC, May 1988.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
(13) U.S. EPA, "Regulatory Impact Analysis of
Proposed Restrictions on Land Disposal of
First-Third Wastes." U.S. EPA, OSW,
Washington, DC 1987.
X. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 264,
265, 266, and 268
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Environmental protection,
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous
waste, Imports, Indian lands, Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Penalties,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control, Water supply.
Date: May 9,1988.
Lee Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Title 40, Chapter I,
Subchapter I of the CFR is proposed to
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
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6925.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
2. In § 264.73 paragraphs (b) (11] and
(12) are revised and paragraphs (b) (15)
and (16) are added to read as follows:
§ 264.73 Operating record.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) For an off-site treatment facility, a
copy of the notice, certification, and
demonstration, if applicable, required by
the generator or the owner or operator
under § 268.7 and § 268.8;
(12) For an on-site. treatment facility,
the information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number),
certification, and demonstration, if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator under § 268.7 and
§ 268.8;
* * * * *
(15) For an off-site storage facility, a
copy of the notice, certification, and
demonstration, if applicable, required by
the generator or the owner or operator
under § 268.7 and § 268.8; and
(16) For an on-site storage facility, the
information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number),
certification, and demonstration, if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator under § 268.7 and
§ 268.8.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
II. In Part 265:
1. The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
6925, and 6935.
2. In § 265.73 paragraphs (b) (9) and
(10) are revised and paragraphs (b) (13)
and (14) are added to read as follows:
§ 265.73 Operating record.
* *, * * *
(b)***
(9) For an off-site treatment facility, a
copy of the notice, certification, and
demonstration, if applicable, required by
the generator or the owner or operator
under § 268.7 and § 268.8;
(10) For an on-site treatment facility,
the information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number),
certification, and demonstration, if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator under § 268.7 and
§ 268.8;
*****
(13) For an off-site storage facility, a
copy of the notice, certification, and
demonstration, if applicable, required by
the generator or the owner or operator
under § 268.7 and § 268.8; and
(14) For an on-site storage facility, the
information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number),'
certification, and demonstration, if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under § 268.7 and § 268.8.
PART 266 STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
III. In Part 266:
1. The authority citation for Part 266
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6924, and
6934.
Subpart C—Recyclable Materials Used
In a Manner Constituting Disposal
2. In § 266.20 paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§266.20 Applicability.
* * * : * • *
(b) Products produced for the general
public's use that are used in a manner
that constitutes disposal and that
contain recyclable materials are not
presently subject to regulation if the
recyclable materials have, undergone a
chemical reaction in the course of.
producing the products so as to become
inseparable by physical means and if
such products meet the applicable
treatment standards in Subpart D (or
prohibition levels in Subpart C where no
treatment standards have been
established) of Part 268 for each
recyclable material (i.e. hazardous
waste constituent) that they contain.
Commercial fertilizers that are produced
for the general public's use that contain
recyclable materials also are not
presently subject to regulation provided
that such fertilizers meet the applicable
treatment standards in Subpart D (or
prohibition levels in Subpart C where no
treatment standards have been
established) of Part 268 for each
-------
17622 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
recyclable material (i.e. hazardous
waste constituent) that they contain
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
IV. In Part 268:
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921, and
6924.
Subpart A—General
2. In § 268.1 paragraph (c)(3) is
removed, paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5), and
proposed paragraph (c)(6) are
redesignated and revised as paragraphs
(c}(3), (c)(4), and (c){5), and paragraph
(d) is added to read as follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
* * * - * *
(C)"*
(3) Where the waste is generated by
small quantity generators of less than
100 kilograms of non-acute hazardous
waste or less than 1 kilogram acute
hazardous waste per month, as defined
in § 261.5 of this chapter;
(4) Where a fanner is disposing of
waste pesticides in accordance with
§ 262.70;
(5) 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 § 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d).
(d) The requirements of this part shall
not affect the availability of a waiver
under section 121(d)(4) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
3. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(l) introductory
text, (a)(2) introductory text, [a)(3), and'
(a)(4), and by adding paragraph (a)[5) to
read as follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.
(a) * * *
(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 set forth
in Subpart D of this part or exceeds the
applicable prohibition levels set forth in
§ 268.32 or in RCRA section 3004{d),
with each shipment of waste the
generator must notify the treatment
facility or storage facility in writing of
the appropriate treatment standards set
forth in Subpart D of this part and any
applicable prohibition levels set forth in
§ 268.32 or in RCRA section 3004(d). The
generator must retain a copy of the
notice for at least five years from the
date that the waste was last sent to off-
site treatment or storage. The retention
is extended automatically during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator. 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 prohibition
levels set forth in § 268.32 or in RCRA
section 3004(d). The generator must
retain a copy of the notice and
certification for at least five years from:
the date that the waste was last sent to
off-site disposal or storage. The
retention- is extended automatically
during the course of any unresolved:
enforcement action regarding the
regulated activity or as requested by the
Administrator.
* * * * *
(3) If a generator's waste is subject to
a case-by-case extension under § 268.5,
an exemption under § 268.6, 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. The
generator must retain a copy of the
notice for at least five years from the
date that the waste was last sent to off-
site treatment, storage, or disposal. The
retention is extended automatically
during the course of any unresolved
enforcement action regarding the
regulated activity or as requested by the
Administrator. The notice must include
the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standard;
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available; and
(v) The date the waste is subject to
the prohibitions.
(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 § 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 § 268;33{e). The generator must retain
a copy of the notice for at least five
years from the date that the waste was
last sent to off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal. The'retention is extended
automatically during the course of any
unresolved enforcement action
regarding the regulated activity or as
requested by the Administrator. The
notice must include the following
information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in § 26&33(e);
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data where
available.
(5) If a generator determines whether
the waste is restricted based solely on:
his knowledge of the waste, all
supporting data used to make this.
determination must be retained on-site
in the generator's files for at least five
years from the date that the waste was
last sent to off-site treatment, storage,, or
disposal. If a generator determines
whether the waste is restricted based: on'
testing his waste or an extract
developed using the test method
described in Appendix I of this part, all
waste analysis data must be retained
on-site in the generator's files for at
least five years from the date that the
waste was last sent to off-site treatment,
storage, or disposaL The retention is
extended automatically during, the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator.
*****
4. Proposed § 268.8 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 268.8 Landfill and surface Impoundment
disposal restrictions.
(a) Prior to May 8,1990, wastes which
are 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 genera tor'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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17623
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
information, 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
landfill or surface impoundment
disposal facility. For each subsequent
waste shipment to the same disposal
facility, only the certification is required
to be submitted provided that the
•conditions being certified remain
unchanged. Such generator or owner or
operator must retain copies of the
demonstration (if applicable) and
certification required for each waste
shipment on-site. The generator must
retain a copy of the demonstration and
certification for at least five years from
the date that the waste was last sent to
off-site treatment, storage, or disposal.
The retention is extended automatically
during the course of any unresolved
enforcement action regarding the
regulated activity or as requested by the
Administrator.
(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.
(c) Once the certification is made,
wastes may be disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment (unless the
Regional Administrator invalidates the
certification) until treatment standards
are set forth in Subpart D of this part or
until May 8,1990, whichever is earlier.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
5. Section 268.30 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 268.30 Waste specific prohibitions-
Solvent wastes.
(a) Effective November 8,1986, the
spent solvent wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005, are
prohibited from land disposal (except in
an injection well) unless one or more of
the following conditions apply:
(1) The generator of the solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month; or
(2) The solvent waste is generated
from any response action taken under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or any corrective
action taken under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), except where the waste is
contaminated soil or debris not subject
to the provisions of this chapter until
November 8,1988; or
(3) The initial generator's solvent
waste is a solvent-water mixture,
solvent-containing sludge Or solid, or
solvent-contaminated soil (non CERCLA
or RCRA corrective action) containing
less than 1 percent total F001-F005
solvent constituents listed in Table
CCWE of § 268.41 ofthis part.
(4) The solvent waste is contaminated
soil or debris resulting from a response
action taken under section 104 or 106 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or a corrective
action required under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); or
(5) The solvent waste is a residue
from treating a waste described in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or the
solvent waste is a residue from treating
a waste not described in paragraphs
(a)(l). (a)(2). (a)(3). or (a)(4) ofthis
section provided such residue belongs to
a different .treatability group than the
waste as initially generated and wastes
belonging to such a treatability group
are described in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section; or
(6) The solvent waste is a residue
from treating a waste described in
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) ofthis
section; or
(7) The solvent waste is a residue
from treating a waste described in
paragraph (a)(4 of this section.
(b) Effective November 8,1988, the
F001-F005 solvent wastes listed in
paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this
section are prohibited from land
disposal. Between August 8f 1988, and
November 8,1988, wastes included in
paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this
section may be disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if such
unit is in compliance with the
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(c) Effective August 8,1988, the F001-
F005 solvent wastes listed in paragraphs
(a)(l), (a)(2), and (a)(6) ofthis section
are prohibited from land disposal.
(d) Effective November 8,1990, the
F001-F005 solvent wastes which are
contaminated soil resulting from a
response action taken under section 104
or 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) or a corrective action
required under siubtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and the residues from
treating these wastes are prohibited
from land disposal: Between November
8,1988, and November 8,1990, these
wastes may be disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if such
unit is in compliance^vith the
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(e) Effective November 8,1988, the
F001-F005 solvent Wastes which are
contaminated debris resulting from a
response action taken under section 104
or 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) or a corrective action
required under subtitle C of the
Resource Conse:rvation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and the residues from
treating these wastes are prohibited
from land disposal.
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), (d), and |[e) of this section do not
apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the standards of
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
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
6. Section 268.31 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 268.31 Waste specific prohibitions—
Dloxin-containing wastes.
(a) Effective November 8,1988, the
dioxin-containing wastes specified in 40
-------
17624
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027r
and F028, are prohibited from land
disposal unlgss the following condition
applies:
(1) The F020-F023 and F026-F028
dioxin-containing waste is contaminated
soil and debris resulting from a response
action taken under section 104 or 106 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or a corrective
action required under subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
(b) Effective November 8,1990, the
F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-
containing wastes listed in paragraph
(a}(l) of this section are prohibited from
land-disposal.
(c) Between August 8,1988, and
November 8,1988, wastes included in
paragraph (a) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2) and all other
applicable requirements of Parts 264 and
265 of this chapter. Between November
8,1988, and November 8,1990, wastes
included in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section maybe disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if such
unit is in compliance with the
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2)
and all other applicable requirements of
Paris 264 and 265 of this chapter.
(d) The requirements .of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the standards of
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
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
7. In § 268.32 paragraph (e)(2) is
removed, paragraphs (a)(3), (d), (e)(l),
(fj, (g) introductory text, and (h) are
revised to read as follows:
§ 268.32 Waste specific prohibitions-
California list wastes.
(a) * * *
(3) Hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/kg and not listed in paragraphs
(d) and (e) of this sections
*****
(d) The requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section do not apply until
November 8,1988, where the wastes are
contaminated soil or debris resulting
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
[CERCLA) or a corrective action
required under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) unless the following
condition applies:
(1) The hazardous waste contains
halogenated organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/kg and is contaminated soil
resulting from a response action taken
under section 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or a corrective
action required under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Effective November 8,1990,
these'wastes are prohibited from land
disposaLBetween November 8,1988,
and November 8,1990, the wastes may
be disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(e) * * *
(1) Hazardous wastes containing
HOCs in total concentration greater
than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg and which
are contaminated soil not resulting from
a response action taken under section
104 or 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) or a corrective action
required under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
(f) Between August 8,1988, and July 8,
1989, wastes included in paragraph
(e)(l) of this section may be disposed of
in a landfill or surface impoundment
only if such unit is in compliance with
the requirements specified in
§ 268.5(h)(2).
(g) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (d), and (e) of this section do not
apply if:
*****
(h) The prohibitions and effective
dates specified in paragraphs (a)(3), (d),
(d)(l), and (e)(l) of this section do not
apply where the waste is subject to a
Part 268 Subpart C prohibition and
effective date for a specified HOC "(such
as a hazardous waste chlorinated
solvent, see e.g., § 268.30(a)).
* * * * * '
8. Proposed § 268.33 is revised to read
as follows:
§268.33 Waste specific prohibitions-
First, Third Wastes
(a) Effective August 8,1988, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F006, K001,
K004, K008, K015, K016, K018.TC019,
K020, K021, KD22, K024, K025, K030,
K036, K037, K044, K045, K046, K047,
K060, K062, K069, K073, K083, K086,
K087, K099, KICK), K101, K102, K103, and
K104 are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K048, K049,
K050, K051, K052, K061, K071, and K106
are prohibited from land disposal.
(c) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 268.10 having
a treatment standard in Subpart D of
this part based on incineration and
which are contaminated soil are
prohibited from land disposal.
(d) Between August 8,1988, and
August 8,1990, for wastes described in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment is allowed only if such
unit is in compliance with the
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(e) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d) 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
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
(f) Between August 8,1988, and May 8,
1990, the wastes specified in § 268.10 for
which treatment standards under
Subpart D of this part are not applicable
or which do not exceed the prohibition
levels in § 268.32 or in RCRA section
3004(d) can be disposedof in a landfill
or surface impoundment provided the
wastes are the subject of a valid
demonstration and certification
pursuant to § 268.8.
(g) To determine whether a'hazardous
waste listed in § 268.10 exceeds the
applicable treatment standards
specified in § 268.41 and § 268.43, the
initial generator must test a
representative sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste depending on
whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or the waste. 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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
17625
Subpart D— Treatment Stam
9. In § 268.41(a), in the F001
spent solvents table, Methyle
(from the pharmaceutical indi
its corresponding concentrati
removed, and the following si
are added to read as Tollows:
§ 268.41 Treatment standards
as concentrations in waste extr
(a) * * *
TABLE CCWE. — CONSTII
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE
* * ; . * »
F006 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (total) „
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver :
Zinc
lards
-F005
ne chloride
jstry) and
ons is
jbtables
expressed
act
fUENT
EXTRACT
*
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
0.066
3.8
0.71
0.53
0.31
(')
0.26
0.086
(')
1 Reserved.
K001 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Copper ....;
Lead
Zinc-
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.71
0.53
0.086
K022 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
3.8
0.31
K046 nonwastewaters
Lead
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
0
0.176
K086 nonwastewaters (solvent
washes) (see also table CCW in
§ 268.43)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.094
0.37
K087 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in §268.43)
_ead ,
Zinc 1.1
Concentra- •
tion (in mg/l)
0.53
0.086
K101 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Antimony
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper .
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
1 Reserved.
K102 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Antimony...
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc ... .
1 Reserved.
K106 nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0)
C)
0)
0.066
3.8
0.71
0.53
0.31
0.086
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
(')
C)
0)
0.066
3.8
0.71
0.53
0.31
0.086
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.028
10, In § 268.42 paragraph (a)(2) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
(a) * * *
(2] Nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) in total
concentration greater than or equal to '
1,000 mg/kg and liquid HOC-containing
wastes that are prohibited under
§ 268.32(e)(lj of this part must be
incinerated in accordance with the
requirements of Part 264 Subpart 0 or
Part 265 Subpart 0, or in boilers or
industrial furnaces burning in
accordance with applicable regulatory
standards. These treatment standards
do not apply where the waste is subject
to a Part 268 Subpart C treatment
standard for a specific HOC (such as a
hazardous waste chlorinated solvent for
which a treatment standard is
established under § 268.41(a)).
11. In § 268.43 the following subtables
are added to the table in proposed
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 268.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentrations.
(a)*** .
TABLE CCW— CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
* * * * •
F001, F002, F003, F004 and F005
wastewaters (Pharmaceutical
Induslry)
Methylene Chloride
F006 nonwastewateirs (see also Table
CCWE in § 268.41)
Cyanide
K001 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in § 268.41)
Naphthalene ;
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene _.
Toluene
Xylenes
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
I)
0.44
Concentra-
tion (hi mg/
*9>
Reserved.
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
7.98
36.75
7.98
7.28
0.143
0.162
K001 wastewaters
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Copper
Lead
Zinc"
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.148
0.875
0.148
0.140
0.143
0.161
0.42
0.037
1.0
K022 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in §268,41)
Acetophenone
Phenol
Toluene
Sum of Diphenylamirie and Diphenyl-
nitrosamine.
Sulfide
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
19.0
12.0
0.034
13.0
Reserved.
K086 nonwastewaters (Solvent
Washes) (see also Table CCWE in
§268.41)
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Methanol ,
Methyl isobutyl ketono
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
bis(2-ethylhexy!)phthalate
Cyclohexanone :
Naphthalene „
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.031
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.037
0.031
0.044
0.031
0.015
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
-------
r
17626
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 95 / Tuesday. May 17, 1988 / Proposed Rules
KOG6 nonwastewaters (Solvent
Washes) (sea also Taoie CCWE in
§268.41)
NitrobGnzeno...............
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
0.49
K086 wastewaters (Solvent Washes)
ivButyl alcohol « •
Ethyl benzene «
Mothanol ~
MeUiyt Isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Mothyfene chloride
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
Trichtoroethylone
Xyionos ....................
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene..... <
Nitrobenzene
Chromium (total)
Load...
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.015
0.031
0.031
0.015
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.029
0.031
0.029
0.015
0.044
0.022
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.32
0.037
K037 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in §268.41)
Benzene...
Chrysone . . . . ...
Indono (1.2.3-cd) pyrene
Naphthalene . .
Phenanthrene
Toluenb
Xvlonos
K087 wastewaters
Indeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene
Naohthalene
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
3.4
0.071
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.65
0.070
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.028
0.014
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
K087 wastewaters
Phenanthrene
Xylenes
Lead .-.
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.028
0.008
0.014
0.037
1.0
K099 nonwastewaters
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
0.15
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
K099 wastewaters
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
K101 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in §268.41) -
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.15
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
14.0
K101 wastewaters -
Ortho-Nitroaniline
Antimony : ...
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.266
Reserved.
2.036
&.23S
0.110
0.027
K102 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in § 268.41)
Ortho-Nitrophenol
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
13.3
K1 02 wastewaters
Ortho-Nitrophenol
Antimony
Lead
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
0.028
Reserved.
2.036
0.238
0.110
0.027
K106 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in §268.41)
Mercury..1
K106 wastewaters
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
630
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
0.030
No Land Disposal for: F006 wastewaters.
K022 wastewaters
K046 wastewaters
K083
K021
'' K025
K060
K044
K045
K046 explosive
nonwastewaters.
K047
[FR Doc. 88-10874 Filed 5-16-88; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
*U.S. Government Printing Office : 1988 - 516-002/80119
-------
-------
WH-562B
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |