Wednesday
August 17, 1988
Part I!
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 264 etc.
[OSW-FR-88-011]
Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes; Final Rule
-------
*—-« •~H^**'HF •
""*"/? \,>"-'?"v^rtii.'**Bs3ry33J>
31138 'Federal1 Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988./ Rules and Regulations
Environmental Protection Agency •
40 CFR Parts 264,265,260,268 and
271
[OSW-FR-M-Q11; SWH-FRL--3420-4]
Land Disposal Restriction* for First
Third Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). . .. •
ACTION: Final rule. '"'•.•'••
SUMMARY: The Environmecttal Protection
Agency (EPA) is today promulgating
regulations implementing the
congressionally mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes
listed in 40 CFR 268.10. This action is
taken hi response to amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), enacted in the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1084. Today's notice promulgates
specific treatment standards and
effective dates for certain so-called
"First Third" wastes. In addition, the
Agency is promulgating regulations
implementing the land disposal
restrictions for those First Third wastes
for which EPA is not establishing a •
treatment standard.
Furthermore, today's rule! establishes
regulations that do not specifically
involve First Third wastes (or do not
apply exclusively to such wastes). These
actions include modifications to the
existing requirements for the "no
migration1* petition process and the
rescission of the nationwide capacity '•
variance for hazardous wastes (other
than contaminated soils) containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs)
granted by the Agency in the July 8,1987
rulemaking. The Agency is also
amending the treatment standard
applicable to certain California list HOC
wastes to allow burning in industrial
boilers and furnaces, and revising the
treatment standard for methylene
chloride hi spent solvent wastewaters
from the pharmaceutical industry. EPA
also is amending 40 CFR 266.20 to
require that moat hazardous wastes
used in a manner constituting disposal
meet the applicable treatment standards
for the prohibited hazardous waste that
they contain as a condition, of remaining
exempt from other RCRA standards.
Additionally, today's rule modifies
portions of the land disposal restrictions
framework.
EFFECTIVE DATE This final rule is
effective August 8,1988, except for the
modification to 40 CFR 268.5(h)[2),
which becomes effective November 8.
1988.
ADDRESS: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Number F-88-LDR9-FFFFF and is
located hi the EPA RCRA Docket
(located in the sub-basement) 401M '
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket is open from 9£0 to 4:00, Monday
through Friday, except for public
holidays. To review docket materials.
the public must make an appointment by
calling (202) 475-9327. The public may
make copies of the docket materials at a
cost of $.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT?
For general information about this
rulemaking contact the RCRA Hotline,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-305). U.S. .
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460. (800)
424-9348 (toll free) or (202) 382-3000 in
the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
For information on specific aspects of
this rule contact Stephen Weil. Mitch
Kidwell or William Fortune, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-333), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW,. Washington. DC 20460. (202)
382-4770. For specific information on
treatment standards/BDAT, contact
James Berlow or Larry Rosengrant,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-322), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460. (202)
382-7917. For specific information on
capacity determinations/national
variances, contact Jo-Ann Bassi, or
Linda Malcolm, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-322), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460. (202) 382-7917.
SUPftEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PREAMBLE OUTUNK
L Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
2. Solvents and Dioxins
.3. California last Waste
4. Scheduled Wastes .
5. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
B. Summary of the Propose^ Rules
1. Proposed Approach '•'
2. Applicability
3. Best Demonstrated Available Technol-
ogies (BDAT]
4. Waste Analysis Requirements
S. Nationwide Variances from the Effec-
tive Date
6. "Soft Hammer" Requirements
PREAMBLE OUTLINE—Continued
7. "No Migration" Petition Requirements
a. Comparative Risk Assessment
9. Modifications to the Framework
IL Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Applicability
• B. Waste Analysis Requirements
C. Treatment Standards -and Effective
Dates
D. "Soft Hammer" Requirements .
E. Reinterpretation of RCRA section
3004(h)(4)
F. "No Migration" Petition Requirements
G. Nonrulemaking Procedures for Site-Spe-
cific Variances from the Treatment
Standard
III. Detailed Discussion of Today's Final Rule
A. Determination of Treatability Groups
and Development of Treatment Stand-
ards
1. Waste Treatability Groups
2. Identification of BDAT
3. Compliance with Performance Stand-
ards
4. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Mixtures and Other "Derived-Prom"
Residues
5. Transfer of Treatment Standards
8. "No Land Disposal" as the Treatment
Standard
7. Waste—Specific Treatment Standards
a. .Revision of BDAT Treatment Stand-
ard for Methylene Chloride in
Wastewaters from the Pharmaceuti-
cal Industry '
b. F006—Wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating oper-
ations except from the following
processes: (i) Sulfuric acid anodiz-.
ing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on
carbon steel: (3) zinc plating (segre- .
gated basis) on carbon steel; (4) alu-
minum or zinc-aluminum plating on
carbon steel;' (5) cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc, and alumi-
num plating on carbon steel; and (6)
chemical etching and milling of alu-
minum.
c. K001—Bottom sediment sludge from
the treatment of wastewaters from
wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol.
d. K01S—Still bottoms from the distil-
lation of benzyl chloride.
e. K016—Heavy ends or distillation
residues from the production of
'. carbon tetrachloride.
K018—Heavy ends from the frac-
tionation column in ethyl chloride
production.
K019—Heavy ends from the distilla-
tion of ethylene dichloride in eth-
ylene dichloride production.
K020—Heavy ends from the distilla-
tion of vinyl chloride in vinyl
chloride production.
K030—Column bottoms or heavy
ends from the combined produc-
tion of trichloroethylene and
perchloroethylene.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 /Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 3H39
PREAMBLE OUTUNS— Continued
f. K023— Distillation bottom tan from
the production of phenol/acetone
g, K024— Distillation bottom tars from
. the production of phthalic anhydride
from naphthalene. : . ' • .
h, K037— Wastewater treatment
• sludges from the production of disul-
foton.- '.'•••- v-^;^-;^^>'.-:-?'..
L K044— Wastewater • treatment
sludges from the manufacturing and
processing of explosives.
K045— Spent carbon from the treat-
ment of wastewater containing
explosives. '
K047— Pink/red water from TNT op-
erations.
]. K046— Wastewater treatment
sludges from the- manufacturing, for-
mulation. and loading of lead based
initiating compounds.
k. K048 Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
float from the petroleum refitting in-
dustry. •
K049— Slop oil emulsion solids from
the petroleum refining industry.
K050— Heat exchanger bundle
cleaning sludge from the petrole-
um refining industry.
KOS1 — API separator sludge .from
the petroleum refining industry.
K052— Tank bottoms (leaded) from
. the petroleum refining industry.
1. K081— Emission control dust/sludge
from the primary production of steel
in electric furnaces.
m. K062— Spent pickle liquor generat-
ed by steel finishing operation* of
facilities within the iron and steel
industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332}.
a. K069— Emission control dust/sludge
from secondary lead smelting. ' .
o. K071 — Brine purification muds from
the mercury cell, process in chlorine
production, where, separately pre-
purifled brine is not used.
p. K073 — Chlorinated hydrocarbon
waste from the purification step of
the diaphragm cell process using
graphite anodes in chlorine produc-
tion.
q. K083— -Distillation bottoms from an-
iline production. • • . .
r. K08a— Solvent washes and sludges.
caustic washes and. sludges, or
water washes and sludges from the
cleaning of tubs and equipment used
in the formulation of ink from pig-
ments. driers, soaps, and stabilizers
containing chromium and lead.
s» KD87—Decanter tank tar. sludge
- from coking operations.
t K099—Untreated wastewater from
the production of 2,4-dichlorophen-
osyacetic add (2.4-D).
«. K101—Distillation tar residue* from
- the distillation of aniline-based com-
; pounds in the'production of veteri-
" -v-Twry pharmaceutical* from arsenic
• \—i. ;or organo-arnenic compounds.
K1G2—-Residue from the use of acti-
. vated carbon for decolorization in
the production of veterinary phar-
maceutical* from arsenic or
organo-arsenic compounds.
v. K103—Process residues from aniline
extraction from the production of
aniline.
K104—Combined wastewater
streams generated from nitroben-
zene/aniline production.
w. K106—Wastewater treatment
sludge from the mercury ceil process
in chlorine production. .
x. KOM—Wastewater treatment
sludge from the-production of zinc
yellow pigments.
K008—Oven residue from the pro-
duction of chrome oxide green
pigments.
K021—Aqueous spent antimony cat-
alyst waste from fluoromethanea
production. •
K025—Distillation bottoms from the
production of nitrobenzene by the.
nitration of benzene.
K03&—Still .bottoms, from toluene
reclamation distillation in the pro-
• duction of disulfoton.
KOaO—Ammonia still lime sludge
from coking operations.
K100—Waste leaching solution from
acid leaching of emission control
dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting.
8. Appropriate Technologies for Certain
First Third Wastes for Which EPA
Has Not Promulgated Treatment
Standards
9. Burning in Industrial Boilers and In-
dustrial Furnaces as BDAT for Certain
California List HOCs
B. Testing and Recordkeeping • Require-
. ments ' . .
1. Waste Analysis
2. Notification Requirements
3. Recordkeeping Requirements for Gen-
erators and Treatment Storage,-and
' Disposal Facilities
C. "Soft Hammer" Requirements
1. Applicability
2. Interpretation of Specific Terms
PREAMBLE OUTLINE—Continued
. 3. Certification Requirements
a. Certification for Treated "Soft
Hammer" Wastes
b. Certification by Owners or Opera-
tors as Well as Generators
c. Certification
4. Treatment of "Soft Hammer" Wastes
in Surface Impoundments
5. Retrofitting Variances
a, Storage Prohibition
D. Disposal of Restricted Wastes Subject
tor an Extension of the Effective Date
E. Relationship to California List Prohibi-
tions
1. "Soft Hammer" Wastes
2. Wastes Granted a National Variance
F. Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of
Prohibited Wastes
G. Approach to Comparative Risk Assess-
ment
H. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Effective Dates for First Third
Wastes, F001-F005 Spent Solvents, Cali-
fornia List Halogenated Organic Com-
pounds, and Contaminated Soil and
Debris
I. Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner
Constituting Disposal
J. Reclamation of Indigenous Waste
K. Nonrulemaking Procedures for Site-Spe-
cific Variances from the Treatment
Standard
• L Rationale for Immediate Effective Date
IV. Modifications to the Land Disposal Re-
strictions Framework
A. General Waste Analysis (§§ 264.13 and
265.13)
a Operating Record (55 284.73 and 265.73)
C Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner
Constituting Disposal (5 286.20)
D. Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
(5 288.1)
E. Treatment in Surface Impoundment Ex-
emption (5 288.4)
F. Case-by-Case Extensions (5 268.5)
G. "No Migration" Petitions (5 268.6)
H. Testing and Recordkeeping (| 288.7)
L Landfill and Surface Impoundment Re-
strictions (5 268.8)
J. Identification of Wastes to Be Evaluated
By May 8,1990 (5 268.12)
K. Determination as to the Availability of
the Two Year Nationwide Variance for
Solvent Wastes Which Contain Less.
Than 1% Total F001-F005 Solvent Con-
stituents (5 268.30)
L. Waste Specific Prohibitions (55 268.30,
268.31, 268.32, and 268.33)
M. Treatment Standards (5 5 268.40, 268.41.
and 268.43)
N. Variance From the Treatment Standard
(5 268.44)
-------
V . ' ' /
31140 Federal. Register / Vol. 53. No. 159-/ Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
ounni*— Continued
O. Storage Prohibition (§ ZSaSO)
V. Slats Authority
A. Applicability- of Rulm in Authorized
States
tt Effect on State Authorization*
C, State Implementation. -
VL EBects-of the- Land Disposal Restriction*
Program on Other Eaviraameatal Programs
A. Discharge*. Regulate*} Under, the Clean
Water Act • ...... ..-.-
R Discharge* Regulated Wnder the Marina
Protection, Research,. and. Sanctuaries
Act(MPRSA)
C. Air Emission* Regulated • Under the
Clean Air Act
VIL Regulatory Analyses-
A. Regulatory Impact Aniilysis
1. Purpose
2. Executive Order No. 12291
3. Basic Approach/Regulatory Alterna-
tives
' 4. Methodology
5. Results
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review of Supporting 'Documents
VIIL Implementation of the Part 288 Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
IX. References
X. List of Subjects in 40 C1FR Parts 284. 265.
266. 288. and 271
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
The Hazardous and Sclid Waate
Amendments (HSWA). enacted on
November 8,1984, prohibit the land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Specifically, the amendments specify
dates when particular groups of
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal unless "it has been
demonstrated to the Administrator, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous" (RCRA sections 3004
(d)(l). (e)(l), (g)(5). 42 U.8.CL 6924 (d)(l).
(e)(l), (g)(5)). Congress established a
separate schedule for restricting the
disposal by underground injection of
solvent- and dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes, wastes referred to
collectively as California! list hazardous
wastes (RCRA section 3004{f)(2). 42
U.S.C. 6924(f)(2)J. and soil and debris
resulting from CERCLA section 104 and
106 response actions and RCRA
corrective actions when the soil and
debris contains listed spent solvent and
dioxin hazardous wastes.
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
front the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment arc minimized" (RCRA •
section 3004(m)(l), 42 ILS.C. 6924(m)(l)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited
and may be land disposed. (The Agency
can also grant a variance from a
treatment standard by establishing a
new treatability group and
corresponding treatment standard for a
specific waste following a successful
petition demonstration). In addition, a
hazardous waste that does not meet the
treatment standard may be land
disposed provided the "no migration"
demonstration specified in sections 3004
(d)fl). (e)(l) and (g)(S) is made.
For the purposes of the restrictions,
HSWA defines land disposal "to
include, but not be limited to, any
placement of * * * hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed
formation, or underground mine or
cave" (RCRA section 3004(k). 42 U.S.C.
6924(k}).
Although HSWA defines land
disposal to include injection wells.
disposal of solvents, dioxins, and
California list wastes in injection wells
is covered on a separate schedule. The
disposal of such wastes in deep wells
is subject to the land disposal
restrictions by August 8,1988.
The land disposal restrictions are
effective when promulgated unless the
Administrator grants a national
variance from the statutory date and
establishes a different date (not to
exceed two years beyond the statutory
deadline) based on "the earliest date on
which adequate alternative treatment
recovery, or disposal capacity which
protects human health and the
environment will be available" (RCRA
section 3004(h}(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(2)).
The Administrator may also grant a
case-by-case extension of the statutory
deadline for up to one year, renewable
once for up to one additional year, when
an applicant "demonstrates that there is
a binding contractual comic iUjent 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)j, A case-
by-case extension can be granted
whether or not a national capacity
variance has been granted.
The statute also allows treatment of '
hazardous wastes in surface
impoundments that meet certain
minimum technological requirements (or „
certain exceptions thereto). Treatment
in surface impoundments is permissible
provided the treatment residues that do
not meet the treatment standard(s), or
applicable statutory prohibition levels
where no treatment standards have
been: established, are "removed for
subsequent management within one
year of the entry of the waste into the
surface impoundment" (RCRA section
3005{j)(ll)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6925{j)(ll)(B)J.
In addition to prohibiting the land
disposal of hazardous wastes. Congress
also prohibited the storage of any waste
which is prohibited from land disposal
unless "such storage is solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment or disposal" (RCRA section.
3004(j), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (j)).
2. Solvents and Dioxins
Effective November 8, 1986, HSWA
prohibited land disposal (except by
underground injection into deep wells)
of dioxin-containing hazardous wastes
numbered F020, F021, F022, and F023 l
and solvent-containing hazardous
wastes numbered F001. F002, F003, F004,
and F005 listed in 40 CFR 261.31 (RCRA
sections 3004 (e)(l), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924
(e)(l), (e)(2)). Effective August 8, 1988,
the dispoiial of these wastes into deep
injection wells is prohibited (RCRA
section 3004 (f)(2). (f)(3). 42 U.S.C. 6924
(f)(2). (f)(3)). During the period ending
November 8, 1988, this prohibition does
not apply to disposal of solvent and :
dioxin 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 taken under Subtitle C of RCRA
(RCRA section 3004(e)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6924
On November 7, 1986, EPA
promulgated a final rule (51 FR 40572)
implementing RCRA section 3004(e).
This rule not only established the
general framework for the land disposal
restrictions program, but also
established treatment standards for the-
F001-F005 solvent wastes and F020-
F023 and F025-F028 dioxin-containing
wastes. For a more detailed summary of
1 The final dioxin rulemaking (SO FR 1978. January
14.1985) contains three waste codes. F028, F027.
and F028, not specified in the statute. The additional
waste codes are a result of reorganizations and do
not represent a substantive departure from the
waste codes enumerated in section 30O4(e){l).
-------
Federal Register./ Vol. 53, No. 159 f Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31141
the land disposal restrictions •'
framework, including those regulations
promulgated in the November 7, 1966
final rule, refer to the April 8, 1988
proposal (53 PR 11742). ;
Effective July 8, 1987", th* statute
prohibited farther land disposal (except
by deep well injection) of th* following •
wastea listed or tdentifigrf under section
3001 of RCRA.' •••"*-.- '^j:4>^:fc'-*>*-v3';''
(A) Liquid hazardou* wastes; fncftnting free
liquid* associated with any solid or sludge.
containing free cyanide* at concentration* "
greater than or equal to 1JOQO mg/L
(B) Liquid hazardous waste*, including free
liquid* associated with any solid or sludge..
containing the following metal* (or element*)
or compound* of these metals (or element*) ,
at concentration* greater than or equal to'
those specified below:
(i) arsenic and/or compound* (as A*} SOOf
mg/1: _ •
(ii) cadmium and/or compound* (a» Cd)
lOOmg/U - -
(iii) chromium (VI and/or compounds (a*
CrVI))500mg/l;
(iv) lead and/or compound* (as Pb) 500
mg/1:
(v) mercury and/or compound* (a* Hg] 20
mg/b
( vi) nickel and/or compound* (as Ni) 134 '
mg/1;
(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
100 mg/1; and
(viii) thallium and/or compound* (a* Tl)
130 mg/1.
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH
less than or equal to two (2J)). '
(D) Liquid hazardous waste* containing: •
poly chlorinated biphenyi* (PCB«} at
concentration* greater than or equal to 50 .-•
ppm..
(E) Hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compound* (HOC*) in .
total concentration greater than or equal to •
1.000 mg/kg.
(RCRA sections 3004 (d)(l). (d)(2}, 42
U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l). (d)(2)). Effective
August 8, 1988, the underground
infection into deep wells of these wastes
is prohibited (RCRA section 3004 (f}(2]»
(f)(3), 42 U.S.a 6924 (f)(2). (f)(3)J. During
the period ending November 8, 1988,
there is no prohibition on the land
disposal of California list wastes that
are contaminated soil or debris resulting
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 106 of CERCLA or a
corrective action taken under Subtitle C
of RCRA (RCRA section 3004(e}(3). 42
U.S.C. 6924(e)(3)).
On July 8, 1987. EPA promulgated a
final rule (52 FR 25760) implementing
RCRA section 3004(d). This rule
established treatment standards for
California list wastes containing PCBs
and certain HOCs, and codified the
statutory prohibition on liquid corrosive
wastes. The statutory prohibition is in
effect for the California list wastes
containing free cyanides, metals, and '
the California list dilute HOC
wastewaters. For a more detailed
summary of the land disposal
restrictions framework, including the
regulations" and modifications
promulgated in the Jury 8r 1987 rule, refer
to the April 8T1988 proposal (53 FR
" ' ' ' ' '
AScaedukdWastea, , '•_
• • THio- amendmento required the Agency
to prepare a schedule by Novembers,
1986 for restricting the land disposal of
aH hazardous wastes listed or identified
as of November 8, 1984 in 40 CFR Part
261, excluding solvent- and clioxin-
contahung wastes and California list
wastes covered under the schedule set
by Congress. The schedule, based on a
ranking of the listed wastes that
considers their intrinsic hazard and their
volume, is to ensure that prohibitions
and treatment standards are
promulgated first for high volume
hazardous wastes with high- intrinsic
hazard before standards are set for low
volume wastes with low intrinsic
hazard. The statute further requires that
these determinations be made by the
following deadlines:
(A) At least one-third of all listed
hazardous wastes by August 8, 198&
(B) At iea*t two-third* of all listed
hazardous waste* by June 8. 1989.
(C) All remaining listed hazardous wastes
and all hazardous wastes identified a* of
November a. 1984, by one or more of the
characteristic* defined in 40 CFR Part 281 by
May 8, 1990.
If EPA fails to set a treatment
standard by the statutory deadline for
any hazardous waste hi the first third or
second third of the schedule, the waste
may be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment provided "such facility" is
hi compliance with the minimum
technological requirements specified in
RCRA section 3004(o) (RCRA section
3004(g)(6)). [Note.— In today's final rule,
EPA is interpreting the term "such
facility" in 3004(g)(6) to refer to the
individual surface impoundment or
landfill unit]. In addition, prior to
disposal, the generator must certify to
the Administrator that he has
investigated the availability of treatment
capacity and has determined that
disposal in such landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical
alternative to treatment currently
available to the generator. This
restriction on the use of landfills and
surface impoundments applies until EPA
sets a treatment standard for the waste
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
untreated wastes 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 all forms of land.
disposal .after that time unless the waste
is the subject of a successful "no
migration" demonstration (RCRA
section 3004(g)(5], 42 U.S.C. 6924(g}(5)).
(Also, the May 8,1990 effective date
may be extended under RCRA section
3004(h}(2) for certain Second Third and
Third Third wastes, and until August 8.
1990 for certain First Third wastes.) In a
May 28.1986 final rule (51 FR 19300),
EPA published the schedule for setting
treatment standards for the listed and
identified hazardous wastes. All wastes
that are identified as hazardous by
characteristic are scheduled in the Third
Third, as required by RCRA. This
schedule is incorporated in 40 CFR
268.10,268.11. and 268.12.
Today's final rule promulgates the
conditions under which wastes included
in the first one third of the schedule of
restricted hazardous wastes listed in 40
CFR 268.10 (First Third) may continue to
be land disposed. This rule finalizes the
April 8, 1988 (53 FR 17578) and May 17,
1988 (53 FR 15000) proposed
rulemakings.
5. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
RCRA requires the Agency to make a
. land disposal prohibition determination
for any hazardous waste that is newly
identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261
after November 8,1984 within six
months of the date of identification or
listing (RCRA section 3004(g)(4). 42
U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)). However, the statute
does not provide for an automatic
prohibition of the land disposal of such
wastes if EPA fails to meet this
deadline.
B. Summary of the Proposed Rules
1. Proposed Approach
In the interest of allowing the
.regulated community the most time
possible for notice and comment on the
Agency's approach to implementing
RCRA section 3004(g), EPA believed it
was prudent to propose today's rule in
two separate notices. The first proposal.
April 8,1988 (53 FR 11742), proposed
treatment standards and effective dates
for 24 listed hazardous wastes. This
proposal also presented and solicited
comment on the Agency's approach to
implementing the "soft hammer"
provisions pursuant to RCRA section
3004(g)(6), which are applicable to First
Third wastes for which EPA has not set
-------
31142 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
treatment standards or effective dates. If
EPA fails to set treatment standards for
any Second. Third waste!! by June 8,
1989, the "soft hammer" provisions will,
also be applicable; Amendments to the
"no migration" petition process and to
certain of the framework regulations,
were also proposed in tha April 8 notice.
The second proposal. Irfay 17,1988 (53
FR17578), proposed treatment standards
and effective dates lot 15' additional - .-•
listed hazardous wastes. Also presented '
In the second proposal were new - -
capacity determinations based on the
1987 National Survey of Hazardous'
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and
Recycling Facilities. Thene new capacity
determinations revised the effective
dates proposed in the April 8,1988
proposal for several waste codes, and
also proposed to rescind certain
national variances granted in previous
rulemakings (November 7,1988,51 FR
40572: July 8,1987; 52 FR 25760).
Today's rulemaking finalizes both the
April 8 and May 17 proposals. The land
disposal restrictions effective dates for
First Third-wastes which are disposed in
deep infection wells are not addressed
in this final rule, but rather, are being
addressed in a separate iiilemaking.
2. Applicability
In both the April 8,1988 and May 17. .
1988 proposals. EPA clarified the
applicability of treatment standards to .
wastes derived from the treatment
storage or disposal of listed wastes and
to mixtures of prohibited hazardous
wastes or nonwaste matrices (such as
soil). The Agency emphasized the
following two points:
1. All of the residues resulting from
treatment of the original listed wastes
are likewise considered to be the listed
waste by virtue of the derived-from rule
contained In 40 CFR 281.:>(c)(2).
Consequently, all of the residues
generated in the course of treatment
would be prohibited from land disposal
unless they satisfy the applicable
treatment standard or meet one of the
exceptions to the prohibition.-
2. In general, treatment: standards
contain concentration levels for
wastewaters and concentration levels
for nonwastewaters (i.e., wastewaters
and nonwastewaters are identified as
Separate treatability groups). These
treatment standards apply to residuals
resulting from treatment of the original
prohibited waste. Thus, all solids
resulting from treatment of a prohibited
waste would have to meet the treatment
standard for nonwaatewuters. Likewise.
wastewaters resulting from treatment
(e.g., scrubber waters from incineration)
would have to meet the wastewater
treatment standards. EPA wishes to
make clear that this approach is not
meant to allow partial treatment only to
change the applicable treatment
standard.
In addition, the Agency clarified the
applicability of the treatment standards
to residues resulting from types of
management other than treatment
Examples are contaminated soil or
leachate derived from managing the
waste. la these cases, the mixture is
deemed to be the listed waste, either
because of the derived-from rule, the
mixture rule (40 CFR 281.3(a](2)(iv)). or
because the listed waste is contained in'
the matrix (see e.g.. 40 CFR 261.3(d)(2).
40 CFR 281.33(d), RCRA section
3004(e)(3)). Thus, the prohibition for the
particular listed waste applies to this
type of waste.
.3. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BOAT)
In the April 8 and May 17 proposals,
the Agency defined the waste
treatability groups by waste codes
(generally separating the waste codes
into "wastewater" and
"nonwastewater" treatability groups)
and identified the Best Demonstrated
Available Technologies (BOAT) for each
treatability group. Treatment standards
applicable to the specific waste codes
(and treatability groups) are based on
the treatment performance levels
• achievable by the corresponding BOAT
identified for each treatability group. •
Although treatment standards are
generally expressed as concentration
levels that represent the performance of
BDAT, EPA wishes to clarify that any
technology not otherwise prohibited
(i.e.. impermissible dilution) may be
used to meet the applicable treatment
standards. Specifically, compliance with
the land disposal restrictions treatment
standards is achieved by meeting the
numerical performance standards
established for each constituent The
specific technology (BDAT) upon which
the standards are based does not need
to be used (except when technologies
are set as the standards, e.g.
halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs)).
.In the April 8.1988 Federal Register
notice (53 FR 11742), incineration was
proposed as BDAT for waste codes
K015.K018.KOia. K019. K020, K024,
K030, K037, and K048-K052 (and the
proposed treatment standards
consequently were based upon the
performance of that technology).
Chromium reduction, followed by
chemical precipitation and vacuum
filtration was proposed as BDAT for
K062. Solvent extraction followed by
incineration of the extract and by steam
stripping and activated carbon
adsorption for the wastewater stream
was proposed as BDAT for K103 and
K104. High temperature metals recovery
was proposed as BDAT for K061. For
' K071, acid, leaching and chemical
oxidation was proposed as BDAT for
nonwastewaters,- and sulfide-
precipitation and filtration was
proposed as BDAT for wastewaters.
• Total recycle was proposed as BDAT for
K069 wastes. EPA determined that the
wastes K004, K008, K036. K073, and
KlOO are no longer being generated and
disposed, and therefore, did not identify
BDAT for these wastes.
In the May 17, 1988 proposal (53 FR
17578), stabilization was proposed as
BDAT for waste codes F006 and K046.
For waste codes K001 and K086 (solvent
washes and sludges subcategory), BDAT
was proposed as incineration followed
by stabilization of nonwastewater
residuals and chromium reduction
followed by chemical precipitation for
wastewater residuals. The proposed
BDAT for nonwastewater forms of K022
was proposed as fuel substitution
followed by metals stabilization and
metals precipitation of scrubber water.
Fuel substitution or incineration was the
proposed BDAT for K083. EPA proposed
rotary kiln incineration as BDAT for
K087 and-solicited information to
support a conclusion that total recycling
could be accomplished for some K087
subcategories. BDAT for K099 was
proposed as chemical oxidation with
chlorine. Incineration followed by
stabilization of ash-residues to
immobilize the metals was the proposed
BDAT for both K101 and K102. BDAT
was proposed as thermal recovery for
K106 nonwastewaters and sulfide
precipitation followed by filtration for
K106 wastewaters. The Agency
determined that waste codes K021,
K025, and K060, were no longer
generated, and thus "No Land Disposal"
was the proposed BDAT treatment .
standard. Waste codes K044, K045, and
K047 also had "No Land Disposal" as
the proposed treatment standard
because open burning/open detonation
was identified as treatment for these
reactive wastes. Because open burning ,
and open detonation are not considered
to be land disposal provided that no
reactive constituents remain after
detonation (see 51 FR 40580), there
would be no land disposal of a
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
EPA also proposed to revise the
treatment standard for methylene
chloride in F001-F005 wastewaters from
the pharmaceutical industry to be based
on the performance of steam stripping.
Furthermore, in the May 17, 1988
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 311431
proposal, EPA solicited 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 (as well as incinerators) in . ..
accordance with applicable regulatory
requirement*,- ; i».iiv-v--f.*ji^8^-.;•£>.%'.•,.•'.,, • ••
4. Waste Analysis Requirements^ , ;.
tit the April 8k 190ft proposal. EPA "..,-"
presented, its approach to waste ; :w'l.-;
analysis (see 53 FR 11764)-Since Ov ..,.
treatment standard* represent the : •
performance level of BOAT applied to a
particular waste, the Agency's approach
was to require waste analysis that best .
measures what the BOAT treatment
technology is intended to accomplish
(even though use of the identified BOAT
is not required). For example, if
incineration (a destruction technology)
is identified as BOAT, then the
treatment standards are expressed as
total constituent concentration levels .
(i.e., waste analysis is a total
composition analysis, rather than an
extract analysis) to evaluate whether
destruction occurs optimally. Similarly,
if stabilization (an immobilization
technology) is identified as BDAT, then
the treatment standards are expressed
as constituent concentration levels in a
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) (see 40 CFR Part 288
Appendix I) extract to reflect whether
immobilization has been optimized*
The Agency also clarified that in
cases where a combination of both a-
destruction or removal technology and a
stabilization or fixation technology is
identified as BOAT, then both analyses
must be employed to monitor
compliance with the treatment
standards, hi such cases, neither test
alone is designed to ensure that the
technology-baaed treatment standards
(which would be expressed as both total
composition and TCLP extract
concentration levels) have been met
5. Nationwide Variance from the
Effective Date
Due to the lack of sufficient
alternative protective treatment or
recovery capacity to treat certain of the
wastes to .the applicable treatment
standards, a national capacity variance
was proposed for several of the waste .
codes addressed in the April 8 and May
17 proposals. This determination was
based on a comparison of the volumes
of wastes requiring treatment to the
amount of treatment capacity available
for such treatment Although EPA
usually does not require that BDAT
technologies be used to meet the
applicable treatment standards (unless
the technology is specified as the
treatment standard for the waste hi
§ 288.42), capacity figures are derived
based on technologies identified as
BDAT, to ensure that adequate .
treatment is available to meet the
treatment standards. • -
fa She April 8 notice, EPA proposed a .
two-year national variance from the
effective date for K016, KOiS, KO19.
K020, K024, K030, K037, K048-K052.
Kim. K071. K103 and K104. However.
the Agency also noted that new capacity
. determinations would be presented (and
thus, these proposed variances would be
revisited) in a supplemental proposal
(i.e., the May 17 proposal).
In the May 17 notice, EPA proposed a
two-year national variance from the
effective date for one additional waste
code, K106, and for certain
contaminated soils (Fust Third) that
require solids incineration capacity.
.: Also, the Agency revised the April 8
proposal, and proposed not to grant a
variance for K016» K018, K019, K020,
K024, K030. K037, K103, and K304.
Therefore, the First Third wastes for
which a two-year national variance
from the effective date was proposed
are K048, K049. K050, K051, K052. K061.
K071 and K106. In addition, the May 17
notice proposed a two-year capacity
variance for certain contaminated soils
that require solids incineration capacity.
The variance was proposed for soils
contaminated with First Third wastes,
and soils from RCRA and CERCLA
response actions contaminated with
solvents, dioxins and California list
wastes.
Additionally, the May 17 proposal
revisited certain national variances
granted by previous rulemakings (i.e.,
November 7.1980.51FR 40572: and July
8,1987.. 52 FR 25780). In light of new
capacity data indicating that sufficient
liquid incineration capacity exists to
incinerate or thermally combust certain
wastes, EPA proposed to rescind the
variances granted for the following
wastes:.
(a) Spent solvent wastes identified as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001-F005
generated by small quantity generator?
producing from 100-1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month;
(b) Solvent waste generated from
section 104 or 108 response actions
under CERCLA or any RCRA corrective
action, except where the waste is
contaminated soil or debris; and
(c) Hazardous wastes containing
HOCs hi concentrations greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/1, except for California
list HOC contaminated soils.
8. "Soft Hammer" Requirements
In the April 8 proposal, the Agency
presented its approach to implementing
RCRA section 3004(g)(8), the so-called
"soft hammer" provision. This "soft
hammer" provision applies to Fust Third
(and Second Third] wastes for which •
EPA fails to set treatment standards and
effective dates by the statutory
deadlines (for First Third wastes, this, .
deadline is August 8,1988),. and applies
until May 8,1990 or until EPA
promulgates treatment standards,
whichever is sooner. .
EPA interpreted the statutory
provision to apply only to such First
Third wastes when they are disposed in
landfill and surface impoundment units,
and further interpreted the statutory
language to require that such disposal
units must meet the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o) (double liner, leachate
collection system, and ground water
monitoring, or equivalent performance
as provided in RCRA section 3004{o)(2)).
The Agency's approach to the "soft
hammer" provisions required that the
generator (or owner or operator) certify
that there is no treatment practically
available that meaningfully reduces
toxicity or mobility of the waste and
that therefore, disposal of these wastes
hi a landfill or surface impoundment
unit that meets the minimum
technological requirements of section
3004(o) is the only practical alternative.
This certification would also apply to
those "soft hammer" wastes for which
treatment was practically available and
which have been treated to reduce
toxicity or mobility and for which no
further treatment is practically
available; thus, disposal of the treatment
residuals hi a landfill or surface
impoundment unit that meets the
minimum technological requirements is
the only alternative.
7. "No Migration" Petition Requirements
The April 8 proposal also included
amendments to 40 CFR 268.6, the "no
migration" petition process. The Agency
did not present its interpretation of the
statutory "no migration" language of
RCRA section 3004 (d). (e). and (g) for
surface disposal units; this
interpretation will be presented in a
separate rulemaking. The amendments
presented hi the April 8 notice did.
however, propose additional
requirements relating to:
(a) Documenting compliance with
other applicable laws;
(b) Submitting monitoring plans;
(c) Procedures to be followed if there
are changes in operating conditions after
an exemption is granted; and
(d) Procedures to follow upon
detection of hazardous constituent
migration.
-------
31144 Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
8. Comparative Risk Assessment
In both the April 8 and May 17
proposals, EPA presented a change in its.
approach to using comparative risk
assessment as a decision tool in the
determination of "available" treatment
technologies. In the development of
regulation* restricting the landi disposal
of certain spent solvent and dioxin-
containing wastes (November 7,1986
final rule) and California list waste*
(July 8,1987 final rule), comparative risk
assessment* were conducted to ensure
that technologies which presented
greater risk than land disposal of
untreated'wastes were not considered in
identifying BOAT. These f malyses did
not affect the determinations of whether
a treatment was consider**! "available".
Upon further consideration of the
existing comparative risk analysis, EPA
decided not to utilize this assessment' to
determine "available" technologies in
the First Third proposals. EPA did.
however, present the possibility of
conducting risk analyses in the future 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 technologies.
9. Modifications to the Framework
In both the April 8 and May 17
notices, the Agency proposed several
modifications to the existing framework
for the land disposal restrictions found
in 40 CFR Part 288. EPA's
implementation of the "soft hammer"
provision, which restricts the disposal hi
landfills and surface impoundments of
First Third wastes for which EPA has
not set a treatment standard, was
proposed in 40 CFR 28S.& Additional
regulatory amendments were proposed
to account for the First Third wastes,
and especially, "soft hammer" wastes.
EPA also proposed to amend the
recordkeeping requirements of § 268.7.
The amendments would require storage
facilities to be brought into the
recordkeeping system, and also require
generators to keep copies of the notices,
certifications, and waste Einalyses that
are associated with each shipment of
restricted wastes. These changes help to
ensure that 7 fMtricted waste can be
tracked from the point of generation to
its ultimate destination. Additionally.
the Agency proposed to aeit a five-year
limitation on the time period that such
records are required to be retained by
the generator.
In the April 8 proposal, EPA proposed
changes to the regulatory language in
§ 268.6 concerning "no migration"
petitions that reflect the new
requirements presented in the April 8
preamble. In the May 17 proposal, EPA
proposed amendments (based on recent
capacity data) to certain variances
granted in previous rulemakings. The .
Agency also proposed certain other
relatively minor changes to the
framework provisions.
H. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Applicability
Today the Agency is promulgating
treatment standards and effective dates
for only certain First Third wastes (i.e.,
those hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
288.10, promulgated in May 28,1988 (51
FR 19300) pursuant to RCRA section
3004(g)). For those wastes listed in
S 288.10 for which EPA does not
establish treatment standards or
effective dates, the Agency is
promulgating regulations to allow for
continued land disposal hi § 268.8.
These so-called "soft hammer"
provisions (discussed in detail in section
nLC. of today's preamble) -apply until
May 8,1990, or until treatment
standards or extensions to the effective
date are promulgated, whichever is
sooner. On May 8,1990, there is an
automatic prohibition on the land
disposal of hazardous wastes listed or
identified prior to the enactment of
HSWA. [Note.—Today's rule does not
establish treatment standards for any of
the P- or U-list wastes in S 268.10.
However, certain of these wastes may
be subject to the California list
halogenated organic compounds
treatment standards, once the standards
become effective.]
Also, this rule clarifies the
relationship of the California list final
rule (July 8,1987, 52 FR 25760) to First
Third wastes (see section ffl. E.). In
addition, this rule clarifies the
applicability of Part 288 Subpart D
treatment standards to "derived-from"
wastes and waste mixtures (see section
D1A.4.).
In addition, the Agency notes that the
treatment standards it is promulgating
today are not applicable to First Third
wastes that are disposed by deep-well
injection. (See RCRA section 3004(g)(5)
authorizing EPA. to prohibit "one or
more methods of land disposal" of
scheduled hazardous wastes; in this
rulemaking. EPA is prohibiting disposal
in surface units of most of the wastes in
the first third of the schedule; EPA will
address disposal by deep-well injection •
in a later rulemaking.) Wastes that are
disposed by deep-well injection are
regulated under 40 CFR Part 148, and the
applicability of today's 40 CFR Subpart
D treatment standards to such wastes
will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking. Until that time, First Third
wastes disposed by deep-well injection
are subject to the "soft hammer"
provisions of § 268.8.
A Waste Analysis and Recordkeeping
Requirements
The Agency is today promulgating the
approach to waste analysis—what to
analyze to evaluate the performance of
the treatment technology—was
proposed. Basically, where BDAT'is a
destruction or removal technology,
waste analysis that is most appropriate
for measuring such destruction or
removal is required—i.e., total waste
analysis. Similarly, where BOAT is •
identified as an immobilization
technology (e.g., stabilization), waste
analysis that most appropriately
measures mobilization is required—i.e.,
analysis of a waste extract. In cases
where both technologies are identified
as BOAT, both types of waste analyses
are required. For a more detailed
discussion, see section III. B.
In addition, the Agency is today
promulgating a 5-year record retention
requirement, as proposed in the May 17,
1988, Federal Register notice. This
discussion is also included in section III.
B. of today's preamble.
C. Treatment Standards and Effective
Dates
Today's final rule establishes
treatment-standards and effective dates
for many First Third wastes. In section
IIL A., the Agency identifies the waste
treatability groups by waste codes and
identifies the Best Demonstrated •
Available Technology (BOAT) for each
waste code. Treatment standards
applicable to each treatability group are
based on the performance levels
achievable by the corresponding BOAT
identified for each treatability group.
The Agency strongly reiterates that any
technology not otherwise prohibited
(i.e., impermissible dilution) may be
used to meet the concentration based
treatment standards.
Also, EPA is promulgating
amendments to the existing treatment
standards for wastewaters containing
methylene chloride (as a spent solvent)
generated by the pharmaceutical
industry, and for California list
halogenated organic compounds. See
section III. A. for further discussions.
Effective dates are established based
on the Agency's determination of
whether sufficient protective treatment
(or recovery) capacity is available to
treat the restricted wastes. Although the
regulated community is not required to
treat restricted wastes with the
technology identified as BOAT (where
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
treatment standards are expressed as
concentration levels), the Agency
generally bases its capacity
determination on the availability of this
technology, thus helping to ensure that
adequate treatment capacity is currently
available to treat wastes in compliance
with the applicable treatment standard.
For a detailed discussion of capacity, .-, _
refer to section HLH. ' - ';';~, H. r
..-w.-.,. v>.-
D. "Soft Hammer" tieqairementa-^' : -.-•,!
Section m. C, of today's preamble * '
discusses the requirements applicable to
those First Third wastes for which
treatment standards or effective dates
have not been promulgated. Basically,
the generator must demonstrate and
certify that there is no practically
available treatment that reduces toxicity
or mobility of the waste and that
disposal of these wastes in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit that meets
the minimum technological requirements
of RCRA section 3004(o) (double liner,
leachate collection system, and ground
water monitoring) is the only practical .
alternative. If treatment is practically
available, the generator must certify that
. his waste is being treated by the best
treatment (i.e., the treatment which
provides the most environmental
benefit) practically available, as
indicated in his demonstration. The
residuals from treatment of "soft
hammer" wastes remain "soft hammer"
wastes, and if disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit, must be
placed in a unit meeting the mintnMim
technological requirements of 3004{o)
(including section 3004(o)(2) if an
appropriate demonstration can be
made).
E, Reinterpretation of RCRA Section
3004(h)(4)
As discussed in section IIL D.. the
Agency is promulgating its
reinterpretation of RCRA section
3004(h)(4) as presented in the April 8,
1988. proposal This interpretation
effects the disposal of restricted wastes
which have been granted an extension
to the effective date (either a national
capacity variance or a case-by-case
extension) in a landfill or surface
impoundment. Under the interpretation •
promulgated today and effective on
November 8. 1988 (during the interim
period, the original interpretation
applies), if such restricted wastes are
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit, the individual
landfill or surface impoundment unit
must meet the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA section 3004(o).
F, "NoMigration"Requirements .
As discussed in section nL R. the
Agency is today promulgating .
amendments to 40 CFR 268.6. the "no
migration" petition process. As
proposed on April 8,1988. these
amendments cover the demonstrations
required in the petition and certain other
requirements on the owner oir operator
of a waste management unit that is
: subject to a "no migration" variance.
CLNoraalemaking'ProceduTeaforSite~ .
Specific Variances From the Treatment
Standard
The Agency is promulgating
amendments to the existing 40 CFR
268.44 to modify the procedures for
obtaining site-specific, variances from
.the treatment standard. This action is
taken in response to commeniers'
request for a more streamlined
procedural mechanism for obtaining a
variance from the treatment standard.
EPA believes that, in certain cases,
informal rulemaMng are neither required
nor warranted, and that a more
streamlined procedure for obtaining a
variance from the treatment standard is
justified. This approach is discussed in
more detail in section III. K. of today's
preamble.
EEL Detailed Discussion of Today's Final
Rule
A. Determination of Treatability Groups
and Development of Treatment
Standards
1. Waste Treatability Croups
For the First Third wastes, EPA used
the individual Hated 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 by similar industries from
similar processes. EPA believes that
such groupings can be made because of
the high likelihood that the waste
characteristics which affect treatment
performance will be similar for these
different waste codes. This conclusion is
explained in more detail in the relevant
background document for each
particular waste code.
The treatment standards in today's
rule generally contain concentrations
presented constituent by constituent for
"wastewaters" and for
"nonwastewaters". The treatment
standards apply to the wastes as
generated as well as all of the residual
wastes generated in treating the original
prohibited waste. See RCRA section
3004(m)(2) indicating that treatment
standards apply both to wastes and to
treatment residuals therefrom. Thus, for
example, all K101 and K102 wastes
(including the solid residuals generated
from treating K101 and K102) would
have to meet the treatment standards •
for nonwastewaters and all
wastewaters (including those generated
from treating these wastes) would have
to meet the treatment standards for
wastewaters. For the purpose of
defining the applicability of the
treatment standard in this rule, the
Agency defines wastewaters as wastes
that contain less than 1% total organic
carbon (TOC) and less than 1% total
suspended solids (i.e., total filterable
solids) except for those wastes
identified as FOOT, F002, F003, F004, and/
or F005 where the Agency indicated a
different definition of the solvent
wastewater treatability group (see 51FR
40579 for the definition of a solvent-
water mixture). Those wastes that do
not meet this definition are considered
to be 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.
However, EPA wishes to emphasize
that where a waste that consists
primarily of water (such as a leachate)
is classified as a nonwastewater solely
by its filterable solids content (i.e., total
suspended solids (TSS) levels), the
waste can be subjected to dewatering
techniques to remove the filterable
solids. Treatment standards for
nonwastewaters are then applicable to
the filtered solids. The filtrate is then
subject to the treatment standards for
the wastewaters, assuming that the
filterable solids content has been
reduced to less than one percent by
weight. These standards are applicable
if the wastes are to be placed in land
disposal units, according to the
appropriate provisions of today's rule.
2. Identification of BDAT
A detailed discussion of the Agency's
general methodology for establishing
BDAT standards is provided in 51 FR
40572 (November 7,1986). Section III. A.
of today's preamble 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.
Consistent with the general
methodology, EPA first determined
which technologies were
-------
31146 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 /Rules and Regulations
"demonstrated" for a particular
treatability group. EPA then screened
the available treatment data for a
particular treatability group with regard-
to theJesign and.operation of the. .
system, the quality assurance/quality .
control analyses of the. d«;t*, and the
analytical testa used to wises* treatment.
performance. Thi* screening step i* .
consistent with EPA'* promulgated
approach In the November 7.1986,
rulemaking for solvent waste codes
F001-R305. Also, this screening step
recognizes the fact that different
performance measure* may be
appropriate depending on. the
technology used (e-g., total constituent
analysis for destruction of brganics by
incineration technologies versus TCLP
analysis for immobilization of metal
constituents by stabilization.
technologies). 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.
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.
After adjusting the data;. EPA then
averaged the performance) levels
achieved for the various treatment
operations (for which the Agency had
complete data) and compared the mean
values using the analysis of variance
test (ANOVA). as described in the
November 7,1886, preamble (see 51FR
40591), to determine if on« technology
performed significantly b
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31147
in 40 CFR Part 261.3(c){2). Consequently,
all of the wastes generated in the course
of treatment would be prohibited front
land disposal unless they satisfy the
applicable treatment standard or meet
one of the exceptions to the prohibition;.
The Agency has not performed testa
in all cases on every waste that can V
result from every part of the treatment
train. However, the Agency's treatment .
standards are.based on uvatment of the '
most concentrated form of the waste.
Consequently, the Agency believes that*
the less concentrated wastes generated :
in the course of treatment can be treated
to these standards. . . . .
Today's treatment standards also
apply to waste mixtures; i.e., mixtures of
different waste streams. As the Agency
has repeatedly stated in previous
preambles, the more stringent standard
applies in cases where a waste mixture
has two or more applicable treatment
standards. The Agency believes that
such wastes can be treated to the meet
the treatment standards applicable to
the underlying wastes for several
reasons. Waste mixtures commonly
result in a waste in which individual
constituents are less concentrated than
in the original wastes. Also, in
establishing treatment standards, the
Agency allows for a reasonable-amount
of variability in the generation and
treatment of the waste. Finally, while
EPA believes that waste mixtures can
be treated to meet the treatment
standards, the rules do contain a
procedure that allows a petitioner to
gain a variance from the treatment
standard by demonstrating that his
waste cannot be treated to the level
specified in the rule (see 40 CFR 268.44}.
To date, the Agency has not received a
petition for such a variance, indicating
that .the treatment standards currently in
effect are achievable.
The Agency, however, has determined
that one class of waste mixtures—mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes—should
not be included in the First Third and is
amending § 268.12 (the Third Third) to
move such wastes to the final third of
the scheduled wastes. Therefore, these
wastes will not be prohibited from land
disposal until May 8,1990. The Agency
is taking this action based on the
relatively small volumes of such wastes
being generated; while the individual
hazardous wastes may be generated in
large volumes, the mixed hazardous/
radioactive wastes are not The Agency
notes that this action only affects First
Third wastes; spent solvents, dioxins
and California list wastes that are
mixed with radioactive wastes are
subject to the applicable treatment
standards when the standards are
effective. [Note.—As discussed in
section DL C. 3. a, the Agency believes
that the schedule is absolutely
committed to its discretion, and that the
schedule of prohibited wastes therefore
can-be amended without notice and .
comment;} ., ., -
EPA discussed in detail in the May 17,
1983. preamble the principle that
residuerfirom managing listed wastes, or
that contain listed wastes, are covered
by the prohibition for the listed waste
(53 FR17588). EPA made the following
points: •-•-.-• .
(1) Hazardous waste listings are
retroactive, so that once a particular
waste is listed, all wastes meeting that
description are hazardous wastes no
matter when disposed. (As discussed
below, this does not mean that such
wastes are necessarily subject to
Subtitle C regulation, only that they are
hazardous wastes.) For example, if on
August 9,1988. EPA were to list
distillation bottoms from production of
X aa a hazardoua waste, all such
distillation bottoms would be hazardous
wastes, regardless of when they are or
were generated. They are the thing that
is listed.
(2) Residues derived from treating,
storing, or disposing of these wastes are
therefore also hazardous by virtue of the
derived-from rule ($ 261.3(c){2)}. the
mixture rule, or in some cases, because
the waste itself la still found in the
matrix (see § 281.3(d)(2)).
(3) Consequently, for purposes of the
land disposal restrictions program,
residues from managing First Third
wastes. listed California list wastes, and
spent solvent and dioxin wastes are all
considered to be subject to the
prohibitions for the underlying listed
hazardous wastes.
Public comment centered on the
implications of these principles with
respect to management of leachate that
derives from management of listed
hazardous wastes. The Agency
indicated that leachate could be affected
by these principles: The derived from-
rule explicitly mentions leachate as a
type of derived-from residue that is
covered by that rule, and since the
statute includes "leaking" within the
definition of "disposal", leachate leaking
from listed wastes is therefore derived
from the disposal of these wastes. As
explained more fully below, however,
certain of the commenters" concerns
regarding leachate (for example.
implications for permitting of inactive or
subtitle D disposal units) appear to be
misplaced.
Commenters also argued that in many
cases, leachate could not be treated to
the BDAT treatment levels because it is
a different type of waste from the one on
which the treatment standards were
based. Commenters submitted certain
data to support these assertions.
Commenters also made the point that
since leachate .can contain all or most of
the listed waste codes, and the Agency
has indicated that waste matrices
containing a number of prohibited
wastes must be treated to meet the most
stringent standard for every waste
contained hi the matrix, it would be
hard to design a treatment system for
leachate since it would not be clear
what the ultimate treatment standard
would be until EPA finishes developing
treatment standards for all of the listed
hazardous wastes. A variation of this
comment was that treatment standards
for different wastes contributing to
leachate could be incompatible, making
it impossible to treat all constituents to
the applicable treatment standards.
Commenters also stated that EPA had
not accounted for treatment of leachate
in its capacity estimates. A number of
commenters made the further point that,
especially with respect to subtitle D
non-hazardous waste units, EPA's
reading tended to penalize persons
voluntarily collecting and treating
leachate who had kept accurate historic
records of what wastes went into the
disposal unit. Finally, several
commenters suggested that leachate
should be viewed as a separate
treatability group and that the Agency
should develop separate treatment
standards for it
EPA first addresses those comments
which disputed the Agency's
interpretation of its own rules. The .
Agency will then address those
comments questioning the applicability
to leachate and other derived-from
wastes of treatment standards based
upon treatment of the waste from which
• the waste is derived.
a. Retroactivity of Waste Listings. A
few commenters disputed the Agency's
reading that hazardous waste listings
are retroactive; that is, all wastes
meeting the listing description are
. hazardous regardless of when they were
disposed. EPA believes this point to be .
nearly self-evident: a waste either does
or does not match a listing description.
The time at which a waste was disposed
does not affect what that waste is. Spent
solvent still bottoms disposed of in 1979
(before Agency action listing these
wastes as hazardous) are as much spent
solvent still bottoms as those disposed
in 1981 (after the listing took effect).
In addition, there are a whole series of
statutory provisions that give retroactive
application to hazardous.waste listings.
Section 103(c) of CERCLA, enacted in
-------
31148 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
November 1980 and implemented by
rule in April 1981, provides that:
(AJny person who owns cir operates or who
at tho tim» of disposal ownod or
operated * • " a&cffity.lrwWcfc
(hczstdovs waste* tdtntified or listed under
RCRA Mctioa 3001) «* or lam be«a stand.
treated, or dfcpoMd of shall. nakM sack
facility bM • ptemtt tonud wdcr subtitle C
of [RO^AJ. notify th»Admijji
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 3U4»
CERCLA program. In fact, when EPA
identifies a waste at a CERCLA
response site as deriving from
management of a listed waste, the :
residue is considered to be the listed. .
waste; EPA in fact considered such. ' -
wastes fat its capacity estimate* for each
"of the waste prohibitions adopted or '-, .
proposed to date, surely an unnecessary
action unless such residue* ara T;
prohibited by virtue of the prohibition - *
for the listed waste (see, e.g. 51 FR- -"
40611;November.7.1966).. :> ' 'r
The same commenter asserted
erroneously that EPA had stated that
solvent mixtures were not covered by
the section 3004(e) prohibition on listed
solvent wastes. EPA actually stated that
certain solvent formulations containing
10 percent or more solvent ingredients
which were listed a* hazardous for the
first time on December 31.1985, were
not covered by the prohibition forFOOl-
FOQS wastes (51FR 40584; November 7,
1986). This statement has nothing to do
with mixtures of hazardous waste spent
solvents and other solid wastes, which ••
are covered by the section 3004(e)(3)
prohibition. (Indeed, when EPA initially
proposed the solvent prohibition, many
commenters criticized the Agency's
capacity estimates for not taking into
account mixture and derived-from rule
residuals containing these listed wastes,
all of which residues were covered by
the prohibition and which therefore
needed to be assessed (SI FR 40611;
Nov. 7.1986). EPA's final capacity
estimates for the solvent prohibition rule
therefore included all of these residues.)
v. Consequences of EPA's
Interpretation are Exaggerated.
Coramenters expressed significant
concerns that EPA's interpretation
would lead to RCRA permitting of all
inactive hazardous waste sites that
collect leachate. They believed that if
leaching is considered to be a form of
disposal (which it is, since leaking is
occurring, see RCRA section 1004(3)),
then units from which leachate is
leaking are thereby subtitle C
management units subject to all of the
RCRA requirements.
This reading is not correct. The
permitting requirement under RCRA
seqtion 3005(a) applies to new and
existing disposal facilities. "Disposal
facility" is defined in the rules as "a
facility * * * at which hazardous
waste is intentionally placed into or on
any land or water, and at which waste
will remain after closure" (see § 260.10).
Section 3005(a) prohibits the operation
of such facilities without a permit after
the effective date of the permitting
regulations, November 19,1980. Thus,
only facilities where hazardous waste is
intentionally placed into land or water
after November 19,1980 require a RCRA
disposal permit Collection of hazardous
leachate at otherwise inactive units.
consequently does not activate the unit
A second concern dealt with subtitle
D facilities that generate leachate.
Gommenters expressed concern that
because these landfill* all accepted
small quantity generator listed
haMrrinnji wantpn, all loaphatgfmrTy
these facilities waa thereby hazardous •
by the derived from rule. EPA, however,,
does not read the derived from rule as
applying to small quantity generator
hazardous wastes. Although the rules.
are not explicit on this, point the Agency
views this exemption, like other
comparable provisions such as the
household waste exclusion, as applying
cradle-to-grave so that residues from
managing the waste retain the
exemption, OF exclusion. In this regard,
the rules are explicit that the mixture
rule does not apply to mixtures of small
quantity generator wastes and solid
wastes (see 1261£(h)),EPA views the
derived from rule as similarly
inapplicable.
d. EPA's Reading Creates Negative
Environmental Incentives. EPA is
sensitive to the comment that its reading
penalizes facilities that collect their
leachate and have accurate, historic
records of what wastes were accepted
at the units. However, this assertion is
not completely correct Facilities
collecting hazardous leachate can
manage the leachate in such a way as
not to trigger subtitle C requirements
(including the land disposal restrictions),
by managing the leachate in tanks at •
facilities subject to regulation under the
Clean Water Act (see 1264,l(g)(6)).
Consequently, the reading most directly
discourages subsequent management in
surface impoundments, a reasonable
outcome given the statutory antipathy
for these devices (see RCRA section
1002(b)(7}). Indeed, the statute even
allows otherwise prohibited hazardous
wastes to be managed in particular
types of surface impoundments without
first meeting pretreatment standards
(although unlike treatment tanks, such'
impoundments are regulated units) (see
RCRA section 3005(j)(ll)), so what the
Agency's interpretation actually
discourages is management in surface
impoundments that do not satisfy the
section 3005(j'}(ll) standards. In
addition, since the derived-from rule
merely shifts the burden of proving that
a derived from waste is not hazardous,
truly non-hazardous leachate derived
from listed wastes can be delisted.
There have, in fact, been delisting
applications filed to delist leachate
derived from listed hazardous wastes
that were disposed before 1980.
Finally, EPA does not accept the
argument that facilities are better off if
they do not collect contaminated.
leachate, and so will discontinue
voluntary collection. Continued release
of such leachate exposes the facility to
CERCLA liability, common law tort
liability, and possibly criminal liability
under intentional endangerment.
statutes. What EPA's reading does is to
ensure that once hazardous derived-
from residues are collected, their
subsequent management will be
controlled under the statute designed to
control management of hazardous
waste. EPA has no other statutory tool
for assuring prospectively that proper
management will occur. In fact in the
end, what EPA finds most troubling in
the, commenters,' arguments is that
hazardous residues from inactive sites
could be withdrawn and managed.
without regard for RCRA requirements.
Thus, for example, under the
commenters' position, leachate from
sites where chlorophenoxy pesticide
residues were disposed could be
collected and taken to non-subtitle C
units (unlined impoundments, for
example) because the leachate would
not be considered to be a hazardous
waste. This is because the waste from
which the leachate is derived was
disposed before the effective date of the
listing, and the leachate does not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste •
characteristics. Indeed, under some of
the commenters' arguments, collecting
and managing the waste itself at these
sites (rather than the leachate derived
from the waste's disposal) would not
trigger subtitle C requirements. EPA
. does not find this result to be in accord
with statutory policies or the language
of the regulations.
e. Whether Leachate Can Meet the
' Treatment Standards for the Wastes
From Which It Is Derived. Coihmenters
also argued that landfill leachate .could
not typically be treated to meet the
treatment standards in the rule. They
also maintained that leachate (or at
least leachate from commercial waste
disposal facilities) should have its own
treatability group reflecting its
significant difference from the wastes
from which it is derived.
EPA stated at proposal that although
it is correct, that EPA's treatment
standards are based on treating single
wastes, leachate that is derived from
disposal of these wastes could be •
treated to meet the treatment standards
because leachate typically is more dilute
than the waste from which it is derived.
Thus, for example, if the original
-------
31150 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
waatewater contains 200 ppm of
methylene chloride, while leachate from
disposal of the waste con tains 5 ppm of
methylene chloride, the leachate could •
be treated to meet a standard based on
treating the waste with 200 ppm
methylene chloride. EPA also noted that
a testability variance was available to
accommodate those situations where
leachate conld not be treated to meet • •
the treatment standards (53 FR17586; -
May 17,1988). .•-,.-,,. -- -
Commenters assert, however, that
commercial leachate is not just from one
waste, but from many. Even so, EPA still
believes that leachate, even from
multiple waste codes, can be treated to
meet the underlying wastewater
treatment standards because it contains
lower concentrations of the constituents
of concern than the wastes on which the
treatment standards are based. Nor has
the Agency seen evidence that leachate
typically contains interfering agents, not
found in the original wastes, that
impede treatment performance. EPA has
carefully examined the data submitted
during the public comment period, and
finds that it essentially confirms the
Agency's statements at proposal. That
is, the leachate has comparable or lower
levels (in some cases, orders of
magnitude lower) than, the wastes on
which treatment standards are based.
None of the data suggest that leachate
from commercial facilities is somehow
so exceptional that it cannot be treated
to meet the standards. (Indeed, of these
data, many of the samples would meet
the treatment standards sis generated'*
and so would not require treatment at
all.) The Agency expects that where
groundwater contaminated with
leachate is being treated in pump-and
treat operations, the standards can be
met with existing technology. The
treatability variance in section 268.44
also is available in those rases where
leachate proves to be unbeatable to the
applicable standard for the prohibited
wastes that it contains.
EPA also has carefully considered
comments that leacLate deriving from
multiple waste codes will be subject to
conflicting, multiple treatment
standards. Examples contained in the
public comments were of leachate
derived from wastes whose treatment
standards were based on both oxidation
and reduction technologies. Another
example was of leachate derived
partially from wastes whose treatment
standards require total constituent
analysis (because treatment is based on
destruction of organics), and partially
derived from other waste;} whose
treatment standards require TCLP
analysis (for fixation of inorganics). EPA
does not find these examples
persuasive. Waste constituents can be
treated sequentially in treatment trains
to avoid the types of alleged
incompatibilities. For example, if
leachate contains both cyanide and
hexavalent chromium, cyanide can be
oxidized hi a tank, and hexavalent
chromium- can be reduced and
precipitated afterwards in a separate
tank. Leachate containing both organics
and inorganics can be treated in a
• treatment train with organics being
stripped, followed by metals being
precipitated. Many of the treatment
standards for First Third wastes are in
fact based upon treatment trains of
these types;
Several commenters complained of
the unfairness of planning to meet a
"moving target" of treatment standards.
That is, they maintained that because
leachate contains (or potentially
contains) many or even most of the
listed waste codes, they will not know
until completion of the land disposal
restrictions hi 1990 what ultimate
treatment standards for leachate will be,
given that the leachate will have to be
treated to meet the most stringent level
for the constituents for which there are
overlapping treatment standards. EPA
believes, however, that ultimate
treatment standards for wastewaters
will not differ to any great degree.
Wastewater treatment technologies are
relatively standardized, and achieve
performance results that are similar
unless the matrices are exceptionally
contaminated or contain high
concentrations of interfering agents.
Based on the data presently available,
EPA has not found this to be the case
with leachate. even leachate from
commercial hazardous waste landfills.
Thus, EPA believes that conventional
wastewater treatment technologies or
treatment trains—for example, some
type of stripping technology followed by
a type of chemical precipitation—will
generally be able to achieve treatment
standards for leachate. To the extent
this becomes an issue as EPA proposes
treatment standards for the remaining
hazardous wastes, commenters can
present data showing that conventional
waste treatment systems for leachate
are unable to achieve treatment
standards. No such data were presented
with regard to leachate containing
solvents and First Third prohibited
wastes, in the Agency's view. Since
these wastes tend to be the most
contaminated (see the statutory
prioritization of solvents and the
Agency's prioritization of First Third
wastes based on RCRA section
3004(g)(5}), EPA believes it reasonable
that subsequent treatment standards
will be comparable to those already
adopted.
Finally, regarding comments on the
capacity to treat leachate, most
collected leachate is presently treated in
a way that does not even implicate
RCRA, and so does not create a demand
on available capacity. Thus, as noted
above, tanks that treat leachate (and
any other wastewater) at facilities
subject to regulation under the Clean
Water Act's NPDES or pretreatment
programs are exempt from almost all
RCRA regulation. Most leachate is
treated in tanks, according to comments
and the Agency's own information, and
so does not require additional treatment
capacity. Commenters noted that some
facilities have impoundments that are
used to perform polishing type treatment
of leachate, but EPA believes, based on
the information presented, that leachate
can be treated to meet treatment
standards before being placed in
impoundments so that impounded
leachate need not create demands on
existing treatment capacity.
5. Transfer of Treatment Standards
In today's rule, some treatment
standards are not based on testing of the
treatment technology on 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 hi other wastes for which
EPA has previously developed treatment
data. EPA believes transferring
.treatment performance from tested to
untested wastes is valid technically.
Transfer of treatment standards to
wastes from similar processing steps
requires little formal analysis because of
the likelihood that similar production
processes will produce a waste matrix
with similar characteristics. However, in
the case where, the industries are
similar, but other aspects' of production
processes may be dissimilar, 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 can be
treated to the same level of
performance. First, EPA reviews the
available waste characteristic data to
identify 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
-------
Federal Register / VoL 5& No. 15ff / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31151
treatment technology appropriate for a "
given 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
analyzes a more detailed list of ' .*• j •
constituents that represent some of the
most important waste characteristics: • :
which the Agency believes win 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 BOAT
background documents for each waste
or waste testability group.
Several commenters stated that they
do not believe that standards for certain
constituents could be transferred to
certain waste codes. EPA's response to
these comments are addressed in the
sections of today's preamble that
discuss that particular waste code or
. treatability group.
6. No Land Disposal as the BOAT
Treatment Standard
EPA is establishing "no land disposal"
as the treatment standard for several of
the First Third wastes. This standard is
analogous to the zero 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; or (2) the waste is
not currently being land disposed: or (3}
the waste is no longer being generated.
Several commenters provided
information that for certain wastes that
one or more of these premises is invalid.
In those cases, the Agency will not •
finalize the treatment standard of "no
land disposal", and wiO not establish a
treatment standard for that waste in
today's rule. The soft hammer
provisions, as discussed elsewhere in
this preamble, will therefore apply for
those wastes or subcategories of wastes.
EPA intends to develop treatment
standards for these wastes prior to May
8.1990.
For those nonwastewaters for which
no specific comments were received
refuting the validity of EPA's basis for -
"no land disposal". EPA has
promulgated the standard as final EPA
. has not promulgated a "no land
disposal" standard as final for any
wastewatem Since First Third wastes
have been, historically managed in land .
disposal units, EPA recognizes that the
potential exists for the generation of.
leachatefrom these land, disposal units.
• Based on waste characterization data
submitted by several commenters,
leachates appear to meet EPA's
definition of wastewaters. Therefore,
EPA believes that constituent standards
must be established for wastewaters
(i.e., leachates) and that a "no land
disposal" is not justified based on the
premise of "no generation". It is
important to point out that this standard
is not intended to imply that the waste
was so extremely hazardous that it
could not be safely land disposed or
handled, but rather that alternative
forms of management exist for them.
The Agency believes that where it has
finalized a treatment standard of "no
land disposal", there should either be no
generation of thin type of waste or that
such generated wastes can be handled
in a manner that will not require land
disposal. In cases where a waste is
generated and the basis for the "no land
disposal" standard was that the waste
was not being generated, or where a
waste is significantly different than the
•waste examined by EPA (e.g., a specific.
spill residue), a person may petition the
Agency fora treatment standard
applicable to their waste using the
provisions off 208.44. Prior to May 8,
1990, the Agency could also, through a
rulemaldng, make the "soft hammer"'
provisions of f 288.8 applicable in these
situations.
7, Waste Specific Treatment Standards
This section describes the
development of BOAT treatment
standards for all of the First Third
wastes covered by today's rule;
a: Revision ofBDA T Treatment
Standard for Methylene Chloride in
Wastewaters from the Pharmaceutical
Industry Listed as FOOI. F002, fQO& F004
and/orF005. Today's rule promulgates
the proposed revision to the treatment
standard for methylene chloride in
F001-F005 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) states
specifically that treatment standards are
to be revised as appropriate. EPA
believes that revision of this standard at
this time is.appropriate and timely, since
the effective date for compliance will
occur on November 8,1988.
One commenter suggested that the
Agency does not have adequate
information to justify using treatment
data from an agricultural chemical
facility in determining the treatability of
wastewaters from pharmaceutical
facilities, hi particular, the commenter
believes that concentrations of
methylene chloride, dissolved solids,
methanol and the presence of other
constituents in the wastes from the
pharmaceutical industry are
significantly different from those in the
wastes that were studied by EPA and
that these differences would affect the
treatment performance for these wastes.
Based on information provided in the
background document for the proposed
rule, data indicated that the wastewater
from the agricultural facility contained
methylene chloride concentrations
ranging from 2,500 to 7.400 ppm, while
the wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical plant contained
concentrations ranging from 225 to
10.000 ppm. The Agency believes that
this difference in methylene chloride
concentrations is not significant and
would not affect the performance of the
treatment system.'In addition, the
Agency believes that a plant generating
wastewaters with higher methylene
chloride concentrations could use a
steam stripper treatment system of a
larger design or one with an increased ,
retention time hi order to comply with
these standards.
Information provided in the
background document for the proposed
rule also showed that the concentration
of methanol in the pharmaceutical
industry wastewaters ranged from 369
to 1,684 ppm while the concentration of
methanol in the agricultural
•wastewaters ranged from 55 to 81 ppm.
The Agency recognizes that there is a
difference in methanol concentrations;
however, it believes that the
concentration of methanol would not
affect the performance of the treatment.
system because methanol has a higher
boiling point than methylene chloride
and it does not form an azeotrope with
methylene chloride. In fact, methanol
forms a binary azeotrope with water at
a specific temperature and pressure. ••
Commenters also cited the difference
in dissolved solids levels between
pharmaceutical wastewaters and
-------
31152 Federal Register /'Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
agricultural waatewaters. Data show
that the concentration of dissolved
solids in the pharmaceutical
wastewatere ranged from 2,000 to 4,000
ppnv while the agricultural wastewaters
ranged from 89,000 to 122.000 ppm.
Although, the difference in
concentration is significant, the Agency
believes that the agricultural
wastewaters with higheir concentrations
of total dissolved solidii are more
difficult to-treat.Tb.us, 1ZPA concludes
that the wastewaters from the
pharmaceutical industry would be
easier to steam strip due to the .
relatively lower dissolved solids content
and therefore, should be able to meet
the treatment standard. Therefore, EPA *
maintains that it does have adequate
information to justify uning treatment
data from an agricultural chemical
facility in determining the treatability of
wastewaters from pharmaceutical
facilities. Thus, the Agency is
promulgating the standard for
wastewaters from the pharmaceutical
industry based on the transfer of
treatment data for wastewaters from the
agricultural industry.
This treatment standard was
established based on the performance of
a steam stripping process. While the
standard is based on data obtained from
a steam stripping process, other
treatment technologies that can achieve
this standard are not precluded.from use
by this rule.
The Agency feels- thai! it is important
to reiterate that none of the treatment
standards for other hazardous
constituents in F001-F005 wastewaters,
or any hazardous constituents in F001-
F005 nbnwastewaters have been
revised; these standard)! remain as
promulgated on November 7,1988 (51FR
405721. Also, the Agency has not revised
the standard for methylene chloride in
F001-F005 wastewaters other than those
from the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry.
The final revised BOAT treatment
standard for.methylene chloride in
wastewaters identified as F001, F002,
F003. F004 and/or F005 from the
Pharmaceuticals indusby is listed in the
table following this section. (Note that
the treatment standard Is reflected in
the regulations by amending § 268.41 for
wastewaters from the pharmaceutical
industry by removing methylene
chloride and its corresponding
concentration of 12.7 mg/1, and adding
the revised treatment standard in
§ 288.43).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F001,
F002, F003, F004, AND F005
(WASTEWATERS)
[Pharmaceutical* Industry Subcatogocy]
Constituent
Mettiytone
rhlnrfila
cnvfiuQ.
Maximum fw any single grab
. sampi*
Total
cofnpo-
affion
(mg/l»
0.44
TCU>(mg/l)
Not apptfcabto.
b. FOO&—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. Today's rule promulgates
treatment standards for five constituents
proposed for F006 nonwastewaters.
Individual standards based on the
analysis of TCLP leachates have been
established for cadmium, total
chromium, lead, nickel, and silver and "
are listed in the table at the end of this
section.
These treatment standards were
established based on the performance of
a stabilization process using cement kiln
dust as a binding agent Other
stabilization binding agents and other
treatment technologies that can achieve
these standards are not precluded from
use by this rule.
At the time of this rule, the Agency
had not completed its evaluation of
waste characterization and treatment
information for antimony, arsenic,
barium, and selenium. The proposed
rule contained the notation "reserved"
for these constituents, noting that EPA
would be setting standards when the
evaluation was completed. Several
commenters suggested that a treatment
standard of "reserved" was confusing to
the regulated community and
unnecessary. Since-individual standards
would still have to be proposed and
prorogated through the normal
rule'making procedures, no benefit is
achieved by the "reserved" notation for
these constituents. Therefore, the
Agency has dropped it from the final
rule for this waste code.
Several commenters argued that EPA
should not regulate copper or zinc, as
EPA proposed to do, because they are
not hazardous constituents specifically
listed on Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part
261. The Agency does not totally agree,
in that both zinc cyanide and copper
cyanide are listed on Appendix VIII, and
both are or may be components of
electroplating wastes. Further, EPA has
determined that both zinc and copper
are aquatic toxins, and the Agency
considered adding them to Appendix
vm for that reason. However, in this
rulemaldng the Agency is only
regulating zinc and copper when they •
are indicators of performance of
treatment of other Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents. Further, the
Agency believes that these metal
constituents are controlled by treatment
of the metal constituents that are
regulated by today's rule and therefore,
is not promulgating standards for copper
or zinc as part of the treatment
standards for F006 nonwastewaters.
F006 wastewater treatment sludges
may contain treatable levels of
cyanides. EPA does not consider
stabilization—BOAT for the metals in
this waste—to be a demonstrated
technology for the treatment of cyanide.
The Agency is currently investigating
the use of technologies such as
electrolytic oxidation, alkaline
chlorination, wet air oxidation,
ozonation, and other chemical oxidation
as applicable technologies for F006
wastes that contain treatable quantities
of cyanide. EPA will determine which of
these technologies should be the basis of
the BOAT standard when these data
become available later this year. Since
EPA has insufficient information to
establish either a separate treatability
group for F006 nonwastewaters
containing treatable levels of cyanide or
a treatment standard for the cyanide
contained in them, the Agency is
identifying the treatment standard as
"reserved" until a standard can be
proposed later this year. Because the
Agency believes that a standard will be
proposed within six months, the use of
"reserved" is important in assuring that
generators focus their attention on the
treatment of cyanide.as well as the
metal constituents regulated in today's
rule. It is also important to note that,
until a standard for cyanide in F006
nonwastewaters is promulgated, those
F006 nonwastewaters containing .
cyanides may be land disposed, as long.
as they do not exceed the statutory
cyanide concentration prohibited under
the statutory "California List"
restrictions—namely liquid hazardous
wastes containing free cyanides at
concentrations of 1000 ppm or greater.
[RCRA 3004(d). 42 U.S.C. 6924(d); see
also 52 FR 25760. July 8,1987].
• Several commenters argued that
dewatering technologies such as vacuum
filtration, plate and frame pressure
filtration, and centrifugation should be
allowed and should be the basis for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 139 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31153
BOAT. While these technologies do
reduce the water content in the waste
and generally reduce the volume of solid
residuals that require disposal, the
Agency maintains that these
technologies are merely simple- physical
treatment technologies and generally do
not provide any significant treatment of
the metals or cyanide contained in the
sludge. In cases where dewatering alone
produces a residual that can meet the ,
treatment standards, the Agency
believes that it is the treatment prior to
the dewatering step that has provided
the most effective treatment of the metal
constituents.. Dewatering technologies
are not precluded from use by this
regulation and can be considered
applicable technologies when the
residuals meet the promulgated
treatment standards or when
dewatering is incorporated into an
additional treatment train that produces
a residual that can achieve these levels.
Such a treatment train may include
treatment technologies such as
chromium reduction, cyanide
destruction, metals precipitation.
settling, filtration (or centrifuge lion),
and solidification.
One commenter identified cases
where metal recovery processes have
been used for metal-bearing sludges.
However, at this time, their applicability
to F006 treatment sludges has not been
examined in order to develop additional
standards. The concentrations and
identity of metals in F006 wastes vary
depending on the specific metals used in
the plating process. EPA has not been
able to define any particular
subcategbries of F006 wastes that would
be amenable to a particular recovery
process.
Commenters also insisted that
because metal recovery processes for
electroplating wastewaters exist and are
being used. EPA should establish a
treatment standard of "no land
disposal" for F006 and thereby, force all
electroplating wastewaters to recovery.
EPA does not believe this alternative to
be viable because it is not clear that all
electroplating wastewaters are
amenable to recovery, and even if they
were, the recovery processes themselves
generate a sludge which would be F006,
and thus require a treatment standard.
Thus, the concentrations and identity of
metals in these wastewaters can vary
depending on the specific metals used in
the plating process. In addition, other
wastewaters are often generated at
electroplating facilities from sump
collections of floor rinsings, from
accidental spills and from general
maintenance. While these wastewaters-
may be potentially recovered by mixing
with other process waters, there is-a
strong possibility that they could foul
the recovery process due to
nonhazardous contaminants from the
fioor. Recovery .processes often include
reverse osmosis and cation exchange
techniques. These techniques often
produce acidic or caustic backwashes
which also must be treated. The sludge
from these processes would also be
classified as F006.
At this tune. EPA has not been able to
define any particular subcategory of
electroplating wastewaters that would
be amenable to a particular recovery
process. Thus, the Agency believes that
it is unlikely that a standard of "no land
disposal" would be justified for all F006
wastes. It is important to point out that,
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.
FOOB waste is a sludge consisting of
precipitated residues generated
following treatment of wastewaters
from electroplating operations. Several
commenters have identified specific
sources of wastewater forms of F006
such as those being generated at a
CERCLA site, during a corrective action
at a RCRA facility, and as a leachate
from a landfill Since generation of F006
wastewaters does occur, the premise of
no generation as a basis for the
treatment standard of "no land
disposal" appears to be unjustified.
(Please note as an interpretive matter.
that supernatant from F006 generation is
not considered to be F006, but simply
wastewater from treatment of
electroplating wastewaters. Filtrate from
F008 sludges could be hazardous under
the derived-from rule, but if it is similar
hi terms of identity and concentration of
constituents in the influent to the
wastewater treatment process, it is not
considered to be derived-from F006.
Rather, it is the original influent
wastewater.)
The Agency is, therefore, not able to
promulgate the treatment standard for
F006 wastewaters in today's rule. EPA
does intend to propose and promulgate
numerical treatment standards for F006
wastewaters prior to May 8,1990. It is
likely that these standards will be based
upon information available from EPA's
NPDES discharge limitation program for
electroplating facilities. Since no
standard is promulgated in today's rule
for F006 wastewaters. this subgroup of
wastes is restricted from land disposal
according to the "soft hammer"
provisions described in other sections of
this preamble. [Note.—As discussed in
detail in section ULC.3.. EPA is
amending § 268.12 to include
wastewater residues derived from the
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes by -
certain processes, as well as leachate
derived from the management of "soft
hammer" wastes and "soft hammer"
waste contaminated groundwaten " •
thereby moving the aforementioned
types of wastewaters into the group of
wastes identified as the Third Third,
Thus, these types of FOOG wastewaters
are not subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in § 288.33(f). This action
will allow these wastewater residues to
be disposed in nonminimum technology
units and such residues will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of § 268.8.]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
[Nonwastewatersl
Constituent
Cadmium ............. ...........
Chromium (total)
Lead '.
Nickel
Silver .._..._.._...._.....„..
Cyanides (total) .._ —
Maximum for any single
grab sample
TotaJ
composition
(mg/kg)
'(*)•
TOP (mg/l)
0.066
5.2
.51
.32
.072
1 Not applicable.
"Reserved.
c. KOO1—Bottom sediment sludge from
the treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/orpentachlorophenol. Today's rule
promulgates treatment standards for
K001 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
BOAT treatment standards for the
organic constituents in K001
wastewaters and nonwastewaters were
established based on the performance of
a rotary kiln incinerator and specifically
on the concentrations found in the
residuals. BDAT treatment standards for
the metal constituents in K001
nonwastewaters (ash residues) were
established based on the performance of
a stabilization treatment process and
' those for the metal constituents in K001
wastewaters were based on chemical
precipitation. Other treatment
technologies such as biodegradation,
solvent extraction, and/or stabilization
that can achieve these standards are not
precluded from use by this rule.
For all wastes identified as K001, EPA
is promulgating final treatment
standards for six organic constituents.
These are naphthalene,
pentachlorophenol, phenanthrene,.
pyrene, toluene, and xylenes. EPA is
also promulgating final treatment
standards for lead. The final standard
-------
31154 Federal Renter / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
for pentachlorophenol LJ the result of a
relatively high analyticid-quantitation
limit observed for this particular K001
waste. No data was received which
allowed EPA to lower this standard
based on lower quantitf ttion limits for
pentachlorophenol in other K001 wastes.
Therefore, the promulgated standard for
' this constituent is as proposed.
EPA considered the eiitablishmeot of
treatment standards for pdychfarinated
dibenzofunns and poirdhloriiMted
dibenzodioxins. In the proposed rule.
EPA had specifically requested
comments on this issue. However, no
additional data was submitted,which
could be evaluated to piopose numerical
treatment standards for these
constituents. Some commentere stated
that if EPA set standard! for these
particular hazardous constituents, no
commercial facility would accept these
wastes for treatment. In this final rule,
EPA is not setting treatment standards
for these constituents. However, it is -
important to point out that, 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.
This includes the addition of hazardous
constituents such as the polychlorinated
dibenzofurans and polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins.
Several commenters argued that EPA
should not regulate copper or zinc, as
EPA proposed to do, because they are
not hazardous constituents specifically
listed on Appendix VUI of 40 CFR Part
261. The Agency does not totally agree,
as discussed earlier. However, in this •
rulemaking the Agency in only
regulating zinc and copper when they
are indicators of performance of
treatment of other Appendix Vffl
hazardous constituents. Further, the
Agency belicTea that theie metal
constituents are controlk'd by treatment
of the metal constituents that are
regulated by today's rule and therefore.
is not promulgating standards for copper
or zinc as part of the treatment
standards for K001 wastes.
Several commenters suggested that
land treatment also can be considered to
be BOAT for this waste. Land treatment
Is defined as a form of land disposal
under section 3004(k). treatment
standards are those that apply before
land disposal; wastes must meet these
standard* before they can be land
disposed. See section 3001(m); see also
sections 3004 (d), (e), (f). and (g), all of
which refer to the (m) standards as
. pretreatment standards which apply
before land disposal. Moreover, where
Congress wished to allow a form of land
disposal for wastes not already meeting
the treatment standard, it said so
directly. See section 3005{jHll}. There is
no such directive for treatment in land
treatment units of wastes not already
meeting, the treatment standard (or
. subject to some type of exception from a
prohibition). Consequently, EPA must
reject these commenters' suggestions as
a matter of law.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR FOOt
[Nomnstowateisl
ConctfeMrt
.NapMhaten*
Pantacfitorophenol.. —
PlMnanttwrw
Tnkan* . M ,
Xybn*.
l«*rf
Maximum for any single
grab s«m pie
Total
(mg/kg)
8.0
37
8.0
73
.14
.16
(')
TCU»(mg/f)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
OS1
1 Not appfcabta.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F001
CNonwastMnaMrs]
Constituent
Ptttactteraphmol
Phonintfir«no___
f*ft*rm ,.., „
Telufnm
Xytan..
Iffff
Maximum for any single
8rab sample
Total
composftfon
(mg/1)
ais
.86
.15
.14
.14
.ie
.037
TCU»(mg/l)
(
1 Not appfcabfe.
d. K015—Still bottoms from the
distillation of benzyl chloride. The
BOAT treatment standard of "no land
disposal" for K015 nonwastewaters was
proposed based on the performance of a
liquid injection incinerator and the fact
that the waste contained no measurable
ash (the solid residue from incineration).
The detection limit for the ash content of
theKOlS nonwastewaters studied by
EPA was (WHS by weight Since no
comments were received indicating
generation of K015 wastes with
detectable levels of ash, EPA has
decided that the premise of "no ash" as
a basis for the treatment standard of "no
land disposal" appears to be justified.
Therefore, today's rule promulgates the
final treatment standard of "no land
disposal" for ail K015. One comrnenter
expressed concern that if K015 were
mixed with a waste that did contain an
ash, the resultant ash would be subject
to the "no land disposal" standard for
K015. EPA agrees with the commenter
that the standard would be applicable,
but believes that blending with a waste
or fuel that contains no ash is an option
that allows compliance with the "no
land disposal" standard for K015. At the
same time, EPA also recognizes that
K015 may be generated with an ash
content if K015 were inadvertently
spilled (such as on soil). However, EPA
cannot anticipate this type of nouroutine
generation and therefore, has to
disagree with these commenters. The
Agency also believes that for situations
such as this, the petition processes for
obtaining a variance from the treatment
standard provides potential generators
with a viable procedure for managing
the waste.
The usa of other treatment
technologies are not precluded by this
rule. For example, while rotary kiln and
fiuidized bed incinerators are generally
designed to handle solids and sludges,
these units often are designed to
incinerate liquids. In any case, where
these or other treatment technologies
can treat K015 without generating an
ash or other solid residual, these units
may be used to achieve the "no land
disposal" standard for the K015
nonwastewaters.
Today's rule also promulgates final
' treatment standards for K015
wastewaters for all constituents as
proposed. The regulated constituents are
anthracene, benzal chloride, benzo (b
and/or k) fiuoranthene, phenanthrene,
toluene, total chromium and nickel
BDAT treatment standards for the
organic constituents were established
based on the performance of a liquid
injection incineration and the
concentrations found in the scrubber
water. BDAT treatment standards for
the metal constituents in wastewaters
were based on chemical precipitation.
Because no comments were received on
the proposed regulation of any of the
specific constituents for K015
wastewaters, EPA assumes that
generators of K015 wastes agree with
EPA's assessment of the treatability of
these wastes. All final treatment
standards are listed in the following
table:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31155
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K015
[NonwastewatersJ
NO LAND DISPOSAL BASED ON NO
ASH
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K015
CWasamataisl
Constituent
Benzal chloride
Benzo (b and/or k)
fluoranthena
Phenanthrene
Toluene .»..„»..„„„«.»«.
Chromium (total) '.
Nickel
Maximum tor any tingM
."*'''..• SMto ftampw
Total ,
compowBoa
•
28
5.6
5.6
29
6.0
TCLP (mg/l)
')
')
')
')
')
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K016
CWastewaters]
Constituent
Hexachiorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocydopenta-
diene _.........
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.033
.007
.007
.033
.007
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
<')
(')
(')
(')
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K018
C NonwastewatersJ
Constituent
Chtoroethane. _....„„....
1,1-Otchtoroethane
1 .Z-OicMoroettiane
HexacMorobutadietw ...
HexachkxoetnarM ««.».
Pentachloroethane —
1.1.1-Trichtofoethano..;
. Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(ma/kg)
6.0
6.0
6.0
28
5.6
28
5.6
6.0
TOP (mg/l)
0)
(')
<')
(l)
(')
(')
(')
(')
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K018
CWastewatersJ
Constituent
Cnloroethane-.
Chloromethane
1,1-Oichloroethane
1,2-DicMorosthane
Hexachiorobenzene
Hexachtorobutadiene ....
Pentachkxoethane
1,1.1 -Trichloroethane ....
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.007
.007
.007
.007
.033
.007
.007
.007
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
')
')
')
')
')
')
')
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K019
tNomvastewaters]
Constituent
Bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform... ............
1,2-Dichloroethane
Hexachtoroetftane
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene. _
Tetrachloroethene .:
1.2.4.
Trichtorobenzene
1.1,1-Trichloroethane...
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
28
5.6
5.6
6.0
19
6.0
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
('
-------
31156 Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K019—Continued
CorMftM*
Naphthaiani.
TOachtorobenzane-
1 ,2.4-Trich)orobenzan«
1.1.1-Trichloro«ftano_
Uaximum fcranyaingl*
Tote*
COITVKMJtfon
.087
JOT
.007
.cor
.017
.007
.023
.007
TdPbng/Q
t1)
«
t1)
H
•Notappfcabta.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K020
CNonwtstawiitan]
ContOtutrA
1.2-OteWoroethen*
t.1.2,2.
Tottacivloroettian* —
TetfMttorootten*
Miximun for any aingfc
grab tamp*
Total
cofnisosjtion
(mg/Kg)
&0
SB
ao
TCLP(mg/l>
I')
>)
(')
•NotappScablii.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K020
CorwS&Mnt
1.1A2-
TatracMoroetfun*-—.
Maximum fcx any tingle
grabsampt*
Total
comf Motion
0.007
J07
.007
TCLP(mg/l)
C)
1 Nol applicabta.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K030
[Nomrastawiitars]
Haxtchtofotiutnofana.
K«xachJo(0«m«no.._
HaxocMoropropetM __
PenucWoroettiana
1.2.4.5-
Tetfachkxobenzene.
T«»i
Trich!ofObonzono._..
M» imum tor
um tor any
grabcampl*
Tcital
composition
(mg/kg)
5.6
28
19
28
5.6
14
6.0
19
TCLP(mg/l)
(»)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K030
CWastowatarcl
p-Ochtoroto:
HnacMotDbutaSew _
TatadHMQbaraww-
lA4-TticMerobanxenc
g.'
To*
0008
.009
J007
.033
•M7
.017
M7
.033
TCU>(mo/9
P)
C)
C)
•Not applicable!
•NotapFfcabts.
£, AQ2?—Distillation bottom tars from
the production of phenol/acetone from
cumene. Today's rule promulgates final
treatment standards for K022
nonwastewaters as proposed, Treatment
standards, for the organic constituents ia
these wastes are based on the
performance of a fuel substitution unit
and the concentrations found in the ash
residuals. Treatment standards for the
metal constituents in nonwastewaters
(ash residues) are based on the
performance of a stabilization treatment
process. Other treatment technologies
such as liquid injection incineration,
rotary kiln incineration, and fhridized
bed incineration, that can achieve these
standards are not precluded from use by
this rule.
The variety In types of alternative
incineration units that are potentially
applicable and are believed able to
achieve the treatment standards, is
primarily due to the physical form of the
K022 nonwastewaters. 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 Quidized 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. One commenter suggested
that these viscous or hardened solids
should be able to be reheated and thus,
fraidized. While the Agency has not
verified this, it believes that the .
immediate onsite management of the
waste is the determining factor on
whether the waste can be handled as a
liquid or as a solid.
For wastes identified as K022
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
final treatment standards for seven
constituents. These are toluene.
acetophenone, phenol, diphenylamine.
diphenylnitrasamine, 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 rule, the Agency
had not completed its evaluation of ;
waste characterization and treatment .
information for sulfide. The proposed
rule contained the notation "reserved"
for these constituents, noting that EPA •
would be setting standards when the
evaluation was completed. Several
cbmmenters suggested that a treatment
standard of "reserved" was confusing to
the regulated community and
unnecessary. Since individual standards
would still have to be proposed and
promulgated through the normal
rulemaking procedures, no benefit is
achieved by the "reserved" notation for
these constituents. Therefore, the
Agency has dropped it from the final
rule for this waste code.
In the proposed rule EPA considered
establishing treatment standards for
polychlorinated dibenzofurans and
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins for ash
residuals from the burning or
incineration of K022 nonwastewaters. A
sample of untreated ash from the
burning of K022 as a fuel substitute was
analyzed for isomers of chlorinated
.dibenzofurans and chlorinated
dibenzodioxins. A trace amount (parts
per trillion) of tetrachlorodibenzofurane
(TCDF) was detected in this sample.
This amount was determined to be
below the typical BOAT quantitation
level for these compounds. In the
proposed rule, EPA had specifically
requested comments on the issue of
regulating these compounds. Also, the
Agency had noted that it was
reexamining the analytical
quantification procedures for the
reported tetrachlorodibenzofurans. The
Agency has since discovered that the
laboratory that performed the analysis
for isomers of chlorinated dibenzofurans
and chlorinated dibenzodioxins had
failed to provide audit samples or
fortified (spiked) samples. Thus, the
accuracy of quantification below the
typical BOAT quantitation levels for the
reported tetrachlorodibenzofurans can
not be determined. EPA has concluded
that additional analysis reproducing
these results, with the proper QA/QC
performed, would be required before
EPA can consider development of
treatment standards for these
compounds. No additional data were
submitted from commenters that could
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules .and Regulations 31157
be evaluated to propose treatment
standards for these constituents.
As described-fully in the background
document for this waste, individual
standards for total chromium and nickel
for the K022 nonwastewaters have been
transferred from the performance of
solidification on F006 wastes. The
Agency based this transfer of standards
based primarily on the physical and
chemical similarity of the individual
metal constituents as well aa the
similarities in overall characteristics of
the wastes. Because no comments were
received on the proposed regulation of
any of the specific constituents for K022,
EPA assumes that generators of these
wastes agree with EPA's assessment
that these treatment standards can be
achieved. The regulated constituents
and BOAT treatment standards for these
wastes are listed hi the tables at the end
of this section.
The BOAT treatment standard of "no
land disposal" for K022 wastewaters
was proposed based on the performance
of a fuel substitution unit that generated
no scrubber water. This information was
the basis of the "no land disposal"
standard for K022 wastewaters. In the
proposed rule.'EPA specifically
requested comment on the premise of
the "no land disposal". In response, one
commenter'stated that he does generate
K022 wastewaters as a scrubber water.
Other commenters have identified
additional potential sources of
wastewater forms of K022 such as those
being generated at a CERCLA site,
during a corrective action at a RCRA '
facility, and as a leachate from a landfill
where K022 nonwastewaters or K022
ash residues have been previously
disposed. Since generation of these
wastewaters has been identified, the
premise of "no generation" appears to
be unjustified. As a. result, the Agency
has decided to not promulgate a final
rule of "no land disposal" K022
wastewaters. EPA does intend to
propose and promulgate treatment
standards for these wastes prior to May
8,1990. Since no standard is
promulgated in today'* rule for K022
wastewaters, these wastes are restricted
from land disposal according to the "soft
hammer" provisions described in other
sections of this preamble. [NOTE: As
discussed in detail in section III.C.3.,
EPA is amending section 288.12 to
include wastewater residues derived
from the treatment of "soft hammer"
wastes by certain processes, as well as
leachate derived from the management
of "soft hammer" wastes and "soft
hammer" waste contaminated
groundwater; thereby moving the
aforementioned types of wastewaters
into the group of wastes identified as the,
Third Third. Thus, these types of K022
wastewaters are not subject to the "soft
hammer" prohibitions La § 288.33(f). This
action will allow these wastewater
residues to be disposed in non-minimum
technology units and such residues will
not be subject to the certification
requirements of
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K022
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Acfltopbenon«_
SumoJ dphenylainin*
and
dpnanyHaoMnwM..
PhMVjf „,„„„..„„„.,.„.„
TofolflfXf
Chromium (total)
N«-fe
1 Not applicable. .
h. K037—Wastewater treatment
sludge from the production of
Disulfoton. Today's rule promulgates
final treatment standards for K037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters as
proposed. Treatment standards are
based on the performance of rotary kiln
incineration and the concentrations
found in the ash and scrubber water
residuals. Other treatment technologies
such as fluidized bed incineration, fuel
substitution units, biodegradation, and
solvent extraction, that can achieve
these standards are not precluded from
use by'this rule.
EPA is regulating Disulfoton and
toluene for K037 wastewaters and K037
nonwastewaters. Because no comments
were received on the proposed
regulation of these standards, EPA
assumes that generators of these wastes
agree with EPA's assessment that these
treatment standards can be achieved.
The BOAT treatment standards for these
wastes are Hated in the following tables:
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K037
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Disulfoton
Toluene
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.1
23
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
1 Not applicable.
-------
31158 Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rales and' Regulation?
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K037
INonwttteiralerel
CORStJtUM*
OttjtfOfcHT
Tnit.n.
Maximum fc
grabs
Total
CO.TSX^itiOfl
. (mo/I)
nrvvi
MS
ranysingte
ampin
TCtP(mg/l)
in
i J
(')
, LK044-—Waatewater treatment •' '
sludges from the manufacturing and
processing of explosives. K04S—Spent
carbon from the treatment of
wastewater containing explosives.
K047—Pink/red water from JNT
operations. Today's rule promulgates
"no land disposal" as the final treatment
standard for K044. K0415 and K047
waatewaters and nonwastewaters. The
treatment standard for these wastes was
established based on EPA's
determination that op«n burning and
open detonation ofreactive (e.g..
explosive) 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 GFR
2G1.3(a){2)(iii)). In order to provide
clarification. EPA has modified the "no
land disposal" standard to read "no
land disposal based on reactivity". '
Other technologies, such as
incineration in specially designed
explosion protected units and chemical
deactivatlon processes that can render
these wastes nonreactive are not
precluded frbnmise by this rule based on
a determination that residues from these
technologies are no longer reactive (Le.. .
explosive).
One commenter pointed out that there
are no established and approved
analytical methods to determine the
reactivity characteristic for wastes. The
commenter noted that approved
methods would be useful in determining
whether the treatment of K044. K045.
K046, and K047 was sufficient to render
the waste nonreactive, The Agency
agrees with the communter to the fact
that there is no official. OSW analytical
method (i.e., according to SW-648,3rd
ed.) to test for reactivity. However, the
Agency has recently reviewed a testing
protocol developed by the Department
of Defense to measure the characteristic
of reactivity for their hazardous wastes.
While this protocol does not contain
official OSW methods,, the Agency
believes that it represents logical and
safe analytical procedures for
determining the characteristic of
reactivity (particularly for explosive
wastes). Additional information on this
protocol can be found in the background
document for K048.,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K044, K045, AND K047
[Nomvaoiewaten and wastawaters]
NO LAND DISPOSAL BASED ON REACTIVITY
j. KO46—Wastewater treatment
sludges from, the manufacturing,
formulation, and loading of lead based
initiating compounds. Today's rule
promulgates a final treatment standard
only for those IC048 nonwastewaters
that are nonreactive. A TCLP treatment
standard for lead was established for
these wastes based on the performance
of a stabilization process. The K046 that
was specifically sampled and tested by
the Agency was nonreactive (i.e.,
nonexplosive) as originally generated.
This standard does not apply to K048
nonwastewaters that are reactive (i.e.,
explosive) as originally generated.
Residues from the open detonation,
open burning, or incineration of K048
nonwastewaters that are reactive as
originally generated do not have to meet
these standards.
Commenters to the proposed rule
stated that the data used to set the
treatment standard for nonreactive K048
nonwastewaters may not be
representative of their K046 wastes.
Descriptions of their processes and their
wastes indicated that they are
generating reactive K048 wastes that
they are subsequently treated .by open
detonation or open burning, thus
creating nonreactive K046 residuals. It
was these wastes that they stated were
different from the nonreactive K046 that
EPA studied.
The waste sampled and tested by the
Agency consisted primarily of a lead
carbonate sludge generated from a
chemical treatment process for
wastewater that originally contained the
explosive compound lead azide. This
sludge contained approximately 95%
water and approximately 1,000 ppm
total lead. In contrast, residues from one
facility consist of solid ash from burning
or detonating a K046 that includes lead-
based initiating compounds and other
explosives. The Agency recognizes that.,
these wastes are inherently different
and were not examined by EPA during
the development of the K046 treatment
standards. The Agency intends to
reexamine th« data based on its testing
of nonreactive K046 nonwastewaters
and determine whether the data can be
extrapolated to reactive K046 wastes
containing untreated lead azide or
whether new data must be'obtained to •
set treatment standards for those
residues from open detonation, open
burning or specialized incineration of
K046 wastes that were originally
reactive as generated.
In today's rule, the Agency is taking
this information into account and is
setting treatment standards only for
those K048 nonwastewaters that are •
nonreactive (i.e., nonexplosive} when
they are initially generated. Reactive
K048 nonwastewaters that must be open
detonated do not have to meet the
treatment standard promulgated as final
in today's rule. No comments or data
were received that specifically indicated
the existence of nonreactive K046 (other
than nonreactive residuals from open
detonation or open burning of K046 that
were originally explosive as generated]
that could not meet the proposed
treatment standard for lead. Therefore,
the Agency assumes that generators of
these nonreactive (as generated) K048
wastes agree with EPA's assessment
that these treatment standards can be
achieved.
Some commenters indicated that they
generate a mixture of K044 and K046
and were concerned that the preamble
is unclear as to whether reactive K046
, wastes can first be treated by open
burning or open detonation to remove
the reactivity hazard before
stabilization. Stabilization of reactive
K046 or mixtures of nonreactive K046
with reactive K044, K045, K047 or other
explosive wastes would require
excessive handling in an essentially
untried manner. It would be dangerous
and contrary to industry safety practices.
to impose such requirement without
adequate safety testing. The Agency
agrees with these commenters, in that
EPA is uncertain of the risk associated
with pretreating reactive (i.e., explosive)
K046 wastes by open burning to
eliminate the explosion hazard.
Residues that do not meet the treatment
standards can promptly be removed for
treatment, by stabilization at facilities
equipped and authorized to carry out
such activities. This scenario eliminates
the safety hazards while addressing
environmental concerns related to the
toxic constituents in the waste.
However, the Agency prohibits the
mixing of nonreactive K046 wastes
(those that are nonreactive as initially
generated) with explosive wastes such
as K044, K045 or K047 in order to avoid
the applicability of the promulgated
final treatment standard for nonreactive
K046 nonwastewaters.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
recognized the existence of the
generation of reactive (i.e., explosive)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31159
K048 nonwastewaters and proposed a
treatment standard of "no land
disposal" for these wastes based on the
same rationale that the Agency used for
K044, K045 and K047. However, the
Agency now realizes that this rationale
is not applicable because the lead
present in the wastes wouldreniain on
the.ground after open detonation. The
Agency believes that these residues r
could be physically removed from the
land and solidified to prevent leaching
of the lead. However, the Agency has
not investigated the concentration of
lead in these residuals nor has it
investigated the performance of
solidification for these. As a result the
Agency is, therefore, not able to
promulgate'the "no land disposal"
'treatment standard for the explosive
K046 nonwastewaters in today's rule.
EPA does intend to propose and
promulgate treatment standards for
th'ese wastes prior to May 3,1990. Since
no standard is promulgated in today's
rule for reactive K046 nonwasiewaters,
these wastes are restricted from land
disposal according to the "soft hammer"
provisions described in other sections of
this preamble.
In the proposed rule, the Agency also
proposed a treatment standard of "no
land disposal" for all K048 wastewaters.
based on the premise that they would
not be generated. Several commenters
. have identified specific sources of
wastewater forms of K046 such as those
being generated at a CERCLA site,
during a corrective action at a RCRA
facility, and as a leachate from a
landfill. Since generation of K048
wastewaters does occur, the premise of
"no generation" as a basis for the
treatment standard of "no land
disposal" appears to be unjustified. The
Agency is. therefore, not able to
promulgate the treatment standard for
K046 wastewaters in today's rule. EPA
does intend, to propose and promulgate
numerical treatment standards for these
wastes prior to May 8,1990. Since no
standard is promulgated in today's rule
for K046 wastewaters, this subgroup of
wastes is restricted from land disposal
according to the "soft hammer"
provisions described in other sections of
this preamble. [Note.—As discussed in
detail in section IiI.C.3., EPA- is
amending § 268.12 to include
wastewater residues derived from the
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes by
certain processes, as well as leachate
derived from the management of "soft'
hammer" wasies and "soft hammer"
waste contaminated grcvindwiter;
thereby moving the aforementioned
ty^cs of wasiewaters into the eroup of
wuhles identified as the Third Third..
Thus, these types of K04S wastewaters
are not subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in § 268.33(f). This action '
will allow these wastewater residues to
be disposed in nonrainimum technology
unita and such residues will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of§26&a]
One commenter pointed out that there
are no established and approved
analytical methods .to determine the
reactivity characteristic for wastes-. The
commenter noted that approved
methods would be useful in determining
whether the treatment of K044. K045,
K046, and K047 was sufficient to render
the waste nonreactive. The Agency
agrees with the commenter to the fact
that there is no official OSW analytical
method (i.e.. according to SW 846, 3rd
ed.) to test for reactivity. However, the
Agency has recently reviewed a testing
protocol developed by the Department
of Defense to measure the characteristic
of reactivity for their hazardous wastes.
While this protocol does not contain
official OSW methods, the Agency
believes that it represents logical and
safe analytical procedures for
determining the characteristic of
reactivity (particularly for explosive
wastes). Further, the Agency believes
that this testing protocol can be used as
guidance in the determination of the
applicability of the treatment standards
for K048 wastes (i.e., the determination
of whether the K046 waste is in the
reactive or nonreactive subca(egory).
Additional information on this protocol
can be found in the background
document for K048.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
[Nonwastewatersl
CNonraactive subcategory]
ConStitU3rit
Lnnrt
Maximum (or any single
grab sample
Total
composition
{mg/kg)
(')
TCLP (mg/I)
0.18
.' Not applicable.
k. KO48—Dissolved air flotation
(DAF) float from the petroleum refining
industry. KO49—Slpp oil emulsion solids
from the petroleum refining industry.
K050—Heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining
industry. K051—API separator sludge
from the petroleum refining industry.
K052—Tf;r.k bottoms (leaded) from the
petroleum refining industry. In today's
rule EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K048, K043,.
K050, K051 and K052. These standards
are based on reanalysis of the original
treatment data for incineration and
solvent extraction, as well as analysis of
additional, recently submitted data on
solvent extraction. In the proposed rule
and background document for these .
wastes, the Agency had indicated that •
there was a statistical difference
between these technologies. Several
commenters pointed out that this
difference is for only a few constituents
•and that the two technologies can
achieve comparable performance for the
majority of constituents. They also
believe that there is little environmental
benefit achieved in using the
incineration performance data as the
sole basis for setting treatment
standards versus the incorporation of
the solvent extraction data into the
standard. They stated that both
technologies could achieve
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the residuals that were
. below health based limits for those
constituents.
EPA's own statistical (ANOVA)
comparison of the two technologies
confirms that fiuidized bed incineration
provides significantly better treatment
than solvent extraction for naphthalene
and xylenes. However, for eleven other
organic constituents there is no
significant difference in achievable
performance.
The proposed BDAT standards for
K048-K052 nonwastewaters were based
solely on the results obtained from the
analysis of residual samples from
incineration of K048 and K051 wastes at
one refinery. Prior to the April 8,1983
proposed regulation, industry had
submitted treatment data for K040-K052
wastes using-solvent extraction
technologies. These data were
incomplete for incorporation into the
'proposed standard, primarily because
they did not include any total
constituent concentrations in the wastes
prior to treatment. During the comment
period, these additional data, as well as
other industry data, were provided to
EPA, allowing the Agency to complete
its analysis of the technology. -
The solvent extraction process that
was examined is designed-to recover
and recycle petroleum products from the
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. Use of the
technology thus furthers the broad
Congressional goal of resource recovery
as a preferred alternative to waste
treatment alone (see, e.g. H.R. Rep. No.
198, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. at 31). Several
commenters indicated that it also may
be easier to obtain treatment permits for
solvent extraction units than for
.incinerators duo to less public concern
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules: and Regulations
over the presence of these type of units
in the community. ; ' ,
EPA has considered all of these
comments and has decided that the
resource recovery achieved by solvent
extraction justifies its inclusion in the
development of BDAT treatment
standards. Therefore. EPA has
established solvent extraction and
incineration as BDAT for K048-K052
nonwastewatera and is promulgating
revised numerical standards. EPA does
not believe that this conflicts with the
promulgated BDAT methodology. _
A few weeks before promulgation of
the final regulation, EPA received data
showing performance brother types of
solvent extraction systems on K048-
K052. These data appear to indicate
superior treatment of xylene and
naphthalene than the system on which
EPA is basing its treatment standards.
The Agency has not had the opportunity
to fully evaluate these data, however,
nor has any member of the petroleum
industry had the opportunity to
comment on them. EPA consequently ,
does not feel justified in basing
treatment standards on 'this information.
However the Agency is continuing to
study these data and will propose to
revise the treatment standards if such
examination shows that significantly
lower levels are actually achievable.
Such a proposal may appear, for
example, as part of the Second Third
proposed rulemaking. expected a few
months from now. However, as-a result
of these data, EPA believes it
unwarranted to promulgate treatment
standards for xylenes and naphthalene
at the present time, and accordingly is
reserving treatment standards for these
constituents.
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for all of the organic
constituents proposed for K048, K049.
K050. K051 and K052 nonwastewaters.
Additionally, several other organic
constituents are being regulated that
were identified in characterization data
for these wastes. EPA's testing of
fluidized bed incineration showed
substantial treatment of these
constituents. However, treatment
standards were not originally proposed
for them because the Agency believed
that they would be controlled by
incineratioaand regulation of other
organic constituents in the
nonwastewater residuals from
Incineration. They are being regulated in
today's rule because the additional data
submitted by industry indicated that
solvent extraction achieves substantial
treatment for these constituents.
However, the-Agency does not have any
data that indicate that these
constituents would be necessarily
controlled by solvent extraction if'only
the other organic constituents are
regulated. The standards for the organic
constituents are based on the results of
the performance achievable by solvent
extraction and/or incineration.
Standards for arsenic, total chromium,
nickel, and selenium are established
based on the performance of a
stabilization process. It is important to
point out that while the standards for
organic constituents are based on data
obtained from solvent extraction and
fluidized bed incineration, other
treatment technologies such as rotary
kiln incineration and biodegradation
that can achieve these standards are not
precluded from use by this rule.
Several commenters argued that EPA
should not regulate copper, vanadium or
zinc because they are not constituents
specifically listed on Appendix VIII of
40 CFR part 261. The Agency does not
totally agree, but is not adopting
standards for these metals for reasons
stated earlier in connection with F006
wastes. The final revised BDAT
treatment standards for K048, K049.
KOSO. K051 and KOS2 are Hated in the
tables at the end of this section.
• Several commenters stated that
' dewatering technologies such as vacuum
filtration, piate and frame pressure
filtration, and centrifugation, as well as
thermal drying, should be allowed and
should be the basis of BDAT. They .also
provided teachability data on the
residuals from these process. However.
no total constituent concentration data
were provided for comparison to the
performance of incineration and solvent
extraction. While these technologies do
reduce the water content in the waste
and generally reduce the volume of solid
residuals that require disposal, they do
not perform as well as incineration and
solvent extraction technologies that EPA
has determined to be BDAT for these
wastes. A detailed comparison of these
technologies is provided in the BDAT
background documents for these wastes.
located in the docket for this rule. At the
same time, it is important to point out
that these dewatering technologies are
not precluded from use by this
regulation and can be considered . -
applicable technologies when used
alone or when incorporated into an
additional treatment train, provided that
they produce a residual that can achieve
the constituent concentrations in the
treatment standards for that particular
waste.
The proposed-BDAT standards for
organic constituents in K048-K082
wastewaters were based on a transfer
of performance data for the scrubber
water residual from the incineration of a
similar waste. The Agency has recently
completed an analysis of scrubber
waters from the incineration of a K048
waste (performed earlier this year). The
results of this analysis are comparable
to the treatment performance data that
were the basis for the proposed
standards. The Agency has decided to
promulgate the final treatment
standards for K048-K052 wastewaters
based on revised standards using the
data from the incineration of the K048
waste.
Several additional organic
constituents are being regulated in the
K04&-K052 wastewaters. These
constituents were identified in
characterization data for untreated
K048-K052 wastes. EPA's testing of
fluidized bed incineration showed
substantial treatment of these
constituents. However, treatment
standards were not proposed for them
because the Agency believed that they
would be effectively controlled by
incineration and regulation of other
organic constituents (as indicators for .
these constituents) in the wastewaters.
The Agency has chosen to regulate these
additional organic constituents because
it does not have any data that indicate
that these constituents would be
necessarily controlled by solvent
extraction if only the other organic
constituents are regulated. Because the
Agency did not receive any comments
nor solvent extraction treatment data for
the K048-K052 wastewater residuals
(from solvent extraction), the
promulgated standards for the organic
constituents in K048-K052 wastewaters
are based on the results of the
performance achievable by fluidized
bed incineration. Today's rule also
promulgates final treatment standards
for metal constituents in K048-K052
wastewaters based on a transfer of
treatment performance data (with the
-------
Federal Register / Vbt 53; No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 /Rules and Regulations 31161
exception of arsenic values, which are
based on treatment of wastewaters of
these petroleum refining wastes) for
wastewaters containing metals using
chromium reduction, lime and sulfide
precipitation and vacuum filtration, as
proposed.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
Constituent
Benzene -r,,r,--,1,,,,,,JI,
8enzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phtnalate..
Chrysene..._...._...._.. .
Dt-n-btrtyl phtnalate —
Elhylbenzene. .„.„„,_„
Naphthalene .
Phenanthrene __.„.
Phenol u____.
Pyrene «.„».»»..««.
Toluene ,,-,,
Xytenes ...«..»»..»„„«„...
Cyanides (total)
Arsenic r--t-.r........um.
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Selenium. __.„>__.
- .Itadmm toran* tfngto
• grab MrnpM
Total
nill •tiTn ii
vUl 1 ^WUUII
(mg/kg)
9.5
0.84
37
22.
42,
67
P)
7.7
2.7
2.0
9^
(')
1.8
(')
(')
(')
(')
TClP(mg/n.
(')
<')
(')
<')
(')
(')
«')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
<')
0.004
1.7
0.048
0.025
1 Not applicable.
' Reserved.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K048
CWcstowatersl
Constituent
Benzene._______.m...
Benzo(a)pyrene._;
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phtrialato..
Chrysene _.
Di-n-butyl phthalate ......
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene -.•.
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene '..
Phenol ; ,„,,, _.'_
Pyrene
Toluene .«
Xylenes
Chromium (total)
Lead _._. „_ „_._.
Maxirnum fi
grabs
Total
(mg/l)
0.011
.047
.043
.043
.060
.011
050
.033
.039
.047
045
011
.011
SO
.037
rijny tingl*
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
«')
1.8
(*>'-
TCtJ»(mg/l)
0
0
0.004
1.7
0.048
0.025
'NrtappMcatt^
'Reserved. -
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K049
CWastewatersl
Constituent
Antrim
ggnfgfii ' ' ""
Benzo
1.8
TCLP (mg/I)
0.004
1.7
.048
.025
1 Not applicable.
* Reserved.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K051
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Anthracene _....
Benzene „
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
8is(2-
ethylhexyljphthalate...
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene.
Phenol
Pyrene ,
Toluene
Xylenes _
Chromium (total)
Lead
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.050
.039
.011
.043
.047
.043
.043
.060
.011
' .050
.033
.039
.047
.045
.011
.011
.20
.037
1 Not applicable.
TCLP (mg/l)
1
-------
31162 FederaUtegister / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 198S / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB K052
[Nonwastawaters]
Constnuent
Ethy*>«nz_«_» __
Napt.oi*iw»—_
Phenol.
CyafxJoa (total}-
Qvomium (total).
Maximum for any angf»
gratosampte
Total
composition
(Jtq/kg)
22.
- -JO.
57
(V
7.7
.£7
9.5
t1)
1:8 '
TCLP (mo/1)
n
0)
0.004
1.7
.048-
.025
1 Not appfcaW*.
'Resorvied.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K052
CWactnMlaral
CofKrtttuoot
Maximum tar any aingl*
grabsampto
Total
composition
O.OH
.047
.011
.011
.033
.011
.033
•039
.047
.011
.011
20
.037
0)
0)
» Not (peccable.
1. K061— Emission control dust/
sludge from the primary production of
steel in electric furnaces. Today's rule
revises and promulgates final treatment
standards forKOSl nonwastewaters.
The standards proposed on April 8,
1908. were based on the performance of
a high temperature melals recovery
(HMTR] unit HMTR results in the
formation of a residual slag which was
analyzed to determine the performance
of this technology. EPA. received
extensive comments from industry
opposing the applicability,
demonstrability, and economics of
HTMR for low zinc content K061. As
initially proposed, treatment standards
for KOfll wastes with greater than 2.4%
total zinc were based on HTMR.
However, the applicability of these
standards was based on the
concentration of zinc in the residual slag
from HTMR: EPA did not consider the
optimum operating feed concentrations
for zinc. Several commenters
specifically stated that HMTR is not
feasible at total zinc concentrations in
the feed material of below 5% by weight.
Other commenters proposed minimum
zinc concentrations of 20% zinc. The
majority of the comments centered on
15% zinc as a minimum. Review of the
sampling data from EPA's testing of
HTMR Indicates that the minimum feed .
concentration of zinc was 12.9% and the
mean value of the feed concentrations
was 14.3%. Many commenters urged
EPA to establish treatment standards
based on the performance of
stabilization, with the concentration
levels to be based on the data contained
in EPA's background document for the
proposed rule.
Based on review of this data and in
response to the comments, on minimum
feed concentration of zinc, the Agency.
has decided to promulgate a final rule
with two subcategories of K061
nonwaatewaters: a High Zinc
Subcategory (greater than or equal to
15% total zinc) and a Low Zinc
Subcategory (less than 15% total zinc).
For theKG&l High Zinc Subcategory, a
final BOAT treatment standard of "no
land disposal" will become effective on
August 8.1990, based on HTMR. As
described later ia this preamble. EPA is
deferring the effective date until August
8.1990 because of inadequate HTMR
capacity to meet the demand that will
•be created by this rule. During the two
year period until August 8.1990. interim
treatment standards for the K061 High
Zinc Subcategory. based on
stabilization, are applicable. These
interim standards are identical to the
final standards for the K061 Low Zinc
Subcategory described in this section.
EPA jees no legal obstacle in adopting
an interim treatment standard until such
tune as the "no land disposal" standard
takes effect If there is insufficient
capacity presently available for the best
treatment technology, EPA is not .
precluded from requiring that the next
best treatment be utilized in the interim.
The alternative would be to allow
disposal of untreated hazardous wastes
during the interim period. In addition,
during the two year period, K061 wastes
in the High Zinc Subcategory treated to
meet the interim standard based on
stabilization may be disposed in
landfills that do not meet the minimum
technology requirements. Since many
commenters complained that if K081
became subject to the soft hammer they
would be unable to dispose of the waste
in these types of units, an interim
treatment standard affords these
commenters a measure of relief.
The treatment standard of "no land-
disposal" for the High Zinc Subcategory
of K061 is based on the use of HTMR to
recover zinc from K061 containing more
than 15% total zinc. Several classes of
HTMR systems exist including rotary
kilns, flame reactors, electric furnaces.
plasma arc furnaces, slag reactors, and
rotary hearth kiln/electric furnace
combinations. EPA is not requiring or
recommending any specific class of
HTMR as BDAT. The Agency believes
that establishing HTMR as BOAT for
these wastes is consistent with the
national policy identified in HSWA to
reduce the quantity of hazardous
constituents treated and disposed. EPA
has data that indicate that
approximately 75% {by volume) of K081
wastes are classified as high zinc K061
wastes and contain zinc at
concentrations equal to or greater, than
15% by weight At the same time, up to
60% of the total number of facilities
generating K061 generate low zinc K061
wastes representing only 25% of the
volume of K061.
In considering the HTMR standard for
K061 wastes in the High Zinc
Subcategory and specifically whether or
not to express the standard as
concentrations in the residuals from
HTMR, the Agency considered the
position stated in the proposed rule that
if a secondary material being reclaimed
in an industrial furnace is "indigenous"
'to that furnace, it ceases being a waste
when it is reclaimed. 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 proposed § 268.30(a). 52 FR17034,
May 8,1987. The Agency considered
other possible alternatives in the May 6,
1987 proposal, and commenters
suggested additional possible
interpretations which the Agency is now
considering. However, the type of '
processing used to recover zinc from
K061. plus the similarity of K061 to the
raw materials smelted in zinc furnaces,
appears to qualify K061 as "indigenous"
under any of the current options being
considered. Therefore, the Agency is
promulgating a "no land disposal"
standard for the High Zinc Subcategory
in anticipation that a final definition of
"indigenous" wastes that would include
HTMR of K061 will be promulgated prior
to the. August 8,1990 effective date of
this standard. Also, the Agency is not
precluded from revising the HTMR •
standard of "no land disposal" if the
definition of "indigenous" waste is not
made final or if it is altered in a way
that might conceivably implicate the
slag.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31163
For the K061 Low Zinc Subcategory,
final BOAT treatment standards, based
on stabilization, will become effective
on August 8,1988. The regulated
constituents and BOAT treatment
standards for the two subcategories of
K061 nonwastewaters are listed in the
tables at the end of this section. •
The revised BOAT treatment
standards based on stabilization we»
established using performance data . .;
collected by EPA and previously .. .
referenced in the K061 and POOS
background documents for the proposed
rule. For lead and cadmium, the
treatment standards for both .
subcategories are based on stabilization
of a waste in the K061 nonwastewater
High Zinc Subcategory. For total
chromium, the treatment standards are
based on stabilization of F006 wastes
containing chromium. EPA has decided
to transfer the chromium standard from
F006 nonwastewaters to K081
nonwastewaters as a result of comments
from manufacturers of specialty and
stainless steel. These commenters
pointed out that their K061 wastes
required a separate treatment standard,
due to high concentrations of chromium
compared to the KOG1 from carbon steel
manufacturers, which EPA tested. The
Agency evaluated all available data
characterizing K061 generated by
specialty steel, stainless steel, and
carbon steel production. The Agency
agrees that there is a need to establish a
treatment standard that accounts for the
higher concentrations of chromium
present in K061 generated by specialty
and stainless steel production.
Consequently, the Agency is
promulgating the treatment standard for
chromium based on stabilization of F006
electroplating wastes, many of which
contain concentrations of chromium
similar to those found in K061 generated
by specialty and stainless steel
production.
Nickel has been added to the list of
regulated constituents since the time of
proposal for two reasons. First the
proposed treatment standard was based
on a technology (HTMR) which
concentrated nickel in the treatment
residual, and therefore, was not
proposed as a regulated constituent The
final rule is based on a technology
(stabilization) which shows significant
reductions in the leachability of nickel.
Since the final rule establishes metal
concentrations in the waste extract the
Agency is establishing treatment
standards for all constituents which are
present at significant concentrations.
For further discussion of regulated
constituents see the Background
Document for K061. Second, several
commenters presented data showing
that K061 from specialty and stainless
steel production contain higher
concentrations of chromium and nickel
than the K061 from, carbon steel which
were previously stabilized^ The Agency
agrees that nickel is present in these
K061 wastes at significantly higher
levels, and therefore, is promulgating a
treatment standard for nickel This
standard is based on stabilization of
electroplating wastes (F006) containing
concentrations of nickel similar to these
K061 wastes.
For all K031 nonwastewaters, BOAT
treatment standards are established
based on cadmium, total chromium, lead
and nickel concentrations in the waste
extract using the TCLP. Several
commenters questioned the Agency's
decision not to use the data submitted
as concentrations of constituents in the
waste extract from the Extraction
Procedure (EP) test Several commenters
also suggested that EP and TCLP test
results were similar for K061. Data was
submitted comparing EP and TCLP
results for stabilized K061 wastes. This
data showed no statistical difference in
the results for the regulated constituents;
however, the EP data did not include
important information necessary for
complete evaluation. Information
missing included waste characterization
of the untreated K061 wastes, design
and operating data, mix ratios of
solidification reagents, 'and laboratory
quality assurance data. Consequently,
the stabilization data provided which
contained EP extract results were not
used in calculation of the treatment
standards for K061 nonwastewaters.
Several commenters stated that EPA
should not regulate zinc because it is not
a constituent specifically listed on
Appendix VHI of 40 CFR Part 281. The
Agency does not totally agree, in that
zinc cyanide and zinc phosphide are
listed on Appendix VIII. Further, zinc is
an aquatic toxin, and the Agency
considered adding it to Appendix VIII
for that reason. However, in this
rulemaking the Agency is only
regulating zinc when it is an indicator of
performance of treatment for other
Appendix VIH constituents. Further, the .
Agency believes that zinc is controlled
by stabilization of the metal constituents
that are regulated by today's rule and is
not promulgating zinc standards for
either of the subcategories of K061.
However, the Agency is establishing
the definitions of these subcategories
based on the total concentration of zinc.
While a treatment standard is not
actually being set it is necessary to
determine the total zinc concentration to
determine applicability of the
appropriate standard. (See EPA
Document SW-846, "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Wastes", Third Edition,
for guidance on composite sampling to
determine if the 15 percent limit is met.}
A facility is not allowed to dilute or
perform partial treatment on a K081
waste in order to switch the
applicability of the standard for the
High Zinc Subcategory to the standard
for the Low Zinc Subcategory. However,
the Agency does recognize that K061
wastes in the Low Zinc Subcategory are
often blended with wastes in the High
Zinc Subcategory in order to obtain an
optimum feed concentration for zinc.
The Agency does not intend to preclude
this operation, and furthermore, believes
that this should not be a restricted
practice, because the effective result of
this practice is the applicability of a
standard that is more stringent i.e., from
stabilization to "no land disposal" (after
August 8,1990).
Today's rule is not promulgating the
proposed treatment standard of "ho
land disposal" for K061 wastewaters.
The basis of the wastewater standard
was the premise that K061 was not
anticipated to be generated. Several
commenters provided information to the
contrary indicating that K061
wastewaters are being generated and
will continue to be generated. Several
facilities indicated that their K061
nonwastewaters are generated as wet
sludges rather than as dry baghouse
dust The water from treating and/or
dewatering these sludges are classified
as K061 wastewaters. In addition, the
majority of the volume of K061
nonwastewaters has been historically
disposed in landfills. The aqueous
leachate collected from these landfills
are "derived-from" K061 wastewaters.
Commenters have also identified
additional specific sources of
wastewater forms of K081 such as those
being generated at a CERCLA site,
during a corrective action at a RCRA
facility, as a leachate from a landfill,
and as a residual from treatment
processes such as dewatering. Since
generation of K061 wastewaters does
occur, the premise of no generation as a
basis for the treatment standard of "no
land disposal" is invalid. Therefore, the
Agency cannot promulgate the proposed
standard of "no land disposal" for K061
wastewaters as final. Since no standard
is established for K081 wastewaters, this
subgroup of wastes is restricted from
land disposal according to the "soft
hammer" provisions. EPA intends to
develop and propose numerical
treatment standards by May 8,1990.
[Note.—As discussed in detail in section
III.C.3., EPA is amending § 268.12 to
-------
31164 Federal Rcigister / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
include wastewaterremdues derived
from the treatment of "soft hammer"
wastes by certain processes, as well as
leachate derived from the management
of "soft hammer" wastes and "soft
hammer" waste contaminated
groundwaten thereby-moving the
aforementioned types of wastewaters
into the group of wastes identified as the
Third Third, Thus, these types of KOSi
wastewater* or*not subject to the "soft
hammer" prohibitions in 12Ba33(f). This
action will allow these wastewater
residues to b« disposed in nonminimum
technology units and such residues will
not be subject to the certification
requirements of { 28&a.j
EPA solicited commi:nt in the April 8.
1988, notice on the issue of whether
commercial fertilizers that contain K061
dust as an ingredient should be required
to meet BOAT as a condition of
remaining exempt from; tha remaining
RCRA standards when they are applied
to ths land. See 40 CFR { 26020. After
considering the public comment on this
issue, EPA has decided not to amend the
existing exemption at tliiis time. Our
reasons are the following: (l) Existing
data appear to indicate that application
of these fertilizers to the crops to which
zinc-based fertilizers are applied does
not pose significant risk from either a
food chain contamination pathway or a
groundwater contamination pathway;
and (2] Constituent levels (and levels of
extractable metals) of tome of the toxic
metals in zinc-based fertilizers are
virtually tha same, whether or not the
fertilizers-contain K061;; levels of the
remaining constituent (lead) an more
•variable, although somo of the non K061
fertilizers (Le, those feitilizers whose
zinc comes from a non-waste source)
contain more lead than any K061
fertilizer for which EPA has data. It thus
is possible (although further study and
data-gathering are required) that EPA
could ultimately classify K061 based
fertilizers as products rather than
wastes. • ,
It thus does not appear to the Agency
to be the proper time to remove the
existing exemption for these fertilizers.
Because there has been no opportunity
for notice and comment; and because of
incomplete data, it also would not be
proper to reclassify them* fertilizers at
this time. Accordingly, EPA is not taking •
action at this time, and so is leaving in
place the exemption for zinc-containing
fertilizers that include K081 wastes as
ingredients.
A number of commenters (although
none from the fertilizer industry)
maintained that hazardous waste- *
derived fertilizers are not subject to
RCRA at all, because the hazardous
waste are not "discarded materials",
and so are not solid wastes. They cited
American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824
R2d 1177 (D.C. Cir: 1387) for this
proposition. EPA does not agree. The
Agency views the practice as discarding
for several reasons: (1) recycling
involving direct placement of hazardous
secondary materials on the land for final
disposition is discarding because it is
like land disposal (2) unwanted
contaminants in the hazardous
secondary materials (for example, lead
and cadmium in K081) which in no way
contribute to recycling are being gotten
rid of and in fact being disposed of.
(Should it prove that lead and cadmium
are present in hazardous waste and
nonhazardous waste-derived zinc
fertilizers at similar concentrations, this
last point would no longer apply.) This
use constituting disposal situation also
does not involve the type of ongoing
industrial process discussed by the court
in the above-cited case. The Agency
moreover finds these commenters'
arguments unpersuasive given that they
would make legal under RCRA such
infamous use constituting disposal
situations as Times Beach, Missouri (use
of hazardous distillation bottom as- dust
suppressants). The Agency is convinced
that neither Congress nor the court
contemplated any such results.
INTERIM TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K061
trtgti Zinc Subcatagoiy— Equal to or Graatw than
15%J
[ertactiwt until August 8, 1990]
Consttueot
Carimiitni -IIM
Chromium (Total) „___.
'««« , ,
Nirirol ,,.,, ....,.„ ,„
Maximum (or any'singto
grabsampl*
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
(')
(')
(')
<«)
TOP (rng/1)
0.14
5.2
0.24
0.32
' Not applicable.
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K061
CNoowastewaters]
CHigh Zinc Subcategory—Greater than 1S%J
tEffectivo after August 8. 1990]
NO LAND DISPOSAL BASED ON RECYCLING
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K061
[Nonwastewaters]
[Low Zinc Subcategory—Less than 15%]
Constituent
Cadmiucn.._.__.._
Chromium (Total)
1 t^UJ
MMu>l ,
Maximum for any single
grab sample.
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
(')
(')
(')
(')
TOP (mg/l)
0.1*
5.2
0.24
0.32
1 Not appfcabto.
m. K062—Spent pickle liquor
generated by steel finishing operations
of facilities within the iron and steel
industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332).
Today's rule promulgates final treatment
standards for K062 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters as proposed. As
initially generated, K062 spent pickle
liquors contain less than 1% filterable
solids and are classified as K062
wastewaters. Treatment standards for
both K082 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters were established based
on the performance of chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation with sulfide followed by •
precipitation, settling, filtering and
dewatering of the solid residues. The
standards for K062 wastewaters are
based on the concentrations of metals in
the wastewater residual from this
process. The standards for K062
nonwastewaters are based on the
analysis of TCLP leachates of the
dewatered solid residues.
The standards shown below apply to
all K082 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.with the exception of
residues generated as a result of lime
(Ca(OH)j) treatment that are not
classified as hazardous wastes
according to 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2){ii) unless
they are hazardous because they exhibit
a characteristic. Therefore, any such
residues would not have to comply with
the BOAT treatment standards. The
treatment standards do apply, however,
to residues generated by other than lime
precipitation.
A comment received on the August 12,
1987 Notice of Data Availability and
Request for Comments (52 FR 29992)
suggested that K062 nonwastewaters
can be treated by high temperature
metals recovery (HTMR). At this time,
the applicability of HTMR to all K062
nonwastewaters has not been
'sufficiently verified in order to develop
additional treatment standards. The
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31165
concentrations and identity of metals in
K062 wastewaters vary widely
depending on the specific steel being
pickled. EPA has not been able to define
any particular subcategories of K062
nonwastewaters that would be
amenable to a particular recovery
process. • -.'-. .;
Commenters also stated that since
EPA is requiring the me of sulfide as a
precipitant for K062 wastewaters,
various recovery processes that are
designed to recover metals from metal
hydroxide precipitates would be
precluded from use. This is not the case,
for EPA is not requiring the use of
sulfide, but rather establishing a
performance standard for the K062
wastes. These standards do not exclude
the use of lime as a precipitant In fact,
the Agency has information that the,
majority of generators are indeed using
'lime as a precipitant. These lime
residues can already be sent to HTMR
without meeting the standards for K062
nonwastewaters.
One commenter stated that EPA
should alter the regulatory provision
(§ 261.3(c)(2)(ii)) that excludes lime
precipitated K062 nonwastewaters from
the derived from rule. They stated that if
sulfide precipitation can achieve a
higher water quality, then it should be
BOAT for all K062 wastewaters. The
Agency cannot remove this exemption
without following rulemaking
procedures, and did not propose the
change.
One commenter stated that since
aqueous metal recovery processes for
metal contaminated wastewaters exist
and are being used. EPA should force
K082 wastewaters to use them by
establishing a treatment standard of "no
land disposal" for K062. At this time, the
applicability of these recovery processes
to K082 wastewaters has not been
sufficiently verified in order to establish
a "no land disposal" standard. The high
acid content and high variability in
concentrations and identity of metals in
these wastewaters may preclude the use
of some technologies such as reverse
osmosis and cation exchange due to the
strong possibility that the acid or other
metals could foul the recovery process.
Thus, the Agency believes that a
standard of "no land disposal" may
eventually be possible to promulgate for
certain subcategories of K062. However,
it is unlikely that this standard would be
justified for all K062 wastes. At this
time, EPA has not been able to define
any particular subcategories of K062
wastewaters that would be amenable to
a particular aqueous recovery process.
Several commenters argued that EPA
should not regulate copper because it is
not a hazardous constituent specifically
listed on Appendix Vm of 40 CFR Part
281. EPA has decided not to regulate
copper here for the reasons stated
earlier in connection with F006 wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K062
Constrtusno
Chromium (total).—.
Lmd
Mawnumtaranytingl*
grab sample
ToM
•composition
(mg/kg)
(»)
(')
TCU»(mg/l)
0.094
.37
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K062
tWactewatersl
Contttuent
Chromium (total) — ,
Lead .„ _______
Nirkafl ,
Maximum tar any singto
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.32
.04
.44
TCLPftng/l)
<")
(')
0)
1 Not applicable.
n. KDGB—Emission control dust/
sludge from secondary lead smelting.
The BOAT treatment standard of "no
land disposal" for K069 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters was proposed
based on information supplied to the
Agency that indicated that K069 wastes
were totally recyclable without
generation of residuals. In response to
this premise, one commenter provided
information that they generate a K069
nonwastewater that cannot be directly
recycled due to a significantly different
chemical composition. The information
also indicates, that, while the waste
being generated meets the definition of
the listed waste K069. there also is a
significant difference in how it is being
generated.
- Most K069 wastes are baghouse dusts
and scrubber sludges that act as primary
air pollution control devices -(APCD).
The commenter's facility utilizes a
baghouse for particulate collection as its
primary APCD. In addition, the air
leaving the baghouse is sent through a
"secondary" APCD, consisting of a wet
venturi scrubber utilizing lime
neutralization. This "secondary" APCD
has been installed primarily to reduce
sulfur dioxide emissions. The sludge
from this process is technically the
listed waste, K069, but consists
primarily of lead contaminated calcium
sulfate and calcium hydroxide rather
than metallic lead, lead oxides, and
metal oxides that comprise typical
baghouse dusts. In addition, the facility
stated that it has experimented with
other neutralizing agents to produce a
reclaimable sludge, but has not
succeeded. At the time of this rule, the
Agency has not completed its analysis
of all of this information. However, it
does believe that these K089 wastes are
fundamentally different and that the
basis of total recycling for the proposed
standard of "no land disposal" for K089
wastes is not justifiably extrapolated to
these types of K069 wastes.
For the purposes of this rule, the
Agency is establishing a Calcium Sulfate
Subcategory and a Non Calcium Sulfate
Subcategory for K089 nonwastewaters.
The Calcium Sulfate Subcategory is
defined as those emission control
sludges from secondary lead smelting •
that are generated as calcium sulfate
from secondary wet scrubbers using
lime neutralization. The Non Calcium
Suifate Subcategory is defined as those
emission control sludges from secondary
lead smelting that are not generated as
calcium sulfate from secondary wet
scrubbers using lime neutralization. It is
important to point out that this
definition specifically includes
"secondary" wet scrubbers. The Agency
also recognizes that K069 may be
generated as a wet scrubber sludge from
other primary APCDs and that the
primary APCD may incorporate lime
neutralization. Because no comments
were received from generators of K069
from these type of primary APCDs, the
Agency assumes that the generators
agree with EPA's assessment of
recyclability of these wastes. As a
result, the Agency has decided to •
promulgate a final BDAT treatment
standard of "no land disposal" based on
total recycling for those K069
nonwastewaters in the Non Calcium
Sulfate Subcategory. EPA intends to
propose and promulgate numerical
treatment standards for K069
nonwastewaters in the Calcium Sulfate
Subcategory (i.e., those from secondary
wet scrubbers using lime neutralization)
prior to May 8,1990.
'"Commenters have also identified
additional specific sources of
wastewater forms of K069 such as those
being generated at a CERCLA site,
during a corrective action at a RCRA
facility, and as a leachate from a
landfill. .In the proposed rule, EPA had
based a "no land disposal" standard for
the wastewaters on the belief that the
total recycling process generated no
-------
3U6S Federal Hester / Vol. 53. No; ISfr /> Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rulea and Regulations
waatewate? reuiduala and that it was -
unlikely that other wnstewater forms of
K069 would be produced. Since
generation of does ocmir, the premise of
no generation as the basis for the .
standard appears to bo unjustified. As a
result, the Agency is therefore unable to
promulgate a treatatnt standard for
these wastewaters in today's rule. EPA
does intend to propoou and promulgate
numerical treatment standards for theso
wastes prior to May 8, 1990. Since no
standard is promulgated in today's rule
for theicKCeOwastevraters, they are-
restricted from land disposal according
to the "soft hammer" provisions.
[Note.— As discussed in detail in section
UI.C.3., EPA is amending § 268.12 to .
include wastewater residues derived
from the treatment of "soft hammer"
wastes by certain proresses. as well as
leachate derived from the management
of "soft hammer" wastes and "soft
hammer" waste contaminated
groundwater; thereby moving the
aforementioned types of wastewatera
into the group of wastes identified as the
Third Third, Thus, theue types of K069
wastewatera are not subject to the "soft
hammer" prohibitions in 5 288;33 (f).
This action will allow these wastewater
residues to be disposed in nonminimum
technology units and such residues will
not be subject to the certification
requirements of § 268.H.J
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
INon Caldum Sutfeki Subcttagnyl
NO UNO DISPOSAL BASED ON RECYCLING
o. K071—Brine purification muds from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used. Today's
rule promulgates final treatment
standards for K071 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Analysis of aTCLP
leachate for mercury is necessary to
establish compliance with the treatment
standard for K071 nonwastewaters. For
K071 wastewaters, a total waste •
analysis for mercury is necessary to
establish compliance with the standard.
These standards are lifted in the table
at the end of this section.
The treatment standard for the K071
nonwastewaters was established based
on the performance of a treatment
process that includes a series of
individual steps. The main purpose of
which is to solubilize the mercury in the
K071.brine sludge and later convert the
mercury to a relatively insoluble
mercury sulfide sludge. Mercury sulfide
is one of the least soluble forms of
mercury salts. Initially, the K071 brine
sludge is. leached with acid to solubilize
certain forma of mercury. The sludge
and acid leachate are mixed with an
alkaline hypochlorite to oxidize the
mercury to a highly soluble mercuric
chloride (this also raises the pH). The
resultant sludge is then washed with
hydrochloric acid and water during a
nitration step. The treatment standard
fbrKOTl nonwastewaters is based on
. the teachability of mercury from this
filter cake. The filtrate contains the
solubilized mercury, which is then
precipitated out as a mercury sulfide
sludge. This aulfide sludge is also
filtered and/or dewatered. The aqueous
residual from this process is classified
as a K071 wastewater and must meet
the treatment standard for mercury in
K071 wastewatera. The sulfide sludge is
classified as .a K071 nonwastewater,
unless the liquids were combined with
other wastewaters from the mercury cell
process prior to treatment. If so, it is a
wastewater treatment residual listed
specifically as K106. The Agency has
data that indicate that this sulfide
sludge (be it K071 or K106) will meet the
treatment standard for K071
nonwastewaters, that was derived from
the teachability of residual mercury in
the leached brine sludge.
One commenter provided data'on a
specialized stabilization process for
K071 brine sludges as they are initially
generated (without acid or water
washing). These data were generated
from bench scale operations. The
Agency has not determined whether this
process has been demonstrated, as yet.
on a full scale basis. The Agency is still
in the process of examining the
stabilization data for K071
nonwastewaters (as a process in lieu of
acid leaching) that was submitted. EPA
will determine if these data demonstrate
sufficient treatment to be proposed as
an alternative to acid leaching. At the
time of this rule. EPA has insufficient
information to establish direct
stabilization as a demonstrated
treatment alternative to the acid
leaching procedure previously
described.
Extensive EP leachate data were
submitted to EPA by three facilities
using only a water washing followed by
a dewatering process. One of the three
facilities supplied TCLP mercury
concentrations for the treated K071. EPA
considered, but did not use, any of these
data points in the development of the
treatment standards because the
analysis of variance tests showed
significantly better treatment was
achieved by the acid leaching
procedure. However, EPA would like to
emphasize that other treatment
technologies such as stabilization or.
water washing are not precluded from
use by today's rule, provided that these
technologies or combination of
technologies can achieve the equivalent
performance as measured by the
treatment standards promulgated as
final in. today's rule.
Several commenters also stated that
EPA wrongly considered the information
indicating that the TCLP is a better
measure of evaluating BOAT
performance than the EP (Extraction
. Procedure). Data were submitted
comparing EP data to TCLP data in both
treated and untreated K071 wastes.
Statistical analyses, performed by EPA.
show that the EP and the TCLP
procedures yield statistically similar
results on the teachability of mercury in
K071 wastes. Based on industry's
willingness to accept a TCLP standard
based on EP data and EPA analysis
indicating a statistical relationship
between the respective extraction
methods for K071 wastes, the Agency
has incorporated the additional EP data
into its calculation of the final treatment
standard for K071 nonwastewaters.
However, the Agency maintains its
position that, in general, the TCLP is a
better measure of evaluating BOAT than
the EP, except where data such as these
exist for tests performed on the same
treated waste.
Several commenters stated that a total
mercury analysis is an inappropriate
measure of performance for K071
nonwastewaters, since the BOAT
treatment system is not designed as a
complete recovery system (i.e., mercury
is not being recovered directly, but
rather it is being converted to
recoverable mercury sulfides). At the
time of the proposal, the Agency was
developing a standard for K106
(wastewater treatment residues that are
primarily mercury sulfides) based on
recovery of the mercury by retorting of
K106 wastes. EPA had determined that
the mercury sulfide residues from
treatment of K071 wastes were either
the listed waste K106 or were similar
enough to K106 wastes that they could
be retorted for mercury recovery. EPA
received extensive comments from
industry opposing the applicability,
demons trability, and economics of
retorting K106. At the same time, EPA
has examined the data on the treatment
of K106 and determined that there was
insufficient data to support the
promulgation of the proposed treatment
standards based on retorting. See
discussion of KlOS wastes in section
HI.A.7.W. of this preamble. Since
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31167
recovery of K071 mercury sulfide
residues was based on the
establishment of retorting as BOAT for
K106 and since the Agency has decided
not to promulgate the standards for K106
at this time, EPA has decided to
promulgate the treatment standard for
K071 nonwastewatera only on the-
analysis of the TCLP leachate and not
on a total mercury analysis. [Note: As
previously stated. EPA prefers to
establish treatment standards based on
total metal analysis only when recovery
is established as BOAT.] However, the
Agency is not precluded from adding
this requirement in the future, if a
treatment standard based on retorting or
some other recovery process is
promulgated for KlOd wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K071
[Nonwastewcten]
Constituent ,
Mercury ,Tr. ........
Maximum for any singto
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
(')
TCLP(mg/lj.
0.025
' Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K071
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Mercury _......._„„...
Maximum fw any single
gratxampte
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.030
TCLP(mg/1)
n-
1 Not applicable.
p. K073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon
waste from the purification step of the
diaphragm eelf process using graphite
anodes in chlorine production. The
BDAT treatment standard of "no land
disposal" for K073 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters was proposed based on
the premise of "no generation". In the
proposed rule, EPA specifically
requested comment on this premise. In
response; several commenters stated
that at least one facility is generating
K073 wastes. Since generation has been
identified, the Agency is not able to
promulgate a final treatment standard of
"no land disposal" for any K073 wastes.
Additional information provided by
one commenter indicates that at least
one facility is incinerating its K073
wastes onsite and that this facility
intends to cease the generation of K073
in the near future. Based on these
comments. EPA now intends to pursue
the development of BDAT treatment
standards for K073. In particular, EPA
will evaluate the performance of
incineration on K073 provided that this
facility intends to continue to generate
K073 past May 8,1990. if this facility
ceases generation and no other
generating facuities:can be identified,
EPA may decide to promulgate the
proposed "no land disposal" treatment
standard prior to May 8,1990. However.
sines no standard is promulgated in
today's rule for K073 wastes, these
wastes are restricted from land disposal
according to the "soft hammer"
provisions. [Note.—-As discussed in
detail in section OLC.3.. EPA is
amending § 268.12 to include
wastewater residues derived from the
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes by
certain processes, as well as leachate
derived from the management of "soft
hammer" wastes and "soft hammer"
waste contaminated groundwater;
thereby moving the aforementioned
types of wastewaters into the group of
wastes identified as the Third Third
Thus, these types of KQ73 wastewaters
are not subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in f 288.30(f). This action
will allow these wastewater residues to
be disposed in nonminimum technology
units and such residues will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of 5 268.8.j
It is also important to note that, until
standards for all K073 wastes are
promulgated, those K073 wastes
containing halogenated organics may
only be land disposed as long as. they do
not exceed a total halogenated organic
concentration of 1000 ppm established in
the July a 1987 promulgated restrictions
for "California List" wastes.
q. KO83—Distillation bottoms from
aniline production. The BDAT treatment
standard of "no land disposal" for K083
wastewaters and nonwastewaters was
proposed based on the performance of a
liquid injection incinerator that
generated no residuals. The K083
nonwastewater examined by EPA,
contained no measurable ash content
(solid residues from incineration) at a
detection limit of 0.01% by weight The
liquid incineration unit that EPA visited,
did not have a vent scrubber or other
'pollution control device and did not
generate any scrubber water. This
information was the basis of the "no
land disposal" standard for K083.
In the proposed rule. EPA specifically
requested comment on the premise of
the "no land disposal!1 standards for
both categories of K033 wastes. In
response, several commenters stated
that they do generate K083
nonwastewaters. with detectable levels
of ash and K083 wastewalers as.
scrubber waters. Since generation of :
these wastes has been identified, the
premises of "no ash" and "no
generation" may be unjustified for all -
K083 wastes.
As a result, the Agency has decided to
promulgate a final rule of "no land
disposal" only for one subcategory of
K083 nonwastewaters. This subcategory
is identified as the No Ash Subcategory
and is defined as those K083
nonwastewaters with less than 0.01% by
weight ash.
The use of other treatment
technologies are not precluded by this
rule. For example, while rotary kiln and
fluidized bed incinerators are generally
designed to handle solids and sludges,
these units often are designed to
incinerate liquids. In any case where
these or other treatment technologies
can treat K083 without generating an
ash or other solid residual, these units
may be used to achieve the "no land
disposal" standard for the K083
nonwastewaters.
EPA does intend to investigate the
comments submitted and, if necessary,
propose and promulgate numerical
treatment standards for K083
nonwastewaters with detectable ash
content and K083 waatewatcrs prior to
May 8,1990. Since no standard is
promulgated in today's rule for these
K083 wastes, they are restricted from
land disposal according to the "soft
hammer" provisions. [Note.—As
discussed in detail in section UI.C.3.,
EPA is amending § 268.12 to include
wastewater residues derived from the
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes by
certain processes, as well as leachate
derived from the management of "soft
hammer" wastes and "soft hammer"
waste contaminated groundwaten
thereby moving the aforementioned
types of wastewaters into the group of
wastes identified as the Third Third.
Thus, these types of K083 wastewaters
are not-subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in § 268.33(f). This action
will allow these wastewater residues to .
be disposed in nonminimum technology
units and such residues.will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of §288.8.]
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
(Nonwastewaters]
[No Ash Subcategory—Less than 0.01%']
NO LAND DISPOSAL BASED ON NO ASH
r. K08S—Solvent washes'and sludges',
caustic-'washes and sludges, or water • •
washes and sludgss from the cleaning of
-------
31168 Federal Register / Vol. 53* No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Reeulations
tubs and equipment used in the . ..
formulation of ink from pigments, driers.
soaps, and stabilizers containing
chromium and lead. In today's rule. EPA
is promulgating final treatment
standards for seventeen organic
constituents and two metal constituents
in wastewaten and nonwastewaten in
the K066 Solvent Wa»hi» Sabcategory.
These are acetone, n-bntyl alcohoC ethyl
acetate, ethyl benzene, methanoL
methyl isotratyl ketone, methyl ethyl -
ketpne, methylene chloride, toluene.
1,1,1,-trichloroethane. b ichloroethylene,
xylenes, bit (Z-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
cyclohexanone, 1,2-dicldorobenzene,
naphthalene, nitrobenzene, total
chromium, and lead. 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 final
treatment standards for the wastewater -
and nonwastewater forma of K088
Solvent Washes are listed in the tables
at the end of this section.
By definition K088 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. For
the purposes of this rule, the K088
Solvent Washes Subcategory is defined
as those K088 wastes which are derived
from procedures which have used any
organic solvents including, but not
limited to. the following: 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
Agency believes that these are the most
typical solvents that become K088
Solvent Washes. While EPA is
specifically identifying these sixteen
solvents in order to clarify the definition
of this subcategory. the Agency
recognizes that other solvents may be
used by generators. In these cases. EPA
has not specifically'developed treatment
standards for that particular unlisted
solvent. While no treatment standard for
that solvent has been developed, the
treatment standards for lead and total
chromium do apply to these K088
Solvent Washes. It is also important to
note that some of these solvents,
including those that are specifically
listed in the definition of the Solvent
Washes Subcategory, are specifically
listed under the solvent waste codes
FOOT. F002. F003. F004 and/or F005. In
such cases, the treatment standards for'
these solvent wastes that were
promulgated November 7,1988, are
already in effect. However, where two
sets of standards exist for a constituent
in a particular waste that has more than
one applicable waste code, the more
stringent standard is applicable for that
constituent For those constituents
where standards are expressed as a
total concentration and a TCLP
concentration, both standards may
apply.
The treatment standards for all of the
organic constituents in the K08S
wastewaters and nonwastewaters are
based on the performance achieved by
incineration. The treatment standards
for total chromium and lead in K086
wastewaters are transferred from a
similar wastewater treated at a facility
previously sampled by the Agency. The
wastewater treatment system included
hexavalent chromium reduction to
convert any hexavalent chromium to the
trivaient state, chemical precipitation
with excess lime to precipitate dissolved
metals as solids, and filtration 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
BOAT, as nonwastewaters. These
residues did not require further
treatment because TCLP leachate
concentrations were not found at
treatable levels. Further details
regarding BOAT development and data
transfer are provided in the Background.
Document for this waste code.
For the purposes of BDAT, any solid
ash residues from the incineration of
nonwastewaters in the K086 Solvent
Washes Subcategory are also classified
as 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.
While EPA has identified incineration
in units with liquid injection as BDAT
for K086 Solvent Washes, other
treatment technologies such as fluidized
bed incineration, multiple hearth
incineration, rotary kiln incineration.
fuel substitution units, batch distillation
and fractional distillation that can
achieve these standards are not
precluded from use by this rule.
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 create an incentive
to simply switch to the use of other
solvents. For this reason, EPA is .
regulating 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 specifically solicited
comments on this transfer of
performance data. Commenters objected
to the transfer of many of these
constituents. However, they did not
provide sufficient data documenting that
the proposed BDAT treatment.standards
are not achievable. EPA specifically
requested that documentation be
provided in order for the Agency to
consider potential changes in the
standards. As a result, today's rule
promulgates final treatment standards
as proposed.
Today's rule is not promulgating final
treatment standards for K086 wastes in
the Solvent Sludges Subcategory or the
Caustic/Water Washes and Sludges
Subcategory. Since no standard is
established, these subcategories of K086
wastes are restricted from land disposal
according to the "soft hammer"
provisions. EPA intends to develop and
propose numerical treatment standards
by May 8,1990. [Note.—As discussed in
detail in section III.C.3., EPA is
amending § 268.12 to include
wastewater residues derived from the
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes by
certain processes, as well as leachate
derived from the management nf "soft
hammer", wastes and "soft hammer"
waste contaminated groundwater;"
thereby moving the aforementioned
types of wastewaters into the group of
wastes identified as the Third Third.
Thus, these types of K086 wastewaters
are not subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in § 268.33(f). This action
will allow these wastewater residues to
be disposed in non-minimum technology
units—although the requirements of
section 3005(j) apply after November 8,
1988—and such residues will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of § 268.8.1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159: / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
31169
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K086
[NonwsstewBtarel ,
: tSdvert Washes Subcatagory]
ConatHmm
Aratnnm ,,. , . „., ..
ivButyl afcohb»_~-__
Cydohexanon* _____
1 .2-DichlofobanzenB ._
Ethyl acatata.______
Ethyi benzene
Methanol „„..._..„___
Methylene chloride:
Methyl ethyl ketorw.__
Methyl isobutyl
ketone ...._„
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzena
Toluene „__„..„__„.„
1.1,1-Trichtoroethane...
Trichloroethylen* ._.__
Xylenes ;
Chromium (total)
Maximum' tor any single
gnbnmpw-
Tout .
(rng/kg)
..•'-;. oar
'sr
A&
.49
3f
.031
.37
.037
.37
.37
.49
.49
.031
.044
.031
..015
O>
* I"
0)
TOP (mg/l).
:;/:0' :,,
0)
C)
0)
0)
0)
ov
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
(*)
0)
0.094
ST
' Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS TOR K086
[Wastewater*]
CSolvom Washes Subcategoryl
Constituent
ArBfnnd,,;,.;,,,,, ,
bis<2-
ethylnaxyOphthalato..
n-8utyi alcohol ._..„_
Cydohexanbne
1.2 Dichtorobenzene—
Ethyl acetate'.
Ethyl benzene ._„..___.
Methanol __.
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketona
Methyl isobutyl
ketone «».._««_.„
Naphthalene _.
Nitroben2ena..».____
Toluene »..........___
1.1,1 -Trichloroetharw ._
Trichtoroethyfene
Xylenes .-«..»»...w.w»_
Chromiuin (total)
I atVl , in ,,,,i
Maximum for any singta
grab sample
Tots)
competition
)
. * t
(')
0)
0)
0)
C1)
<«)
C)
1 Not applicable.
s. K037—Decanter tank tar sludge
from coking operations. In today's rule,
EPA is promulgating final treatment
standards for nine organic constituents
and one metal constituent in K087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
These are acenaphthalene, benzene,
chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno (1,2,3-cd)
pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
toluene, xylenes, and lead. 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 foraM wastes
identified as wastewaters. The final
treatment standards for K087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters are
listed in the tables at the end of this
section. -.
The treatment standards for all of the
organic constituents in the K087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters are
based on the performance achieved by
incineration in a rotary kiln. The
treatment standards for lead in K087
wastewaters are transferred from a
similar wastewater treated at a facility
previously sampled by the Agency. The
wastewater treatment system included
hexavalent chromium reduction to
convert any hexavalent chromium to the
bivalent state, chemical precipitation
with excess lime to precipitate dissolved
metals as solids, and filtration 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
BOAT, as nonwastewaters. Further
application of a stabilization process to
these solids may be necessary in order
to conform with the BOAT treatment •
standards for K087 nonwastewaters.
Further details regarding BOAT
development and data transfer are
provided in the Background Document
for this waste code.
Several commenters stated that EPA
should not regulate acenaphthalene,
phenanthrene, xyienes or zinc because
they are not constituents specifically
listed on Appendix VII or Appendix VIII
of 40 GFR Part 261. The Agency does not
totally agree, in that coal tars, zinc
cyanide and zinc phosphide are listed
on Appendix VIII. One of the reasons
that EPA considers coal tars hazardous
is the presence of significant
concentrations of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons such as acenaphthalene '
and phenanthrene. Xylenes have also
been identified in abundance in coal
tars. Further, zinc is an aquatic toxin, ,
and the Agency considered adding it to-
Appendix VIII for that reason. However,
in this rulemaking the Agency is only
regulating zinc when it is an indicator of
performance of treatment for other
Appendix VIII constituents. Further, the
Agency believes that zinc is controlled
by treatment of lead, which is regulated
by today's rule. Therefore, EPA is not
promulgating, final standards for zinc as
part of the treatment standards for K087
wastes, but is promulgating final
standards for acenaphthalene,
phenanthrene and xylenes.
For the purposes of BOAT, any solid
ash residues from the incineration of
K087 nonwastewaters are also classified
as nonwastewaters. Scrubber waters
from air pollution control devices are
classified as wastewaters. Both of these
residues must meet the treatment
standards for the K087 prior to
placement in land disposal units.
While EPA has identified incineration
in a rotary kiln as BDAT for K087
nonwastewaters, other treatment
technologies such as fiuidized bed
incineration, multiple hearth
incineration, rotary kiln incineration,
and various fuel substitution units that
can'achieve these standards are not
precluded from use by this rule.
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 At this time,
however, EPA has not completed its
analysis of data submitted for purposes
of defining which K087 materials can be
beneficially recycled. Industry
commenters likewise agreed that not
every K087 waste is amenable to
recycling (although suggesting that most
K087 as generated is recyclable).
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K087
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene .
Ruoranthene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)
pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Toluene ....._.«.„.....»...
Xylenes
Lead
Maximum lor any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(rng/kg)
3.4
0.071
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.65
0.070
C)
TCLP (mg/l)
0.51
> Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K087
CWastewaters]
Constituent
Acenaphthalene
Benzene
Chrysene '.. . ..
Fluoranthene
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.028
.014
.028
.023
TCLP (mg/l)
C) :
C)
C)
(M
-------
313.70' Federal Register / VoL S3. No. 139 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rnles and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS foa
K087—Continued
[WaitBwatorsl
•Comdkjwit
bxfcno (1A3-cd)
PtK
TokMTM.
'Mcdiiiuii for siy jiiiyta
llbtal
S28
:WB
JMB;
.014
.057
33*333
t K099—Untreated wastewaterfram
the production of 2,4-
dicMorophenoxyaceticacid.(2,4-D),
Today'* ruk promulgates final treatment
standards for K099 wattewaters and
nonwastewaters.Thesie standards an
based on chemical oxidation using
chlorine. This treatment system shows
substantial treatment for 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acfd (2,4-DJ.The
treatment standards For wastes
identified as KD99 are listed in the tables
at the end of this section.
Other treatment technologies that the
Agency believes are applicable are
chemical oxidation using other
oxidizers, 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.
These and any-other technology that can
achieve these standards are not
precluded from use by 'this rule.
For wastes and treatment residues
identified as K099 norrwastewaterstrr
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
treatment standards foir seven organic
constituents. These are 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and six
chlorinated dioxins and chlorinated
dibenzofurans. The 1 ppb analytical
quantitation limit for these constituents
described in the final rule for dioxm
containing wastes (51FR 40643) is also
used here. This level represents the
analytical limit of quantitation that can
be routinely achieved.
EPA specifically requested 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 die concentration of
some of the chlorinated dioxins and
dibenzofarans {afl values below the
routine qtrantiten'on limit of 1 part per
billion) from Idle untreated waste to the
treated waidtrak. At This time, EPA is
not certain that this Implies that the
chlorine-oxidation process is.
responsible For this aBght increase. The
Agency specifically requested comments
and data drat would indicate the
existence trfan alternative treaunBUt
technology that could achieve the same
perfomrsnce ior ute 2,^
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K099
CWastewaters]
dichloropnenoxyacetic acid without an
increase in the chlorinated dioxins and
dibenzofurans. Because no comments
were received on alternative treatment
technologies, EPA assumes that the
commenters agree withEPA'a
assessment that chlorine oxidation
represents BOAT for K099 wastes.
The Agaacy received a late comment
that included additional data OB the
performance of cUocine oxidation -on
K099 wntes. 7b» data. «famg with the
data origuaHy presented is the JC099
backgnmiMl dbcnaent for the proposed
rule, was Teexamined by the Agency.
These additional data indicated that the
. proposed treatment standard for 2.4-
dichlorophencwyacetic acidoonld not be
achieved -
HexactilorodibBnzo*
furan* , , M1 ,
Pennchkxadiboran-
PrffiOlrin*. .......,..,,
Pentachlorodibenzo-
furans
TeUachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxifl* ____._....„.„„
Tetrachkxodiberco-
fufans , ,
Maximum for any tingto
grabsampia
Total
composition
(ma/Kg)
1.0
..001
' .001
.001
.001
.001
..001
TCLP (mg/l)
o
(')
(')
(')
c>
(')
Constituent
2.4- '
Dichloroph«r>oxya-
cslic acid
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins .~....... !,,»..
HexachtoiodibenzD-
furmns ......_._.„__...
Penticftlorodibenzo-
prffinvin*
Perrtacrilorodlbenzo-
fmns ...„....„._„.
Tetnchlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins .»...». ......
Tetraehlorodibenzo-
fuuns , r L _
Maximum for any single
grab sampto
Total
composition
(mg/l)
1.0
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
TOP (mg/l)
n
o
(•)
o
(•)•
o
n
1 Not applicable.
> Not applicable
u. K101—Distillation tar residues
from the distillation of aniline-based •
compounds in the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.
KI02—Residue from the use of activated
carbon for tfecobrization in the
production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organo-arsenfc compounds. In today's
rule, EPA is promulgating final treatment
standards for K101 and K102
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
These include ortho-nitroaniline in K101
wastes and ortho-nitrophenol in K102
wastes as well as arsenic, cadmium,
total chromium, lead, mercury and
nickel. The final treatment standards for
these wastes-are listed in the tables at
the«nd of this section.
The BDAT treatment standards for
K101 and K102 nonwastewaters were
proposed based on information supplied
to the Agency that indicated that
untreated KlOl and K102 wastes contain
590 ppm to 0^3% of arsenic. In a late
comment to the proposed rule, one
commenter provided information that
they generate KlOl and K102
nonwastewaters that contain
significantly higher concentrations of
arsenic (up to 26.9% total arsenic). The
commenter also stated that incineration
of their wastes poses a significant
increase in risk due to these high
concentrations of arsenic. The Agency
agrees with the commenter that these
KlOl and K102 wastes contain a
significantly higher concentration of
arsenic compared to those wastes
studied by the Agency (i.e., the wastes
that were used to develop the treatment
standards). The Agency also agrees that
direct incineration of organic wastes
containing very high levels of arsenic.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31171
such as the K101 and K102 wastes
generated by the commenter. poses a
significant increase in risk to human
health and the environment As a result
the Agency is therefore, unable to
promulgate the proposed treatment
standards as final for K101 and K102
wastes with high arsenic concentrations.
For the purpose of today's rule, the
Agency is therefore establishing a High
Arsenic Subcategory and a Low Arsenic
Subcategory for K101 and K102
nonwastewaters. The High Arsenic
Subcategory is defined as those K101
and K102 wastes that contain greater
than or equal to 1% total arsenic. The
Low Arsenic Subcategory is defined as
those K101 and K102 wastes that
contains less than 1% total arsenic. This
level was established based primarily
on the concentration of arsenic (0.83%)
measured in the waste tested by EPA. A
complete explanation of how this level
was determined can be found in the
background document for this waste.
'EPA intends to. propose and promulgate
numerical treatment standards for K101
and K102 wastes in the High Arsenic
Subcategory prior to May 8,1990. Since
no standard is promulgated in today's
rule for K101 and K102 nonwastewaters
in this subcategory, they are restricted
from land disposal according to the "soft
hammer" provisions.
Potential technologies applicable to
organic wastes containing high
concentrations of arsenic, such as KlOl
and K102 wastes in the High Arsenic
Subcategory. are chemical oxidation or
wet air oxidation. These technologies
destroy interfering organics and convert
the organic arsenicals to inorganic forms
of arsenic. The inorganic forms of
arsenic may then be amenable for direct
recovery or may be immobilized by
specialized stabilization techniques.
The treatment standards for the
.organic constituents in K101 and K102
nonwastewaters in the Low Arsenic
Subcategory are based on the
performance achieved by incineration in
a rotary kiln. The treatment standards
for the metals are transferred from
wastewater metals treatment data for
similar wastes that have been
previously developed by the Agency.
The 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
BOAT, 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. Further
details regarding BDAT development
and data transfer are provided in the'
Background Document for this waste
code.
For the purposes of BDAT, any solid
ash residues from the incineration of
KlOl and K102 nonwastewaters in the
Low Arsenic Subcategory are also
classified as nonwastewaters. Scrubber
waters from air pollution control devices
are classified as wastewaters. Both of
these residues must meet the treatment
standards prior to placement in land
disposal units.
While EPA has identified incineration
in a rotary kiln as BDAT for KlOl and
K102 nonwastewaters in the Low
Arsenic Subcategory, other treatment
technologies such as fluidized bed
incineration, multiple hearth
incineration, and rotary kiln incineration
that can achieve these standards are not
precluded from use by this rule.
For wastes identified as KlOl and
K102 nonwastewaters in the Low
Arsenic Subcategory, EPA is regulating
two specific organic constituents that
are not included on the BDAT List but
have been selected as indicators of
effective treatment of these wastes. A
standard for ortho-ni troaniline is
promulgated for KlOl and a standard for
ortho-nitrophenol is promulgated for
K102.
Several commenters slated that EPA
should not regulate copper or zinc
because it is not a constituent
specifically listed on Appendix VIII of
40 CFR Part 281. The Agency does not
totally agree, but is not adopting a
standard for reasons stated in previous
sections of this preamble for F006
wastes.
At the time of this rule, the Agency
had not completed its evaluation of
waste characterization and treatment
information for antimony, arsenic and
barium in KlOl and K102
nonwastewaters from the Low Arsenic
Subcategory or antimony in any KlOl
and K102 wastewaters. The proposed
rule contained the notation "reserved"
for these constituents, noting that EPA
would be setting standards when the
evaluation was completed. Several
commenters suggested that a treatment
standard of "reserved" was confusing to
the regulated community and
unnecessary. Since individual standards
would still have to be proposed and
promulgated through the normal
rulemaking procedures, no benefit is
achieved by the "reserved" notation for
these constituents. Therefore, the
Agency has dropped it from the final
rule for the individual constituents noted
above.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K101
CNonwastewaters]
[Low Arsenic Subcategory—less than 1% total
r arsencl
Constituent
Ortho-nrtroanilina
Cadmium .«.«. _.«.»».
Chromium (total)
Lead _
Nickel
Maximum for any single
• grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
14
(')
(')
(')
<')
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
0.066
5.2
.51
.32
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K101
CWastewaters]
Constituent
Ortho-nitroaniline ,.
Arsenic
Cadmium „..„
Lead . .
Mercury ..._ ;
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.27
2.0
.24
.11
.027
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K102
[Nonwastewaters]
[Low Arsenic Subcategory—less than 1% total
arsenic]
Constituent
Ortho-nitrophenol
Cadmium -..
Chromium (total)...
Lead
Nickel _
Maximum for any single
grata sample
Total .
composition
(mg/kg)
13
(')
(')
(')
(')
TCLP (mg/l)
(')
0.066
5.2
.51
.32
1 Not applicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K102
[Wastewaters])
Constituent
Ortho-nitrophenol
Arsenic .
Lead
Mercury „.
• Maximum for any single
grab sample
TotaJ
composition
(mg/l)
0.023
2.0
.24
.11
.027
TCLP (mg/l)
')
')
')
')
')
1 Not applicable.
v. K103-—Process residues from
aniline extraction from the production
of aniline. K104—Combined wastewater
-------
31172 Federal Riigister / Vol. 53, No, 159 / Wednesday, August 17, I988-/ Rales and Regulations
streams generated from nitrobenzene/
aniline production. In today's rule, EPA
is promulgating final treatment
standard! for K1Q3 and K104
wastewaters and nonv/aste waters.
These Include total concentration •
standard* For aniline, lienzene, 2,1
dlnitrophenol, nitrobenzene and phenol
lor botkJCUB.oxulXiai wastes. Final
treatment standards for total cyanides
are promulgated only 3 orKlO*
wotewaters and nonwastewateis^Taa
Hmd treatment .standards fur LLeaa .
wastes are listed in thci tables at the and
of this section.
The treatment standards for the
organic constituents in K103 and K104
wastewaters and nonwastewateraara .
based on the performance achieved by
solvent extraction followed by steam
j and activated! carbon
adsorption with incineration of the
solvent stream from -ex traction. Other
treatment technologies such as steam
stripping followed by activated carbon
adsorption, Bnd alcoui 5 Lipping .
followed by biological treatment are not.
precluded from use by this rule.
The solvent-containing •stream from
solvent extraction potentially can be •
recycled to recover nitrobenzene gnH
aniline, or incinerated. The steam
stripper overheads are condensed and
decanted with the organic constituent*
recycled back to the process. The spent
carbon from the activated carbon
adsorption column is rant off-site for
thermal regeneration. While the
icciaenUca-compcnent of this
technology ft not demonstrated for K103
and K104, available information shows N
that it is demonstrated on wastes similar
to the contaminated solvent stream .from
extraction.
Because the solvent-contaminated
stream potentially contains a significant
amount of an explosive compound
(picric acid), EPA expressed •concent in
the proposed rule that it may not be , •
possible to safely use incineration. One
commenter stated their belief that
incineration could present significant
safety hazards due to the presence of a
significant amount of .this explosive
compound. The commenter stated that
although It is possible that picric add in
aoUtiomn^y mot .present an explosion
hazard, crystals of picric acid may be
formed during upsets axid malfunctions
imhe treatment system. The commenter
pointed out .that the crystals may .
accumulate over time even though the
conditions for formation may not always
be present and unless wetted with water
will be shock sensitive and could
explode with considerable force. Thus.
the commenter believes! that
incineration is not -a viable technology
for the K104 wasteatream because of
this potential for explosion. .
EPA agrees that there is a potential
for explosion if the combustion of'these
wastes is not properly controlled.
However, incineration of these types
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31173
theory; the 233 value can be used in die
99th percentile calculation for any
number of data points, provided the
mean and standard deviation are known
(i.e., that additional data points will not
increase these values}. It is EPA's
position (supported, in general* by-
available data) that as the number of
data points increase, the mean and
standard deviation will most frequently
decrease* Therefore.. EPA believes dial
the use of the £33 multiplier is
appropriate. As evidence to this
determination. EPA points to the
variability factors currently developed
for the constituents in K103 and K104.
These factors are in the range of
approximately 1.8 to ISA, which
substantially exceeds the variability
seen in treatment of wastewatera with a
much larger number of data points*
Additionally, an engineering analysis
of well-designed and well-operated -
treatment systems would, in general.
predict mat both die-average level of
performance and variability would •
decrease with larger data bases. While
well designed and well operated •
treatment systems do experience
fluctuations hi performance, these
fluctuations are normally cyclical
reflecting the fact that an inherent part
of most treatment system control
devices is that they continuously
undercompensata and overcompensate
for a desired control parameter. As the
data base for such cyclical changes
increases, the standard deviation would
decrease because the range of values
would be essentially the same, while the
number of data points would be greater.
As a final point in response to this
comment the commenter also
recognizes that the multiplier they
suggest may be inappropriate because it
yields results which "might simply be
too high." [Additional discussion can be
found in the Agency's Response to
Comments document] •
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K103
tNonwaatewater*]
ConsStuent
Aniliiu^
Benzene™.....™.....™.
2,4-Dtnitropheool.
Nitrobenzene ™.wnm
Phenol ™
Maximum for any singto
grabsmpte
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
S.S
6.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
TCU>(mg/l)
')
')
')
')
')
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K103
(Wastewatera]
- Coootauenl
AnMn» *
? 44DfnHraptwnof
Maximum for any single
' gcabsampJft
ToW
(mp/l>
45'
.15-
jBI
.073
1A
TCLP(mg/1)
w
C>
<«)
('»
(')
(')
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K104
(NCfKMWMMtWSl
Consflluent
*«""•-,-.,„,.,.„., ........
Bwmne
2.4*OlnMii ipl mml
M*oh«iit(n^
Dhfnfrf
Cyanide (Tb«aJ>___
Mocbnure lor wiy •m^to
gnbsampi*
Total
composition
(ma/O
4.5
0.1S
. 0.81
0.073
1.4
2.7
TCLP(mg/t)
(•»
(')
0>
(')
<«>
(')
1 Not applicable.
'Notappfcabte.
w. K1Q6— Wastewatertreatment
sludges from the mercury ceil process in
chlorine production. On May 17,1988,
EPA proposed BDAT treatment
standards for K106 nonwastewaters
based on the performance of a thermal
recovery (retorting) unit However, the
retorting process has been- demonstrated
chiefly on ores consisting primarily of
mercury aulfideo. In the proposed rule,
the Agency stated that these ores are
believed to have chemical and physical
characteristics similar to K106
nonwastewaters. EPA received
extensive comments from industry
opposing the applicability,
demonstrability, and economics of
retorting K106 nonwastewaters. At the
same time, EPA has examined the data
that it has on the treatment of K108 and
similar wastes and determined that
there was insufficient data to support
the promulgation of the proposed
treatment standards for K106.
The Agency has data points from a
literature source on the treatment of
K106 nonwastewaters combined with
K071 nonwastewaters using dewatering
followed by retorting; Since the source
reports that K108 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. The Agency has additional
data from the treatment of a different
K10B nonwastewater using retorting.
However, this K108 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 K10S
nonwastewaters because nineteen of the
twenty facilities generating K106
currently generate it as a mercury
sulfide sludge or residual. The Agency
also has data from EPA testing on
treatment of K106 nonwastewaters by
stabilization. Data collected during
these tests show that, while these
technologies were properly operated,
the data indicated that no significant
reduction in teachability was achieved
and in some cases, the teachability was
increased.
Based on review of the sufficiency of
the available data and on the comments
received, the Agency has decided not to
promulgate final BDAT treatment
standards for K106 nonwastewaters in
today's rule. Until sufficient treatment
performance data can be obtained that.
verify that these technologies can
provide significant treatment for K106
wastes, the Agency does not believe
that it can promulgate treatment •
standards based on either of these
technologies. It is important to point out
that the Agency is not precluding the use
of retorting or solidification for these
wastes and that these technologies may.
prove to be BDAT for these wastes. EPA
does intend to propose and promulgate
numerical treatment standards for these
wastes prior to May 8,19SO. Since no
standard is promulgated in today's rule.
K106 wastes are restricted from land
disposal according to the "soft hammer"
provisions described in other sections of
this preamble. [Note.—As discussed in
detail in section III.C.3., EPA is
amending § 268.12 to include
wastewater residues derived from the
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes by
certain processes, as well as leachate
derived from the management of "soft
hammer" wastes and "soft hammer"
-------
31174 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
waste contaminated grouiidwater.
Thereby, moving the aforementioned
types of wastewaters into the group of
wastes identified as the Third Third.
Thus, these types of K106 wastewaters
are not subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in § 28&33 (fj. This action
will allow these wastewater residues to
be disposed in nonminimtim technology
units and such residue* will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of § 28&a]
The Agency has information on other
technologies that have beim identified
as potentially applicable to K106 wastes.
In particular, a secondary mercury
recovery facility has been recently
identified as treating K106 wastes by an
unidentified process. Another facility
that uses hydrazine to treat their
wastewaters and generates K106 as a
mercury hydroxide rather than a
mercuric sulfide. subsequently retorts
the K108 waste, to recover mercury prior
to land disposal of a residual.
It is possible that because the sulfide
precipitate is one of the least soluble
forms of mercury salts, that no further
treatment is required of K106
nonwastewaters. Since K108 already is
a treatment residual from treating K071
and other mercury contaminated
wastewaters, this result would be
permissible under RCRA.
Other alternatives involve changing
the process of generation of the
wastewater treatment residuals from the
use of sulfide to the use oil hydrazine
with lime precipitation to facilitate
recovery of the mercury from K106 as a
hydroxide residue. However, this would
require authority under RCRA to
regulate industrial process changes to
facilitate changes in the composition of
listed hazardous wastes. This authority
does not currently exist.
x. K004—Wastewater treatment
sludge from the production of zinc
yellow pigments. K003—Oven res/due
from the production of chrome oxide
green pigments. K021—Aqueous spent
antimony catalyst waste from
fluoromethanes production. K025-—
Distillation bottoms from the production
of nitrobenzene by the nitration of
benzene. JK038—Still bottoms from
toluene reclamation distillation in the
production ofDisulfoton K060—
Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operations. KlOO—Waste leaching
solution from acid leaching of emission ,
control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting. The BOAT treatment standard
of "no land disposal" for K004, K008,
K021, K02S, K038, K060 and KlOO
wastewaters and nonwastewaters was
proposed based on the premise of "no
generation". In the proponed rule, EPA
specifically requested comment on
current and potential sources of
generation of these wastes as either
wastewaters or nonwastewaters. While
the Agency has received no specific
comments that indicated any current
generation of nonwastewater forms of
these wastes as specifically listed,
several commenters stated that.this rule
would preclude them from generation of
these wastes.
In particular, commenters indicated
that K060 ia no longer generated
because sodium hydroxide is used as a
reagent rather than ammonia. Thus.
K060 is not generated as listed. They
stated that they may be forced to switch
to ammonia due to an anticipated
shortage in the supply of sodium
hydroxide, and would thus begin to
generate K060 as listed. A commenter
also indicated that his facility was
generating K060, as listed, but claims
that he is reusing the K060 as a chemical
substitute. One commenter claimed that
although his facility is currently not
generating K060 due to a cessation in
production, but they may decide to
resume production in the future. •
The Agency cannot anticipate shifts in
generation due to fluctuating reagent
market conditions and therefore, has to
disagree with these commenters: The
Agency points out that this rule does not
preclude generation of these wastes, but
rather restricts the placement of these
wastes in land disposal units. It is also
important to point out that this is one of
premises behind the EPA's
establishment of petition processes for
obtaining a variance from the treatment
standard.
In the proposed rule. EPA recognized
the possibility that wastewater forms of
these wastes could be generated at a
CERCLA site, during a corrective action
at a RCRA facility, or as a leachate from
a landfill. The Agency, therefore, also
proposed a "treatment standard" for
these wastewaters of "no land
disposal". By establishing this standard,
a facility that generated and needed to
treat a wastewater. could submit a
petition to the Agency for a variance
from this treatment standard. The
Agency believed that few, if any,
petitions for a variance would be
submitted because facilities generally
discharge these wastewaters to a POTW
'or surface water under a NPDES permit
However, comments from several
facilities that have land disposal units
that contain previously disposed K004,
K008, K021, K02S. K036. K060, and KlOO
nonwastewaters, stated that if leachate
from these wastes are identified with
their respective waste codes, then the
leachate would be considered
wastewaler forms and the "no land
disposal" standard based on "no
generation" would not be justified. They
also stated that elimination of land
disposal of these wastewaters is not
feasible and that numerical treatment
standards should be promulgated.
The Agency agrees that this
generation of wastewater could be
significant, in that these wastes have
been land disposed and do exist in
many land disposal units. Therefore, the
Agency has decided to promulgate a
final BOAT treatment standard of "no
land disposal" for only the
nonwastewater forms of K004, K008,
K021. K025, K036. K060, and KlOO
nonwastewaters. EPA does intend to
propose and promulgate numerical
treatment standards for the wastewater
forms of these wastes prior to May 8,
1990. Since no standard is promulgated
in today's rule for .the wastewater forms
of K004, K008, K021. K036. and K060, this
subgroup of wastes is restricted from
land disposal according to the "soft
hammer" provisions. Because K02S and
KlOO are wastes from the Second Third
and Third Third, respectively, these
provisions are not applicable to the
wastewater forms of K025 until June 8,
1989 and the wastewater forms of KlOO
until May 8,1990 (unless individual
numerical treatment standards are
proposed and promulgated prior to those
dates). [Note: As discussed in detail in
section III.C.3., EPA is amending
§ 268.12 to include wastewater residues
derived from the treatment of "soft
hammer" wastes by certain processes,
as well as leachate derived from the
management of "soft hammer" wastes
and "soft hammer" waste contaminated
groundwater, thereby moving the
aforementioned types of wastewaters
into the group of wastes identified as the
Third Third. Thus, these types of K004,
K008. K021. K038, and K060 wastewaters
are not subject to the "soft hammer"
prohibitions in § 268.33(f). This action
will allow these wastewater residues to
be disposed in nonminimum technology
units and such residues will not be
subject to the certification requirements
of S 268.8.]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K004, K008, K021, K025, K036, K060,
AND K100
[Nonwastewaters]
NO LAND DISPOSAL BASED ON NO
GENERATION
8. Appropriate Technologies for Certain
First Third Wastes for Which EPA Has
Not Promulgated Treatment Standards
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 A Wednesday,- August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 3117g
For the First Third Wastes identified;
in the tables at the end of this section,
today's role promulgates no specific
BOAT treatment standards. RCRA
section 3004(g}(6) (42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(6))
provides that if EPA fails to set
treatment standard* far any hazardous
waste included in the schedule - . .
promulgated on May 28* 1988 (51FR
19300) by the statutory deadline, such
waste may be land disposed, ina landfill
or surface nnpiHindrrtfT1^ «mly.if ifro ^„,
facility meets certain statutory
requirements and only until May 8,1990.
These requirements have been termed
the "soft hammer" provisions.
EPA has identified several treatment
technologies that are generally
considered appropriate for the
nonwastewater forms of the First Third
Wastes. These technologies include:
metal recovery. leaching/oxidation.
metals stabilization, ash stabilization.
chemical oxidation, cyanide destruction,
biodegradation, incineration, PCB
incineration, and open detonation/open
burning. Treatment technologies
generally considered appropriate for the
waslewater forms of the First Third
Wastes include: aqueous metal .
recovery, chromium reduction, metals
precipitation, steam stripping, carbon
adsorption, oxidation/reduction,
chemical oxidation, cyanide destruction.
biodegradation, incineration, and PCB
incineration. As discussed in detail in
section UI.C3., EPA is amending
§ 268.12 to include wastewater residues
derived from the treatment of "soft
hammer" wastes by certain processes,
as well as leachate derived from the
management of "soft hammer" wastes
and "soft hammer" waste contaminated
groundwater. This action will allow
these wastewater residues to be
disposed in nonminimum technology
units and such residues will not be
Subject'to the certification requirements
ofjzeaa, - -
•- The technologies are listed as general
categories of technologies that EPA
believes have a reasonable probability
of application to the waste cedes listed;
-These categories do not specify any
particular type of- technology (e.g..
incineration can represent liquid
incinerators, rotary kiln, fluidized bed
incinerators, etc.). The actual choice of a
particular technology or even train of
technologies depends on the physical
and chemical characteristics of the
specific waste or waste code. Specific
selection of one technology depends on
its functional design (e.g.. if a particular
'nonwastewater is an organic liquid, then
a liquid incinerator may be chosen over
one designed to handle only solids).
EPA notes that many of these wastes,
when existing as untreated wastes, are
already prohibited from land disposal
because they are California last wastes.
The liquid cyanide wastes, for example,
could exceed the statutory prohibition
levels for cyanide. Several of the organic
hazardous wastes undoubtedly exceed
the statutory levels for wastes
containing halogenated organics (HOC
wastes) and are thus subject to the HOC
treatment standard (after the effective
date). For further discussion of the
relationship of the California list
prohibitions to "soft hammer" wastes
refer to section IILE.1.
The following tables are presented as
an aid to generators seeking appropriate
technologies to treat "soft hammer" F-
and K-listed wastes. [For a discussion of
the-treatment requirements for "soft
hammer" wastes refer to section III.C.j .
' Several technologies are listed for each
• waste code, in descending order of-
preference. EPA notes that certain
technologies are only appropriate for'
certain constituent types (i.e., cyanide.
destruction is appropriate for cyanide.
not to metals or organics) and that more
than one treatment technology may be
required (if practically available) to
treat the different constituents of
concern in the waste. Thus, an F007
nonwastewater could require both
cyanide destruction and metals recovery
or stabilization prior to land disposal in
a landfill or surface impoundment. Also,
while one treatment process may
generally satisfy the treatment
requirements for "soft hammer" waste,
the Agency recognizes that treatment
trains (i.e., a combination of different
treatment processes) may be
appropriate for certain "soft hammer"
wastes. For example, K022 wastewaters
may require treatment by several of the
technologies listed.
The Agency emphasizes that these
tables are not to be considered as strict
treatment guidelines. In general,
however, EPA will use these tables in
evaluating the demonstrations and
certifications (see section I1I.C.3.)
received for these wastes and is
providing this information to aid the
generator in determining the best
practically available technology (if any)
for treating his waste in compliance
with-§ 268.8.
APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD NONWASTEWATERS
RCRA waste code
POO? „ ; ..."....
POOA ... ,. . .. .,...,.. , ',
Fonn , „., . , , ,. „ _._
F019 .
K011
"ma ______ _ • •
K014
K017 .'.
K073
K031-
K084
K101 and K102/high arsenic .
K046/expios(ve. .
K069/CaSO4 _„_ _ .'.._
K08S
Potential California list applicability
Cy«nf49«
Metals
Cysnkteu . .
H**x»n*terf anirvt
"*™^JH"* ™ " '"" ' -'"••'—'•»•"<•
Lead
Lead
Halogenated organics and RGB's :
Primary applicable treatment
technologies
Metals Stabilization
Ash stabilization.
Ash stabilization.
Metals stabilization.
Oxidation of explosive.
Incineration.
Metals stabilization.
Metals stabilization.
PCS incineration.
-------
31176 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. .159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules, and Regulations
APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD NONWASTEWATERS—Continued
- RCRA waste coda
Koas- - '
«««
KIMI
= -• • .
Potential California list applicability-
Primary applicable treatment ••
technologies
Biodegradation.
Ash stabilization.
Wet air oxidation.
Biodegradation.
Ash stabilization.
MAtafet «fahilt7Atkvt
APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD WASTEWATERS
R(2nA wttte cocto
F008. . . , . .
P007 . ... i|f
Pooa t , -•"""; •"""-"- - - -
F009 -
FOtft ... .
K«U ' " "-
KOOft
KM1/.1 ... - , ,
K011 ;
K013 '
KOH ,_,, . , . • ' "" ' "
Koir
K031
K073
K022 „ i
K03S. _ _.... , ~
KOM, tiiiij __
K083 .
KOBO " ' ~ ~'~
K031 ""
K(M6/non8xptosve.
K060/.1I ,.,. " """
K084 ._..... " "
KIM _...,, , •— "
K(US/axpl«lu^. .., ..., „ „ J
KM5
K080 sohr. skxig*3 ctutt. «nter_M „
Potential Catifomia list applicability
Metais
„ ,„ „
r II^UIIIIll IIIJ11.II,,,,TI1 1IT1IJ1IIJI111II.XI IOIIIIIIII11JJ1141J1...1
° JHiiliiii.iiniJii Jiiimi-iiiiiiiiii.ii.a.i 1
• • 1 III! 41. Jl 1.1 ,J .1 ...
'
fc
Lead.. «
HalogefUitod Organics and/of
Metals «
Primary applicable treatment
technotogies
0* i^kX^wUn «*i«
e» »^- •
Biodegradation.
Metals precipitation.
Biodegradation.
Carbon adsorption.
Carbon adsorption.
Metals precipitation.
9. Burning in Industrial Boilers and .
Industrial Furnaces as BOAT for Certain
California List HOCs
In the May 17 proposal, EPA proposed
to amend the § 2B8.42(a)(2) treatment
standard (i.e.. incineration;) applicable to
certain California list HOCs to include
burning in industrial boilers and
furnaces (53 PR 17604). This approach
was based on an earlier May 6.1987
proposed rule on boilers and industrial
furnaces bulling hazardous waste (52
FR17021) and was reproposed in the
May 17 proposal because the change in
the HOC treatment standard will
precede the boiler and industrial furnace
rule (which is scheduled for
promulgation in 1989) which will
establish final permitting and interim
status standards for emissions from
these devices. The Agency is prepared
to accept this discrepancy in timing of
the boilers and furnaces rule 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
furnaces have a commercial purpose
which requires relatively efficient
burning (see § 260.10 definitions of
"boiler" and "industrial furnace"). 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 (see § 266.31(b)).
While many commenters agreed with
the Agency's proposal, EPA received
several comments opposed to this
approach, stating that the amendment to
the HOC treatment standard should be
delayed until the industrial boilers and
furnaces emissions standards are
effective. However, the Agency
maintains that the reasoning presented
in the May 17 proposal is valid and is
promulgating the proposed amendment
to § 268.42(a)(2). Today's rule will allow
industrial boilers and furnaces burning
in accordance with applicable
regulatory standards to burn California
list HOCs. When Part 266 standards
become effective for these devices, the
devices thus must meet these standards.
.Until then, these devices must .meet
other applicable Federal;.State and local
standards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
B. Testing and Recordkeeping
1. Waste Analysis
With the exception of the "no land
disposal" standard (as discussed in
section HI. A. a), the treatment
standards established in today's action
are based on either {1} the concentration
levels of the hazardous constituents in
the waste or treatment residual, (2)
concentration levels in an extract
developed by use of the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure ;
(TCLP), or (3} concentration levels using.
both total constituent concentrations.
and TCLP analyses. Expressing
treatment standards as constituent
concentration levels reflects the
performance achieved by the technology
(or combination of technologies)
identified as the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT).
In the April 8.1988 and May 17,1988
• proposed rulemakings. the Agency
discussed the rationale for determining
the analytical tests that EPA believes
provide the most accurate measure of
the performance of the technologies
. identified as BOAT. Generally, wastes
for which destruction and/or removal
technologies are BOAT (specifically,
technologies that act to destroy organic
constituents and recovery processes that
reduce the metal concentration in a
waste) would require a total constituent
concentration analysis. Conversely,
wastes for which stabilization or
fixation technologies (i.e., technologies
that decrease waste constituent
mobility) are identified as BDAT, would
require a TCLP extract analysis. EPA
also used the TCLP as a measure of
performance of metal recovery
technologies on the basis that the
teachability of metals remaining in the
residual should also be analyzed as a
measure of performance. In cases where
a combination of both destruction or
removal technologies and stabilization
or fixation technologies are identified as
BDAT, both analyses were employed to
monitor compliance with the treatment
standards. EPA solicited comment on
this approach.
Many of the commenters generally
argued that the proposed waste analysis
requirements were inappropriate for use
or too restrictive. Several commenters
argued that the use of total constituent
analysis is unnecessarily stringent, is
beyond levels needed to protect human '
health and the environment, and does
not provide generators with flexibility in
determining how best to meet the
treatment standards. Some commenters
asserted that where treatment standards
are based on total constituent analysis,
the development of innovative
technologies and the application of
- existing technologies intended to .reduce
mobility will be discouraged. Other
commenters expressed concern with the
additional cost of the waste analysis
requirements, particularly in cases
where both testing methods must be
used. Concerns with respect to the
applicability of the analytical tests to
complex mixtures of wastes were also
expressed. Some commentera suggested
an approach whereby the treatment
standard would be developed based on
both total constituent analysis and TCLP
extract analysis, and would provide the
generators with the flexibility of
choosing the most appropriate analytical
methodology.
Critical to the scheme for restricting
land disposal of First Third wastes is the
determination of whether certain
constituent concentrations in wastes or
treatment residues exceed the
applicable treatment standards. Since
today's treatment standards are based
upon the performance capabilities of
BDAT. the Agency continues to believe
that the testing requirements should
focus on the objective of the technology
and provide the most accurate measure
of the performance of that technology.
Because the principle behind destruction
and recovery technologies is to destroy
or reduce the constituent concentration
in a waste, the logical way to measure
the performance of these technologies is
to analyze total concentration of waste
constituents. A» noted in the April 8,
1988 proposal with respect to organic
constituents. Congress expected that
treatment would destroy organic
constituents in hazardous wastes [Vol.
130 Cong. Rec. S9179 (daily ed. July 25.
1984)]; Where stabilization or fixation
technologies are identified as BDAT. the
TCLP is a better measure of
performance since it is designed to
measure the mobility of hazardous
constituents from a waste matrix. The
Agency believes this rationale to be the
most defensible and thus is imposing the
proposed waste testing/analysis
approach as part of the land disposal
restriction rules being finalized today.
This approach does not allow the
choice of analytical methodologies, as
suggested by some commenters, since
the design of each analytical test (total
constituent analysis or extract analysis)
is most appropriate for monitoring the
performance of certain technologies, but
is not as appropriate for monitoring
others. Commenters indicated that this
approach may hinder the application of
stabilization or fixation technologies.
However, it will only do so where (a)
current technologies intended to reduce
mobility are unable to reach the level of
performance provided by BDAT or (b)
where such technologies are not
applicable or appropriate on a waste-
specific basis. Since the treatment
standards are based upon the "best"
available treatment technologies, the
Agency believes that the constituent
concentration capable of being reached
by these treatments must be measured
by analytical methods which reflect the
levels for which the "best" treatments
were designed. With respect to analysis
of complex mixtures of wastes, the
Agency recognizes that such wastes
potentially may increase the total
number of constituents with
corresponding treatment standards.
However, waste analysis requirements
are limited to two analytical tests (total
constituent analysis or the TCLP), even
if all existing restriction rules are
applicable to the waste.
2. Notification Requirements
The Agency, in today's rule, is
broadening the applicability of the
5 268.7 notification provisions to apply
to the First Third wastes, whether or not
treatment standards have been
established. For First Third wastes for
which treatment standards and effective
dates have been established, the
notification requirements are the same
as for other restricted wastes. However,
for "soft hammer" wastes, the
applicable statutory waste management
requirements are somewhat different
than for other restricted wastes (namely,
a RCRA section 3004(g)(6) certification
to EPA is not required for "soft hammer"
wastes when land disposed hi units
other than landfills or surface
impoundments). To account for these
differences,, today's rule includes
corresponding requirements in § 268.7.
The basic difference between the
notification applicable to the "soft
hammer" wastes and the notification
applicable to other restricted wastes is
that rather than requiring notice of the
applicable treatment standard or
applicable prohibition (see existing
§ 268.7(a)(l)). the notice for "soft
hammer" wastes requires the generator
to notify the receiving facility of the
applicable "soft hammer" prohibitions
codified in § 268.33 (i.e., that such
wastes are prohibited from land
disposal hi landfill and surface
impoundment units unless accompanied
by a valid certification (and
demonstration, if applicable) in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 268.8, relating to the practical
unavailability of treatment
technologies). The EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, the manifest number
associated with the waste shipment (if
any), and any available waste analysis
-------
31178 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, Augtist 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
data must also be included in this "soft
hammer" notice. The notification will
inform treatment facilities (and other
handlers) of the obligation to treat "soft
hammer" wastes destined for disposal
in landfill or surface impoundment units
to the extent treatment is practically
available. This notification also serves
to inform managers of theue wastes that
the storage prohibition in 5 268.50 is
applicable to the waste.
Furthermore, today's action amends
§ 28&7(a)(3) to specify 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 provide
notification with each shipment of waste
to treatment and storage facilities-
receiving the wastes. This change
supplements, and is consistent with, the
existing requirements to notify disposal
facilities. The Agency is also requiring
that generators retain copies of this
notification.
3. Rccordkeeping Requirements •
The November 7.1986. rule (51FR
40572) established a tracking system for
wastes subject to the land disposal
restrictions requiring treatment facilities
to have copies of the notifications and
certifications 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. To better facilitate the "cradle-to-
grava" tracking system, today's action
includes amendments to the
rccordkeeping regulations to cover
additional off site shipment scenarios
and facilities which were previously
overlooked. In addition, today's rule
amends the recordkeeping provisions to
Include certain record retention
requirements.
The previous recordkeeping
provisions were applicable to
generators, treatment facilities, and land
disposal facilities, but the rule language
omitted mention of facilities that simply
store prohibited wastes without treating
them. As indicated in the April 8,1988
proposal, there is no reason for storage
facilities not to be covered by the
rccordkeeping requirements. The
Agency believes that all facilities
receiving restricted wastes should be on
notice that the waste is restricted and
should be notified of the applicable.
treatment standard (or applicable
prohibition) for the waste as part of a
"cradle-to-grave" recordkeeping system.
Accordingly, the Agency has corrected
this oversight by including storage
facilities under the recordkeeping
requirements of § 268.7. Besides the
"generator-to-storage" scenario, this
notification requirement also applies to
a treatment, storage or disposal facility
that sends a restricted waste (or
treatment residue) off site to another
treatment or storage facility. Note that
this requirement is applicable to all
restricted wastes, not only those.
affected by today's rulemaking.
EPA also proposed to amend the
regulatory language of § 268.7(a)(3). This
requirement concerns the case where a
generator's restricted waste is eligible
for land disposal because it is subject to
an extension of the effective date or a
"no migration" exemption (i.e., the
waste may be land disposed, but will
not necessarily meet the otherwise
applicable treatment standards). In
accordance with this provision, the
generator must notify the disposal
facility of the status of his waste.
However, current regulatory language
does not account for the possibility that
the waste may not be sent directly to the
land disposal facility, but rather to a
treatment or storage facility. To avoid
confusion in cases where the wastes are
not shipped to a disposal facility, and to
be consistent with other 5 288.7
recordkeeping requirements, the Agency
is amending § 268.7(a)(3), as proposed,
to require that the notice be sent with
each shipment of waste to the receiving
facility.
Today's rule is adding a provision (see
new § 268.7(a)(5)) to require generators
to retain copies 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 enhances the enforceability of the
regulations.
Today's action also modifies the
tracking system to include in
§§ 268.7(a)(l). (a)(2). (a)(3). (a)(4). and
(a)(5) provisions stating that generators
and storers 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 enhance the
enforceability of the land disposal
restrictions regulations and make
generator and storage recordkeeping
requirements consistent/a with the
recordkeeping requirements of treatment
and disposal facilities.
Today's final rule also modifies
§ 268.7(a) to provide for a limitation on
the time period that records are required
to be retained by generators. Under
current regulations, owners and
operators of facilities are required to
maintain § 268.7 records for a finite
period of time, i.e., until closure of the
facility (§§ 2G4.73(b) and 265.73(b)).
Previously, however, the regulatory
language did not stipulate a period of
time that generators needed to retain
applicable records (i.e., all supporting
data used to determine that a waste is
restricted based solely on the
generator's knowledge). As such,
generators were required to maintain
records for an indefinite period of time.
In light of the additional information
required to be maintained by generators
under today's amendments to § 26S.7
(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.
In the May 17,1988 notice, the Agency
proposed a 5-year,limitation on the
retention requirement for all records
generators produce to comply with
§ 268.7 of the land disposal restrictions.
EPA proposed (consistent with flection .
262.40 manifest requirements) that (a)
the time period would begin on the date
that the restricted waste is sent-to on-
site or off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal, and (b) the retention
requirement would be extended
automatically during the course of any
unresolved enforcement actions. EPA,
however, did not propose to develop an
exception reporting requirement like
that required in the generator manifest
provisions. The Agency recognized that
the proposed retention period differed
from § 262.40, which requires generators
to maintain a copy of the manifest for a
3-year period, but considered the 5-year
limit to be an appropriate compromise to
imposing an additional exception
reporting requirement. The Agency
solicited comment on this approach.
Several commenters supported a
record retention period of 3 years to be
consistent with the generator
recordkeeping requirements relating to
manifests and tvaste analysis (see 40
CFR 262.40(a) and (c)). One commenter
stated that the EPA would have ample
opportunity to review these records
within the 3-year period. Furthermore, it
was indicated that a 5-year limit may
lead to unnecessary confusion for both
the regulated community and the
regulators with respect to reuordkeeping
procedures.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters and is promulgating the 5-
year generator record retention period
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5?, No. 159 / Wednesday. August '17. 1988 / Rides and Regulations 31179'
as proposed. EPA does not believe that
such a retention period will lead to
unnecessary confusion. Since such
records are already required to be
generated, the Agency is not imposing
any additional requirement that
generators affirmatively take action.
This requirement simply provides that
generators leave such records in their
files for two more years rather than •
affirmatively taking action to destroy
such records after three years. This 5-
year time period is particularly .-..- • -
important to the Agency's enforcement
efforts because it allows EPA to obtain ,-•
relevant records which would otherwise'
be lawfully destroyed after three years.
Furthermore, the Agency believes that a
5-year record retention requirement is
1 appropriate because it is consistent with
the 5-year statute of limitations
applicable to RCRA civil violations.
In addition. Agency data now indicate
that § 268.7 notices are being included •
on manifests in few circumstances.
Therefore, adopting such a requirement
should not have a substantial impact on
the generator manifest retention
requirements.
As proposed, the record retention
limit is extended automatically during
the course of any unresolved
enforcement action regarding the
regulated activity or as requested by the
Administrator. For the purpose of this
provision, an unresolved enforcement
action includes, but is not limited to. the
issuance of a Notice of Violation, a
warning letter, or situations where a
complaint has actually been filed.
The Agency notes that it expects the
requirement on the generator to keep
records of notifications and waste
analysis data to be discontinued in 1994
(i.e., the latest date by which all listed or
identified hazardous wastes will be
subject to the treatment requirements of
§§ 268.41, 268.42 and 268.43—assuming
that certain wastes may be subject to a
2-year national capacity variance
followed by two 1-year case by-case
extensions under 40 CFR 263.5). At that
time. EPA will, however, reevaluate the
prevalent waste management practices
to determine whether the recordkeeping
requirement for generators is necessary
and should be extended.
C. "Soft Hammer" Requirements
1. Applicability
RCRA 3004(g)(6) (42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(6})
provides that if EPA fails to set
treatment standards for any wastes
included in the schedule promulgated on
May 28,1986 (40 CFR 268.10-268.12, 51
FR 19300} by the statutory deadline:
Such hazardous waste may be disposed of
in a landfill or surface impoundment only if—
(i) Such facility is in compliance with the
requirements of subsection (o) which are
applicable to new facilities (relating to
minimum technological requirements); and
(ii) Prior to such disposal, the generator has
certified to the Administrator that such
generator has investigated the availability of
treatment capacity and has determined that
the use of such landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical alternative
to treatment currently available to the
generator. (RCRA section 30Ot(g)(3)(A))
This so-called "soft hammer" applies
'until EPA sets treatment standards or
until May 8,1990. After May 8,1990. all
scheduled wastes (except those subject
to capacity extensions) for which
treatment standards have not been set
will be prohibited from all methods of
land disposal that have not been
determined to be protective through the
"no migration" process (40 CFR 268.6).
In today's final rule, the Agency is not
setting treatment standards for all
wastes covered by the statutory
requirements. EPA thus is promulgating
regulations implementing the "soft
hammer" provisions of RCRA.
In the April 8 proposal, the Agency
discussed the applicability of "soft
hammer" provisions to wastes also
subject to the California list prohibitions
(52 FR 25780. July 8,1987). In today's
final rule, the Agency has maintained
the interpretation discussed in the
proposal During the period in which the
"soft hammer" provisions are in effect
those wastes which are currently
subject to the California list
requirements would remain so. and thus
might be prohibited from land disposal
even though they are also "soft
hammer" wastes. Likewise, compliance
with the California list requirements
does not necessarily fulfill the
requirements of the "soft hammer"
provisions, fa previous preambles, the
Agency has stated that the more waste-
specific treatment standards and
effective dates will supersede the less
waste-specific California list
requirements. In this case, the Agency
has not made determinations with
respect to the specific "soft hammer"
wastes, and such wastes must (at the
least) be treated or otherwise comply
with the applicable California list
requirements. For a more detailed
discussion of the relationship of the
California list requirements to First
Third wastes, refer to section ID. E. of
this preamble.
The Agency is somewhat changing the
applicability of the "soft hammer"
provisions from that presented in the
April 8 proposal by moving certain "soft
hammer" wastewater treatment
residuals to the Third Third (i.e.,
§ 268.12). The specific wastewater
treatment residuals and the justification
for this action is discussed hi detail in
section in. C. 3.
It is important to note that the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8,
including the demonstrations,
certifications, and treatment
requirements, are only applicable to
those "soft hammer" wastes which (1)
are not otherwise subject to California
list treatment standards (e.g.,
halogenated organic compounds and
polychlorinated biphenyls) (as opposed
to California list statutory prohibitions
or codified levels, e.g., liquid metal and
cyanide-containing wastes), and (2) are
to be disposed in landfills or surface
impoundments. "Soft hammer" wastes
-managed by other methods of land
disposal (e.g., land treatment, deep-well
injection), or "soft hammer" wastes
subject to California list treatment
standards thus are not subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.8.
2. Interpretation of Specific Terms
In the statutory passage from RCRA
section 3004(g)(6)(A) cited above, the
terms "treatment" and "facility" are
particularly important and were
discussed in detail in the April 8
proposal EPA received many comments
regarding, the interpretation of these
terms, as well as the .term '.'practical", as
they relate to implementation of the
"soft hammer"i
a. Treatment. In the April 8 proposal,
EPA solicited comment on the
interpretation of "treatment" for the
purposes of the "soft hammer". Many
commenters stated that the Agency
needed to define "treatment" in more
concrete terms so that there would be a
firm standard to serve as the basis for
certification. (In fact, many owners and
operators of disposal facilities stated
that they would refuse to accept "soft
hammer" wastes because of the
uncertainty of possible enforcement
actions due to the ambiguity involving
the term "treatment".)
In spite of such comments, the Agency
is not finalizing an interpretation of
"treatment" that is much more definitive
than in the April 8 proposal. Due to the ~
complexity of available treatment
technologies, the Agency is not able to
make firm statements defining a
hierarchy of treatment technologies for
every "soft hammer" waste code, the
availability of which should be
investigated before a valid certification
can be made regarding a particular
waste code. By definition, the Agency
has not made waste-specific
determinations regarding "soft hammer"
wastes, and therefore cannot make a
specific interpretation of "treatment" for
-------
31180 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
each waste code (such an interpretation
would be tantamount to a "soft
hammer" treatment standard, which is a
contradiction in terms). However, the
Agency is able to offer a list of
appropriatetechnologiesto.be •
considered as treatment for most of the
F- and K-Hst "soft hammeir" wastes (see-
section IIL A. 8}. In addition. EPA can
list generic types of treatment for
organic and inorganic waiites, in order
of preference (Le* which tire best, next
best, and so forth). However; as a
preliminary matter, the Agency feels a
discussion of the proposed approaches
to interpreting "treatment1'' and
comments received will be useful in
understanding the difficulties
encountered were one to lake an
alternative approach.
In the April 8 proposal, EPA
expressed its belief that Congress
intended that, during the period of the
"soft hammer", only wastes treated to
the most protective levels achievable by
practically available technologies (if
any) may be land disposed in landfills .
and surface impoundments (and that
only the most protective of such units,
i.e., units meeting the minimum
technological requirements (MTRs) of
section 3004(o). may be used). However, •
the Agency also stated that treatment is
not required solely for the sake of '
treatment
Having not made waste-specific
determinations regarding the treatability
of "soft hammer" wastes, the problem
facing the Agency is to implement an
enforceable approach to the "soft
hammer" provisions by interpreting
"treatment" such that it yields the most ,
environmental benefit practically
available, avoids treatment for the sake
of treatment, and does not allow sham
or de minimi's treatment An
interpretation which is too stringent (i.e.,
an interpretation limiting "treatment" to
BDAT-type treatment) could actually
result in more untreated wastes being
disposed in landfills and iiurface
impoundments either because of the
lack of such treatment capacity or
because the treatment would possibly
increase costs beyond a point that
would be considered practical. Too
lenient an interpretation (i.e., allowing
the use of minimal treatment prior to
disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment) could conceivably result
in requiring treatment for the sake of
treatment (an unnecessary burden on
generators with little or no
environmental benefit) or could actually
encourage the use of sham or de
minimi's treatment where more
protective treatment is practically
available. The Agency does not believe
this is what Congress intended.
EPA requested comment on an
approach that would limit the scope of
treatment technologies to those that
yield a designated percent reduction in
the toxicity or mobility of hazardous
constituents, using a 20% reduction as
an example. The Agency received mixed
comments,-some supporting and some
opposing the approach. Some of those
supporting the approach suggested
limiting the percent reduction to at least
90%. In reviewing comments, the Agency
realizes that this approach would fail to
mitigate the ambiguities of "treatment".
Many commenters expressed concerns .
in evaluating the percent reduction,
especially where a waste or mixture of
wastes contains both organics and
inorganics (the reduction of organics
could concentrate the inorganics).
Another problem would be to specify
the waste analysis method to be used to
evaluate percent reduction. And finally,
it is clear to the Agency that many
generators lack the expertise to identify
appropriate technologies yielding the
designated percent reduction without
possibly costly and time-consuming
analyses. Thus, the Agency would be
compelled to identify technologies that
yield the designated percent reduction
for all "soft hammer" wastes, which the
Agency is unable to do. Therefore, EPA
is not finalizing this approach to
interpreting "treatment".
EPA also requested comment on an
approach requiring that "soft hammer"
wastes be treated to achieve meaningful
reductions of waste toxicity or mobility
and stating that sham or de minimi's
treatment cannot give rise to a valid
certification. Here again, ambiguity
regarding the term "meaningful"
concerned many commenters. Also, this
approach does not clearly state the
• Agency's preference for the use of >'
practically available technologies to
treat "soft hammer" wastes, providing
the most environmental benefit.
(Although several commenters indicated
that Congress intended to allow "soft
hammer" wastes to be disposed without
an additional burden of treatment,
allowing for whatever treatment has
been previously used, the Agency
strongly disagrees and believes that
Congress certainly would prefer the best
practically available treatment of "soft
hammer" waste to less complete levels
of treatment.)
In today's final rule, the Agency is
interpreting "treatment" as processing
which reduces the toxicity of the waste
or the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste.
The Agency had attempted to provide
some further detail to this broad
interpretation by identifying waste
management practices which EPA does
not intend to require (or encourage) and
by providing discussions in this
preamble on the types of treatment the
generator is expected to investigate.
The Agency emphasizes that it does
not intend to require repetitive
treatment by the same processes, such
as re-incinerating ash derived from the
incineration of the original waste. In
many cases the Agency expects that the
use of a single process to treat the
waste, or quite possibly, one process for
treating organics and a second process
for treating inorganics, will satisfy the
treatment requirements of § 268.8. EPA
is not. however; absolutely limiting the
treatment requirement to a single
process because the appropriate
treatment for some wastes may involve
a standard treatment train of sequential
processes, or the treatment residuals
from one process may require a second
treatment process. For example, use of
steam stripping to treat wastewater may
result in a concentrated stream that may
require incineration before disposal
(where the material cannot be recycled).
Another example might be ash from
incinerating an organic/metal-
containing waste. In this case, further
treatment (e.g., stabilization) might be
required (depending on the
concentration level of metals and the
practical availability of stabilization). A
final example is a waste containing
metals and cyanides, which would
require separate treatments for both
types of constituents. The Agency will
evaluate previous practices to determine
whether such a train of multiple
treatment steps is appropriate for a
given waste. .
As stated earlier, EPA is not requiring
treatment solely for the sake of
treatment. EPA believes appropriate
technologies exist to treat "soft
hammer" wastes, although these
technologies may be determined not to
be practically available. The Agency is
not requiring, in the absence of
practically available, appropriate
technologies, that technologies which
are not appropriate for a given waste be
used. However, the appropriate
technology which results in the most
environmental benefit (i.e., in general,
the greatest reduction in toxicity or
mobility of hazardous constituents) must
be used where practical and available.
EPA has attempted to provide some
assistance to the generator on the types
of treatment that should be investigated
prior to making a certification under
§ 268.8. This assistance is presented in
two ways. First, in section III.A.8. of this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. .1988 / Rules and Regulations
31I8X
preamble, EPA provided a list of
technologies appropriate for treating
specific F- and K-list "soft hammer"
wastes, in order of preference, Len best
to next-best and so forth. Because the
Agency has not made a specific
determination regarding the treatability
of each, waste, it cannot simply state
that the most-preferred technology is
BOAT and that each less-preferred
technology yields a correspondingly less
environmental benefit However., in
general. EPA will use this tot of
preferred technologies as a basic guide
to evaluating whether the generator has
investigated the technologies that yield
the greater environmental benefit Also,
these appropriate technologies are listed
by broad descriptions which EPA
generally will not differentiate into more
specific types of treatment For example,
"incineration" may mean liquid injection
incineration, fluidized bed incineration,
or rotary kiln incineration. Another
example is "stabilization", which can
include the use of silicates, lime/fly ash,
cement, or cement kiln dust Although
EPA generally will not differentiate
between the different specific treatment
systems within the treatment category.
the Agency will differentiate between
the broad categories (Le.. the Agency
may invalidate a certification for
"stabilization" of organics if
"incineration" is practically available,
assuming incineration is the more-
preferred treatment for the particular
waste).
Second, the Agency is providing
assistance in the form of a generic
hierarchy of preferred treatment types
(discussed later in this section). Where
the generic hierarchy of preferred
treatment types is used, the Agency will
generally not differentiate between
individual technologies within the
generic treatment, type to determine
whether a different technology should
be used. Rather, the Agency will
evaluate whether a technology
belonging to a more preferred generic
treatment type is practically available.
For example, "destruction" may mean
thermal destruction or chemical
destruction. In general, the Agency will
not differentiate between the two;
however, the Agency may invalidate a
certification if a recovery process (a
more-preferred generic treatment type)
is*practically available.
These lists of appropriate technologies
and generic treatment types are not
intended to be comprehensive, nor are
they a complete catalog of the types of
treatment that may be appropriate to
consider in evaluating available
treatment for a specific waste. There
may indeed be other types of
appropriate technologies available to
the generator of which the Agency is
unaware (e.g., innovative technologies
which the Agency may not consider
"demonstrated" or "available" for the
purposes of BDAT). [It should also be
noted that a more detailed consideration
of the actual performance of the
technologies may, in fact reveal that
EPA's assumed hierarchy is incorrect for
any specific waste and that there may
be specific waste streams where a
higher-ranked appropriate technology
does not provide the greater
environmental benefit or is not
appropriate for the waste stream. For
example, a particular "organic" waste
stream may contain an unusually high
concentration of metals, such that
incineration would not be considered
appropriate.] As a practical matter, the
lists of appropriate technologies and
generic hierarchy of treatment types
represent the minimum effort a
generator should make in seeking
treatment for his waste, serving as a *
basis for determining whether treatment
is practically available. The Agency
may require further justification in the
demonstration if the certifier has not
investigated the availability of the
appropriate technologies listed for a
specific waste.
Generically, the Agency generally
favors recycling/recovery as the best
method for treating a waste, eliminating
or reducing the residual to be disposed.
Where recycling is unavailable or
inappropriate or ineffective, the Agency
prefers technologies resulting in the
destruction of hazardous constituents,
where such destruction may be either
thermal (Le« incineration or burning) or
chemical, especially for organics. Where
neither recovery nor destruction is
available or appropriate, immobilization
(stabilization) is often effective.
especially for inorganic constituents (Cf.
H. Rep. No. 198.98th Cong. 1st Sess. 31
(setting out a comparable hierarchy of
preferred waste management
alternatives)). EPA wishes to note that
given the results of the TSDR Survey
(see section IIL H.), the Agency believes
that liquid incineration and stabilization
are generally available (although the
generator must determine whether such
treatment is appropriate or practically
available for his waste).
b. Facility. As proposed in the April 8
proposal, the Agency interprets the term
"such facility" in RCRA section
3004{g){6){A) to refer to the individual
landfill or surface impoundment unit.
This interpretation results in the
requirement that where "soft hammer"
wastes (and treatment residues) are
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, such unit must meet the
minimum technological requirements
{MTRs) of 3004(o) applicable to new .
units (i.e., double liners, leachate
collection system, and groundwater
monitoring). '
The Agency received numerous
comments on its proposed interpretation
of "such facility". Most commenters
opposed this restrictive use of the term
and urged the Agency to interpret the
term more broadly as referring to the
entire facility, so that wastes could be
disposed in any unit so long as any new,
expanded or replacement units on the
facility met the MTRs. The Agency does
not agree with these comments and for
reasons discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (53 FR11766) is finalizing
the interpretation as proposed. To
accept the interpretation urged by
commenters would render section
3004(g)(6) meaningless; facilities are
required to meet the requirements of
section 3004(o) already by virtue of that
provision. A further command to do so
is unnecessary. As noted at proposal,
the legislative history to this provision
also strongly favors the Agency's
reading. Moreover, these commenters
ignore the remainder of section
3004(g)(6). which not only refers to "such
facility" (referring back to landfills and
impoundments), but also applies
requirements that apply to new
facilities, i.e.. double liners and leachate
collection systems.
EPA's interpretation is also consistent
with the special concern that Congress '•
has for surface impoundments and
landfills as reflected in section
1002(b)(7)ofRCRA:
Certain classes of land disposal facilities
are not capable of assuring long term
containment of hazardous waste, * * * and
land disposal, particularly landfill and
surface impoundment, should be the least
favored method for managing hazardous .
wastes; . •
Further, the Agency believes that the
alternative of accepting the use of the
word facility as applying to all units
within the property boundary would not
lead to the interpretation that the
commenters wished, but rather to an
even more restrictive result requiring
that the wastes only be disposed at
facilities where every landfill and
surface impoundment unit at the facility
met the MTRs. This results from the
reference in the statute to "* * * the
requirements of subsection (o) which are
applicable to new facilities (relating to
minimum technological requirements)".
At a new facility (using the property
boundary definition of facility), all such
units would be required to meet the
MTRs. Although the literal language of
-------
31182 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
3004(g)(8) allows this residing, EPA
believes the better interpretation is the
one it is adopting.
c. Practical. EPA received numerous
comments on the April 8,1988 proposal
regarding the "soft hammer" provision.
Although the Agency did not specifically
request comment on the term
"practical", many commenters believed
this term was crucial to Che
interpretation of the statute and
expressed their views that Congress
intended "practical** to refer to the use
of economic considerations in
determining whether a treatment *
technology is a "practical" alternative to
land disposal.
In general, the Agency does not
consider costs when making waste
management determinations.under
RCRA (since EPA is not authorized to
do so), but rather limits auch
' considerations to technical feasibility.
However, EPA agrees with the
commentera' assertions that economic
considerations were not specifically
excluded by Congress under RCRA
section 3004(g)(8) and that by using the
term "practical". Congress also allowed
for cost considerations in evaluating
whether available treatment is a
practical alternative to land disposal for
the purpose of the "soft hammer" under
3004(g)(6).
Many commentera expressed their
concerns that this interpretation may
create inconsistencies and confusion
regarding a generator's determinations
whether or not treatment is "practical".
For example, a generator may consider
any increase in cost to bs impractical
and certify an untreated "soft hammer"
waste for disposal when, in fact, cost .
effective treatment is available. Because
this certification would be self-
implementing and would, be considered
valid until EPA took action to invalidate
it, the Agency believes a discussion of
how it will evaluate demonstrations
with regard to the term "practical" is
necessary.
Without time for further comment
EPA cannot promulgate a strictly
quantified interpretation of the term
"practical". Indeed, as with the
interpretation of "treatment", such a
task is undoubtedly self-defeating.
However, the Agency can indicate how
it will evaluate demonstrations and
certifications regarding whether a
treatment technology is practically
available.
First, EPA will evaluate
demonstrations with a consideration of
previous practices. If a generator's "soft
hammer" wastes were treated in the
past, the Agency would consider at least
this type of treatment to be "practical"
for that generator. (This assumes that
the previous practice is currently
allowable; for example, a previous
practice of treatment in a surface
impoundment that does not qualify for
the treatment in surface impoundment
exemption under § 268.4, is not
allowable.) However, the generator must
treat his waste by the best treatment
(i.e., the treatment yielding the greatest
environmental benefit) that is
practically available. The Agency does
not intend the "soft hammer" provisions
to act as an excuse to discontinue
current treatment practices (except
where such practices are no longer
allowable), nor does it intend to limit the
scope of "treatment" to only previously
conducted treatment.
Second. EPA is presenting a cost ratio
that measures the costs of treatment
relative to the baseline cost of shipment
and disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements (MTRs) of
3004(o). The cost of shipment and
disposal in an MTR unit is the baseline
, cost because this cost is incurred by
both treated and untreated "soft
hammer" wastes (assuming the wastes
are disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment; as stated before, wastes
disposed by other methods of land
disposal are not subject to the
demonstrations and certifications of
S 268.8).
In general, given the ratio of:
costs of treatment, shipment and disposal
costs of shipment and disposal
EPA will ordinarily consider a ratio of
2.0 or greater not to be "practical".
Similarly, a ratio of 1.5 or less will
usually be considered "practical".
Within the range of 1.5 to 2.0, EPA will
generally consider treatment to be
"practical" unless the certifier can
demonstrate why this cost should be
considered not "practical" (subject to
judgement of individual circumstances).
The Agency emphasizes that this cost
ratio and consideration of "practical" is
only a basic reference tool, and not a
hard and fast rule. The generator may
demonstrate that a cost ratio of less:
than 1.5 is not "practical"; and likewise,
EP.,A. may consider a cost ratio of greater
than 2.0 to be "practical", especially
where previous practices-so indicate.
One anomalous situation could result
if EPA relied solely upon this cost ratio.
For example. Generator A has an on-site
MTR unit, while Generator B (across the
street from Generator A) must ship his
"soft hammer" waste out of state to a
commercial disposal facility. The costs
of shipment and disposal forGenerator
A would be negligible, and thus, almost
any cost of treatment would be
considered to be not practical, given the
ratio above. Conversely, Generator B's
baseline costs would be much greater,
and therefore could be required to
consider many more treatment
technologies as practical. In such cases,
EPA will evaluate Generator A's
certification and demonstration of
practically available treatment
technologies by methods other than the
above cost ratio. EPA will use other
considerations, such as knowledge of
available technologies and relative
financial status or size of the facility and
evaluate such demonstrations and
certifications on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, the Agency emphasizes
that where treatment is demonstrated to
be a practical alternative to land
disposal of untreated wastes, such
treatment must be used. For example, a
generator whose on-site treatment
process is not yet on-line may not
disregard "practical" off-site treatment
and continue to dispose of untreated
"soft hammer" wastes until his
treatment process is on-line. Such a
generator must employ the off-site
treatment. {Note.—As discussed later in
section III.C.6. of this preamble, the
storage prohibition of § 268.50 applies to
"soft hammer" wastes not subject to a
valid § 268.8 certification. Therefore,
"soft hammer" wastes may only be
stared "* * * for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal".)
Furthermore, as stated earlier, the
best practical treatment must be
employed (given the list of appropriate
technologies and the generic hierarchy
of preferred treatment-types and
determination of "practical"). This is not
to be confused with the most practical
(or cost-effective) treatment. Once all
"practical" treatments have been
identified, then the best treatment must
be used.
EPA's interpretation of the term
"practical" also responds to comments
received requesting clarification of
whether a generator must investigate
treatment on a national or regional
basis, or within an established area of,
for example, 200 miles from the site.
Given the Agency's interpretation of
what constitutes "practical", this .
question becomes moot. The generator
must investigate all practically available
treatment, regardless of State or •
Regional boundaries, or any specific
distance from the site.
As an alternative to the cost ratio, the
Agency considered using a financial
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday/August 17. 1988 /Rules and Regulations 31183
ratio. Under this alternative, EPA would
compare the incremental cost of treating
a particular shipment of waste to a
measure of the generator's financial
strength) and determine that treatment is
not practical where the ratio exceeded a
specified percentage which the Agency
believed would impose a significant
hardship on the generator. For example.
EPA would compare the incremental
cost of treatment to the generator's net
pre-tax profit for the waste generation
period, and would consider a particular
treatment to be not practical if the
incremental cost exceeded X percent of
net pre-tax profit
The principal apparent advantage to
using a financial ratio instead of a cost
ratio is that it would tie the
determination of whether a treatment is
practical to the individual generator's
ability to pay for the treatment Thus the
Agency could systematically avoid
requiring a generator to incur undue
financial hardship hi seeking treatment
However, on further analysis, EPA
rejected the use of a financial ratio for
several reasons.
First, the use of any relatively simple
financial ratio would tend to discourage
waste minimisation. Generators who
produced relatively more waste per unit
of product than similar generators in
their industry would be more likely to
exceed the ratio (all things being equal)
and. therefore avoid the incremental
treatment cost Thus, this approach
could result in rewarding inefficient
generators for producing excessive
amounts of waste; clearly contrary to
the intent of Congress regarding waste
minimization.
Second, the use of a financial ratio
would pose serious implementation
difficulties. For example, evaluating
demonstrations for generators who
produce wastes from diverse processes
would require substantial effort on the
part of the generator. EPA, and the
States, to generate, coordinate, and
substantiate the necessary data.
Third, a financial ratio would be
difficult to enforce. In addition to the.
difficulties likely to be encountered
using either the cost ratio or the
financial.ratio, such as verifying
treatment cost data and generator
diligence hi pursuing treatment options,
use of the financial ratio has the added
difficulty of verifying the financial data
submitted by the generator.
Finally, given the other considerations
to be used in evaluating whether
treatment is practical in addition to the
cost ratio, the Agency believes the cost
ratio is the more efficient method to
evaluate practical treatment, in terms of
time and resources. As illustrated In the
example above, the cost ratio is not
suited for every situation, and the
Agency strongly emphasizes that the
cost ratio is not to be the sole
consideration in evaluating whether a
particular treatment is "practical".
The Agency realizes that not all
generators of "soft hammer" wastes
have the sophistication in waste
management to know the relative costs
of treatment shipping and disposal for
their wastes. However, the Agency
believes the additional information
needed to demonstrate the availability
of practical treatment can be easily
ascertained. Also, once the generator
has investigated available technologies,
EPA does not believe that waste
management conditions (i.e.. the
appropriate technologies which are
practical and available) initially
certified to will change so drastically
during the "soft hammer" period that a
complete reevaluation of "practical"
treatments will be required.
3. Certification Requirements '
The Agency received'many comments
regarding the demonstration and
certification required under § 288.8 to
properly dispose of "soft hammer"
wastes in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o). EPA is finalizing the
certification requirements essentially as
proposed in the April 8 proposal, with
some changes made hi view of the
Agency's final interpretation of the
terms "treatment", "facility", and
"practical".
a. Certification for Treated "Soft
Hammer'' Wastes. Many commenters
stated that residuals from treatment of
"soft hammer" wastes should not
require certification or subsequent
management in MTR units. The Agency,
however, disagrees with the
commenters' reading of the statute and
is today promulgating the proposed
approach. As discussed in the April 8 "
proposal (53 FR11767). the Agency
believes the intent of Congress is to
require certifications and management
in MTR units for residuals from
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes. The
Agency has not set treatment standards
for these wastes, and EPA does not
believe that Congress intended for
treated "soft hammer" wastes
(especially where such treatment may
be considered minimal relative to
BDATrtype treatment) to be shielded
from the requirements of 3004(g)(6) and
treated the same as wastes meeting the
stringent requirements for treatment
under RCRA section 3004(m). It should
also be noted that Congress equated
treatment residuals and the underlying
waste in section 3004(m)(2), so that
prohibitions applicable to the waste
being treated apply to the treatment
residuals as well (unless, of course, the
residuals satisfy the applicable
treatment standard—not the case for
"soft hammer" wastes). Therefore, the
requirements of § 288.8 also apply to
treatment residues of "soft hammer"
wastes. (As discussed more fully below,
however. EPA does believe it
appropriate to reprioritize the schedule
for prohibiting certain wastewater
residues from treatment of "soft
hammer" wastes. To this extent, EPA
has, it believes, accommodated some of
the principle concerns raised by
commenters.)
Commenters raised one further issue
concerning the relationship of the "soft
hammer" provision's applicability to
treatment residues, plus the restrictions
on placing "soft hammer" wastes only in
impoundments and landfills that meet
minimum technology requirements. A
number of companies use BDAT-type
treatment to treat "soft hammer"
wastes, and then further treat the
resulting treatment residues hi
impoundments that do not satisfy
minimum technology requirements. For
example, a number of companies
incinerate off-specification commercial
chemical products which are hi the first
third of the schedule of listed wastes but
for which EPA did not propose
treatment standards, and generate
scrubber water which is further polished
in biological treatment ponds. Such
ponds meet the requirements of section
3005{j)(3) and so need not be retrofitted
as of November 8,1988 but for the
receipt of the scrubber water from
treating a "soft hammer" waste.
This result is not in keeping with the
fundamental policy of the land disposal
restrictions statutory provisions:
effective pretreatment of wastes
followed by unprohibited disposal of the
treatment residues. In addition, the
thrust of the "soft hammer" provision
itself is to make disposal of untreated
wastes for which there is no treatment
standard more difficult, but not
necessarily to impose the same
difficulties on residues from BDAT type
treatment of those wastes.
Accordingly. EPA has decided to
modify its proposal so that residues
from substantial treatment of certain
"soft hammer" wastes may be further
treated in land disposal units that do not
meet minimum technology requirements.
EPA is accomplishing this by amending
the schedule of prohibited wastes to
indicate that wastewater (i.e.. less than
1% total organic carbon (TOG) and less
than 1% total suspended solids (TSS))
residues from the treatment of "soft
-------
31184 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
hammer" wastes by the following list of
technologies, are to be included in the
third third of scheduled wastes for
which EPA ia to develop treatment
standards. The wastewater residues
from treatment affected by this action
are limited to those wastewater (less
than 1% TO C and less than 1% TSS)
residual* resulting from (he well-
designed and well operated treatment of
"soft hammer" waste* bjn metals
recovery, metals precipitation, cyanide
destruction, carbon adsorption, chemical
oxidation, steam stripping,
biodegradation, and incineration or
other direct thermal destruction. There
is strong policy justification for taking
this step: persons who are substantially
treating their wastes to levels that may
satisfy ultimate treatment standards are
not precluded from further treatment of
these wastes in polishing or advanced
biological treatment (i.e., sections 3005
(j)(3) and (j](13) units) that are
substantially protective of human health
and the environment (although not
equivalent to minimum technology
impoundments from the standpoint of
preventing migration from the unit).
Furthermore, EPA does n;ot believe that
these types of treatment residuals are
the types of highly contaminated wastes
deserving of prioritization in the first
third of the schedule (sect RCRA section
3004(g)(2)).
EPA also has decided to amend the
schedule so that leachatu and
contaminated ground water that are
derived from disposal of a "soft
hammer" waste, or that contain "soft
hammer" wastes, are also in the third
third of the schedule (and thus would
not be considered to be prohibited
wastes until May, 1990 or until EPA
establishes treatment standards.
whichever is sooner). As discussed in
section IILA.4., EPA generally believes
that contaminated leachate and ground
water (which is basically ground water
with the leachate in it) can be treated to.
meet the treatment standard for the
waste from which they are derived or
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations . 3118S
generator to make the determination
whether alternative treatment is
practically available. It is doubtful
whether the owner or operator is able to
determine whether a technology is
"practical" for a generator. Also,
because the Agency is requiring the
generator to use the bast practically
available treatment (La, the treatment
which yields the greatest environmental
benefit), the generator must make the
demonstration, whether treatment is
practically available or not Therefore.
only the. generator is required (and
allowed) to make the demonstration and
certification pertaining to the practical
availability of treatment for his waste.
However, the owner or operator must
certify that the generator's waste has
been properly treated by the technology
determined by the generator to be the
best practically available treatment
This is consistent with the existing
certification requirements under
§ 268.7(b) and will allow the Agency to
track the waste from cradle-to-grave.
EPA emphasizes that it is not
requiring an owner or operator to
demonstrate that his treatment is the
best practical treatment available.
Rather, the generator must make this
demonstration. However, the owner or
operator must certify that he has
properly treated the waste prior to
disposal.
c. Certification. Having somewhat
better defined the terms "treatment" and
"practical". EPA is promulgating a less
ambiguous approach to the "soft
hammer" than was proposed. However.
the basic approach is essentially the
same. • .
Prior to disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit meeting the
minimum technological requirements of
3004{o). a generator must demonstrate
his good faith effort to treat his waste by
the best practically available treatment
technology(ies). The generator must
determine which treatment technologies
are practical and available, and choose
the best treatment. (Where no treatment
is practical or available, the generator
may so demonstrate and certify.) To
make this demonstration, the generator
must provide a list of facilities and
facility officials contacted, complete
with addresses, telephone numbers and
contact dates. The generator must
document or otherwise explain his
determination that the treatments are
not practically available, .or where
treatments are available, must justify
that he has chosen the best treatment
that is practically available.
This demonstration and certification
must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator. The genera tor must also
send the demonstration and certification
(and notification) to .the receiving
facility with the initial waste shipment.
Provided that the conditions affecting
the certification do not change (i.e.. the
same demonstration remains
applicable), only the certification and
notification need be sent with each
subsequent waste shipment (Copies of
the certifications and demonstrations for
each subsequent waste shipment need
not be sent to the Regional
Administrator, provided the conditions
of the original certification do not
change.) The notification, demonstration
and certification must also be kept on-
site in the generator's records. Also.
should the Regional Administrator .
invalidate his certification, the generator
must immediately notify all facilities
that have received his waste that the
certification (and demonstration) is no
longer valid, and must keep records of
this communication.
In general, one treatment process will
satisfy the requirement with the
exceptions of typically-used treatment
trains or a combination of technologies,
each of which deals with an organic and
inorganic component of the waste. The
Agency again notes that it generally
believes that liquid injection
incineration (including burning in
industrial furnaces) is available for
organic constituents and stabilization
technologies are available for inorganic
constituents.
Where treatment is available, the
generator must send the notification,
demonstration and certification to the
treatment facility. After proper
treatment, the owner or operator must
then certify that the waste has been
treated by the best practically available •
treatment (as documented in the
generator's demonstration) and send
this certification (and notification) and
the generator's demonstration with the
initial waste shipment to the disposal
facility (a demonstration is not required
for subsequent shipments unless
conditions change). The treatment
facility must keep records of
demonstrations and certifications (and
notifications) received and forwarded to
disposal (or other receiving) facilities.
The owner or operator of a treatment
facility is responsible for treating the
waste as the generator indicates in the
certification (or demonstration) sent for
that particular waste shipment, and for
recordkeeping.
The disposal facility may dispose of
"soft hammer" wastes (whether treated
or not) only in MTR units (including
those, like most section 3005 (j)£2) and
(j)(4) impoundments, which satisfy the
section 30G4(o)(2j equivalency standard)
(assuming disposal is in a landfill or
surface impoundment). The owner or
operator of a disposal facility is
responsible for ensuring that only "soft
hammer" wastes (or residuals) subject
to a certification pursuant to § 268.8
(and demonstration, for the initial waste
shipment) are disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit, and that such
unit meets the minimum technological
requirements.
An owner or operator of a storage
facility must keep copies of .
notifications, demonstrations and
certifications of "soft hammer" wastes
received and forwarded.
To implement this approach, the
Agency is departing somewhat from the
proposed § 268.8. Specifically, EPA is
promulgating an additional certification
for the generator for cases where
practical treatment is available..This
certification requires the generator to
certify that, as indicated in his
demonstration, he is sending his waste
to be treated by the best practically
available treatment for his waste. Also,
EPA is adding a certification (similar to
the 268.7(b) certification) for the owner
or operator to certify that he has
properly treated the generator's waste.
as indicated in the demonstration.
4. Treatment of "Soft Hammer" Wastes
in Surface Impoundments
As discussed in the April 8 proposal
(53 FR 11768), "soft hammer" wastes
treated in a surface impoundment
subject to the exemption for treatment in
§ 268.4 would be required to be removed
at least annually. The Agency proposed
to allow that certification for disposal
may be made without removal of the
residuals provided that no further
treatment is practically available. The
demonstration and certification may be
made at the time of placement in the
impoundment for treatment.
Commenters generally supported this
approach, citing the identical minimum
technological requirements for units
which can treat restricted wastes and
units which can dispose of "soft
hammer" wastes (and residuals) and the
potential risk of damaging the
impoundment liners during removal.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating its
proposed approach.
5. Retrofitting Variances
As proposed, today's final rule
interprets the variance provisions of
3005(j)(ll) to allow "soft hammer-
wastes to be treated in surface
impoundments that meet the minimum
technological requirements of 3004(o) or
have received variances under either
3005{j}{2) (one quarter mile from an
underground source of drinking water
and compliance with applicable ground
-------
31186 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, Angus* 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
water monitoring requirements) or
(located and designed to prevent
migration of hazardous constituents to
ground water or surface water). This
result is logical since wastes not meeting
treatment standards can also be treated
In. such Impoundment* (iiee sectioa
3005{jKll)). If there i« net further
treatment practically available, the .
residuals would not hav« to be removed
annually, again paralleling the
requirement* for wastes for which
treatment standards have been set and
which are being treated in. surface
Impoundments.
Although many commenters stated
that the retrofit waivers granted under
3005 (j)(3) or (j](13) should also be-
automatically recognized under the land
disposal restrictions, the Agency
disagrees. EPA believes that-Congress
would have included these waivers had
it intended to do so. Such waivers
simply do not automatically satisfy the
equivalency standard in section
3004(o)(2), although they may on a unit-
specific basis. Moreover, the absence of
such exemptions in section 3005(TJ(11) is
highly suggestive. Even if EPA somehow
construed the "soft hammer" provision
to allow placement in non-equivalent
section (j)(3) and (j)(13) impoundments.
placement would still b« prohibited
under section 3005(j)[ll]. Therefore.
"soft hammer" wastes cannot be treated
in surface impoundments operating
under retrofit waivers granted under the
authority of, 30050) (3) or (13J. unless an
equivalence demonstration has been
made raider 3004(oK2). If this
demonstration has been; made, the
surface impoundment has satisfied the
requirements that would be applicable
to new impoundments, and is not
prohibited from receiving "soft hammer"
wastes. (For a further discussion of
these issues, see the April 8 proposal at
53 FR11768.)
6. Storage Prohibition
As discussed in the April 8 proposal
(53 FR 11770-11771). the Agency
believes the storage prohibition in
§ 260.50 is applicable to all First Third
wastes, inducting "soft hammer" wastes.
The storage prohibition, in RCRA section
3004(j) applies to wastes which* are-
prohibited from "one or more methods
of land disposal", and in RCRA section
3004(g)(6), "soft hammer" wastes are
prohibited from disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit (unless
subject to a valid certification}.
EPA's proposed approach was that
the storage prohibition would no longer
apply to "soft hammer" wastes which
are subject to a valid certification under
§ 268.8. No comments strongly opposing
this approach were received, and •
therefore, the Agency is promulgating
the approach as proposed. "Soft
hammer" wastes thus are prohibited
from storage under § 263.50, unless such
wastes are subject to a valid
certification under 5 268-B (see section
in.C.3u for the significance of valid
certification),
D. Disposal of Restricted Wastes
Subject to an Extension of the Effective
Date
In the April 8.1988 proposal. EPA
solicited comment on its intent to
change the interpretation of RCRA
section 3004(h)(4) that was originally
promulgated in the November 7.1986
final rule (51 FR 40572). The Agency's
original interpretation provided that
restricted wastes subject to an
extension of the effective date which are
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment must be disposed in a
"facility" in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements of
section 3004(o). EPA originally
interpreted "facility" to refer to the area.
within the property boundary,
encompassing ail waste management
units (both new and existing). Because
the minimum technological requirements
of section 3004(o) (double liner, leachate
collection system, and groundwater
monitoring) only apply to new,
replacement, oc lateral expansion
landfill or surface impoundment units
(and not to existing units), a waste
subject to an extension of the effective
date could be disposed at a "facility"
provided ail new. replacement and
lateral expansion landfill and surface
impoundment units met the 3004(o)
requirements. However, this
interpretation had little actual impact on
whether the restricted waste would be
disposed in an individual "unit" that
satisfied the 3004(o) requirements.
EPA has reevaluated its original
interpretation and now believes that
Congress intended the term "facility" to
refer to "unit", which is consistent with
the Agency's current interpretation of
the term "facility" hi RCRA section
3004(g}(6), referring to the disposal of
First Third wastes for which no
treatment standards have been
established. Legislative history to
section 3004(h)(4). in fact, states that
Congress meant to prohibit disposal of
restricted wastes subject to a capacity
variance in all surface impoundments or
landfills except those meeting minimum
technological requirements applicable to
new facilities. (SeeKR. Conf. Rep. No.
1133,98th Cong.. Zd, Sess., 87). (This
passage in the Conference Report
actually refers to disposal of wastes
subject to a case-by-case capacity
variance under section 3004(h)(3), but
EPA sees no basis for not applying it to
section 3004(h)(4) as well.)
Although many commenters. opposed
this reinterpretation, the Agency
believes the intent of Congress is dear
These commenters argued that the
language of (h)(4) unambiguously
applies to entire facilities and therefore
that the Agency's existing interpretation
is-compelled. EPA .disagrees. If anything,
the literal language of the provisions
compells the Agency's amended
interpretation, because (h)(4) refers to
"such facility", referring back to
landfills and surface impoundments.
Moreover, the reading the commenters
urge makes the entire section (h)(4) into
surplusage. Facilities must already be in
compliance with the requirements of
section 3004(o) by virtue of section
3004(o) itself. Thus, a waste subject to a
capacity variance can only go to an
entire facility that is complying with
section 3CG4(o). and a command to do so
(which is how the commenters would
read (h)(4)) adds nothing to the law
which is not already there. Congress
clearly had something else in mind in
promulgating section 3004(h)(4). The
"soft hammer" provision of 3004{gK6)
throws light on congressional intent.
This provision, as discussed previously,
definitely requires "soft hammer"
wastes to be disposed in minimum
technology impoundments and landfills.
EPA believes that Congress intended the
same result for the other type of waste
for which a prohibition, effective" date
has passed but is being disposed
without complying with treatment
standards, namely wastes subject to a
capacity variance- Finally, when one
reads the unequivocal legislative history.
stating that wastes subject to a variance
should only be disposed in minimum
technology landfills and surface
impoundments, it is clear to the Agency
that not only is it the better reading of
(h)(4) to apply to landfill and
impoundment units-, but that this reading
probably is compelled.
However, the Agency does agree with
commenters who asserted that EPA has
some flexibility in setting the effective
date of this new interpretation. Many
commenters claimed that an August 8,
1988 effective date of the
reinterpretation would disrupt their
surface impoundment operations, which
have been scheduled to comply with the .
November 8,1988 deadline [in section
3005(j)(l)l for retrofitting surface
impoundments (i.e.. the date on which
surface impoundments must cease to
receive, store, or treat hazardous wastes
unless the unit is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements of
section 3004(o), or has received a waiver
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 f Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Reculations 31187
from these requirements under RCRA
section 3005(j) (2), (3). (4), or (13)). While
the 3-month period involved is relatively
short, the Agency does agree that this
reinterpretation could disrupt surface
impoundment operations by, in effect
moving the retrofitting deadline ahead
without ample notice. Because it is not
EPA's intent to unduly disrupt business
operations where flexibility exists to do
otherwise, the Agency has decided to
make the new Interpretation of RCRA
section 3004{h)(4) effective on November
8.1988. Since the interpretation of
3004(h)(4) is not a regulation
establishing a prohibition from land
disposal, it need not become effective
immediately (see RCRA section
3004(h)(l}). However, given that the .
Agency believes its earlier
interpretation to be wrong, that
Congress intended that wastes subject
to capacity variances to go to minimum
technology landfills and impoundments,
and that the period of business
disruption for impoundments ceases on
November 8, EPA believes that good
cause exists to make this interpretation
effective in three months rather than six
(see RCRA section 3010{b}(3)),
E. Relationship to California List
Prohibitions
As discussed in the July 8,1987
California list final rule preamble (52 FR
25773). and as reflected in § 268.32(h)
(i.e., the overlap of HOCa and other
prohibited wastes), where the Agency
makes a waste specific determination
involving a California list waste, such
determinations will supersede the
California list treatment standards and
effective dates. This principle also
applies to the restrictions on the land
disposal of First Third wastes. While it
is clear that Agency-established
treatment standards or effective dates
for First Third wastes are more waste*
specific than California list
determinations, the applicability of the
California list restrictions to "soft .
hammer" wastes and wastes granted a
national capacity variance requires
clarification.
1. "Soft Hammer" Wastes
As stated in the April 8 proposal,
many of the First Third wastes are also
subject to the California list .
prohibitions. Once treatment standards
become effective for such First Third
wastes, the California list prohibitions
are superseded. However, since no
treatment standards will have been
promulgated for "soft hammer" wastes
(i.e., no waste-specific determinations
will have been made for these wastes),
such wastes will remain subject to the
California list prohibitions and
treatment standards.
Because EPA does not believe that
Congress intended for the statutory
California list prohibitions to act as a
shield from requirements promulgated
tmderRCRA section 3004(g)(6), the "soft
.hammer" requirements will also apply.
This includes the requirement that when
such wastes (or treatment residues) are
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment only those landfill and
surface impoundment units that comply
with the minimum technological
requirements of 3004(6) may be used. In
other words, treatment to comply with
the California list prohibitions does not
necessarily satisfy the "soft hammer"
requirements of 40 CFR 268.8 and, in
fact, the California list prohibitions
represent the minimum treatment
required for such "soft hammer" wastes
prior to land disposal—since such
wastes are prohibited from land
disposal at the statutory levels.
The Agency does, however, make a
distinction between wastes which are
subject to the statutory prohibitions of
RCRA section 3004(d) (e.g., the metals
and free cyanides) and wastes which
are prohibited under 40 CFR 268.32 and
for which EPA has promulgated
treatment standards under Part 288
Subpart O (e.g., the liquid hazardous
wastes containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) in concentrations
greater than or equal to 1000 mg/1). For
wastes which are subject to treatment
standards (rather than the statutory
prohibitions of 3004(d), or the
codification of the statutory levels, such
as dilute HOC wastewaters), EPA has
made a determination regarding the best
treatment for such wastes. The Agency
believes that this determination (and
subsequent treatment standard), even
though it is not necessarily a waste
specific determination, is more
protective than the treatment
requirement under the "soft hammer"
provision of | 268.8. Conversely, for
wastes which are subject to the
statutory prohibitions of 3004(d), or
which are subject to the statutory levels
codified in 40 CFR 268.32, EPA has not
made a determination regarding the best
treatment for such wastes, and
therefore, the waste management
requirements under the "soft hammer"
provision of § 268.8 may be more
protective.
Therefore, where "soft hammer"
wastes are subject to an applicable
California list treatment standard under
Part 268 Subpart D (i.e., the treatment
standard is currently in effect), the "soft
hammer" provisions of § 268.8 do not
apply. Likewise, where "soft hammer"
wastes are not subject to an Agency-
established California list treatment
standard under Subpart D (or the
treatment standard is not yet effective)
the "soft hammer" provisions of § 268.8
are applicable, with the minimum
acceptable treatment for such wastes
being treatment to comply with the
statutory prohibitions under RCRA
section 3004(d), or the codified statutory
levels under § 268.32. Because the "soft
hammer" provisions are only applicable
to wastes that are disposed in landfills
or surface impoundments, "soft
hammer" wastes disposed by other
methods clearly must comply with the
California list prohibitions (which apply
to all forms of disposal). This approach
is consistent with the Agency's intent
that where more than one regulatory
requirement applies, the more stringent
requirement governs.
EPA is providing the following list of
P- and U-list "soft hammer" wastes
which are potentially subject to the
California list HOC treatment standard
on November 8,1988 (see section III.H.
of this preamble for a discussion of the
rescission of the previously granted
national variance for HOCs) for the
benefit of the regulated community. EPA
notes that such wastes have the
potential to be subject to the California
list HOC treatment standards.
depending upon the concentration levels
of Part 268 Appendix III halogenated
organics (52 FR 25791). After November
8.1988. such wastes will not be
considered "soft hammer" wastes
(because they will have an applicable
treatment standard) and will not be
subject to the prohibitions in § 268.33(f)~
or the certification requirements of
§ 268.8. The wastes must be treated in
accordance with § 288.32 until EPA
promulgates more waste-specific
treatment standards.
"Soft Hammer" Wastes Potentially
Subject to the California List HOG
Treatment Standard
K017—Heavy ends (still bottoms) from
the purification column in the
production of epichlorohydrin
K021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst
waste from fluoromethanes
production
K073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste
from the purification step of the
' diaphragm cell process using
. graphite anodes in chlorine
production
K085—Distillation of fractionation
column bottoms from the production
of chlorobenzenes
P004—Aldrin
PQ18—Bis-(chloromethyl) ether
P036—Dichlorophenylarsine
-------
31188 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 198& / Rules and Regulations
P037—Dieldrin
P05Q—Endosulfan !
P058—Fluoracetic acid, sodium salt
P059—Heptachlor
P123—'Toxaphene
U023—Methyl bromide
U036—Chlordane. technical
U037—CHorobenzene
U041—n-CMoro-2,3-ep^:ixypropane
U043-i-VinyI chloride
U044—Chloroform • •
U048—•Chlorometbyi methyl ether-
U061--DDT
U066—l,24)ibKmo-3-€Moropropane
U067—Ethyieoe dibromide
U074—l,4-Dichloro-2-b utene
U077—Ethane. 1,2-dichlorc-
U078—1,1-Dichloroethylene
U123—Lindane
U130—Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
U158—4,4-Methylene-bis-{2-
• cbloroaniline)
U185—Pentachloronitrt)benzene
U192—Pronamide
U2t»—l,1.2,2-Tetrachlciroe thane
U210—Tetrachloroethylene
U211—Carbon tetrachloride
U228—Methylchlorofoira
U227—I.l,2-Trichlorocl:hah8
U223—Trichloroelhylene
U237—Uracil mustard
The following examples illustrate the
principles discussed above regarding
overlap of California list and "soft.
hammer'* wastes:
1. Generator A generates a corrosive
waste which is also a commercial
chemical product listed in 5 268.10 (Le.,
a First Third waste). EI?A has not
promulgated a treatment standard for
this waste.
Generator A cannot dispose of the
waste until it is treated! so that it is no
longer corrosive (or liquid) (see 4O CFR
20a32(a)(l). codifying the statutory
prohibition level). The waste also is
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions,
so that further treatment may be
required if the waste is, destined for land
disposal in- an impoundment or landfill.
and such units must comply with the
minimum technological requirements of
3004(o).
2. Generator B generates a First Third
waste for which no treatment standard
has been promulgated that also contains
greater than 1000 ppm HOCs, and that is
not a wastewater.
In this case, the waste must be treated
by the method specified for HOCs in
§ 268.42. Residues from such treatment
would not be subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions.
3. Generator C generates a First Third
waste for which there is no treatment
standard. He mixes this waste with a
California list HOC waste that is subject
to the treatment method specified in
§ 268.42.
The mixed waste must be treated by
the method specified in § 268.42.
Residues from such treatment remain
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions
(since one cannot automatically render
the "soft hammer" provisions
inapplicable by mixing a "soft hammer"
waste with a waste for which a
treatment standard is applicable: to
allow' this, would create a
counterproductive incentive. Moreover.
the "soft hammer" portion of the mixture
still has not met an applicable treatment
standard.) However, if the "soft
hammer" waste contains organic
toxicants, the HOC treatment method
undoubtedly constitutes "treatment" for
the purposes of the "soft hammer1*
waste (although further treatment of ash
for inorganic constituents may be
needed, if practically available).
EPA is aware that the interpretive
reading provided in this example means
that all residues from treating1 mixtures
of wastes subject to treatment standards
and "soft hammer'* wastes would have
to be disposed in surface impoundments
and landfills satisfying minimum
technology requirements. There could be
cases where it is technically desirable to
commingle "soft hammer" wastes with
prohibited wastes subject to a treatment
standard. If a person desired to dispose
of the residues in a non-minimum
technology unit however, he could only
do so by segregating the "soft hammer'*
wastes for separata treatment. The
Agency is not certain how often this
situation might arise. Should it turn out
to pose significant practical problems,
EPA would consider redesignating such
treatment residues as Third wastes
provided all applicable treatment
standards are satisfied and provided
that the mode of treatment also is
appropriate for the "soft hammer"
waste.
2. Wastes Granted a National Variance
In the April a proposal. EPA solicited
comment on its approach to the
applicability of the California list
prohibitions to First Third wastes for
which treatment standards are-
promulgated, but which also receive a
national variance due to insufficient
treatment capacity. In setting the
treatment standard, the Agency is
making a more waste-specific
determination (than the California list
prohibitions): however, this •
.determination is not effective until the
variance ends. EPA proposed an
approach whtsie such First Third wastes
would remain subject to the California
list prohibitions during the period of the
national variance.
For example, assume that a liquid
metal-containing First Third waste haa
been granted a national variance
because of inadequate capacity to treat
the waste to the treatment standard, yet
was not granted a variance under the
less stringent (in terms of concentration.
levels of the metal} California list
prohibitions that would otherwise be
applicable. The Agency's proposed
approach would require that because
capacity exists to treat the "California
list" waste to allow for land disposal,
the California list prohibitions still apply
and the "First Third" waste would he .
required to comply with the California
list prohibitions. The First Third
treatment standard would then become.
applicable when the national variance
expires.
EPA received no comments presenting
a valid argument for not promulgating
this approach, and thus, the Agency is
finalizing the proposed approach. This
approach is also consistent with the
Agency's intent that where more than
one regulatory requirement applies; the
more stringent requirement governs.
F. Petitions To Allow Land Disposal of
Prohibited Wastes
Under section 3004 (d). (e). and (f) of
RCRA, owners and operators of land .
disposal units and deep injection wells
may petition the Administrator for a
variance from the prohibition on land
disposal of untreated hazardous waste.
To be considered for such a variance.
the petitioner must demonstrate "to a
reasonable degree of certainty that there
will be no migration of hazardous.
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone foe as long as the wastes
remain hazardous." .
On November 7,1986 EPA
promulgated regulations (51 FR 405721
that provide procedures for submittai of
petitions to allow land disposal of waste
prohibited under Subpart C of Part 268.
The regulation (40 CFR 268.6) includes
information that must be provided in a
"no migration" demonstration* the
criteria the demonstration must meet.
and the Agency's review and approval
procedures.
Today's final rule creates additional
requirements at 40 CFR 268.6 for
petitioners seeking to demonstrate "no-
migration" for land disposal units, by
adding new procedural and
informational requirements, effective on
the date of promulgation, to those
already codified at 40 CFR 268.6. (Notes
The Agency also has proposed
substantive rules to implement the land ,
disposal restrictions for waste disposed
in deep injection walls (52 FR 32446.
August 27,1987). The reader should refer
to this for a complete discussion of how
the Agency intends to -apply the "no
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31189
migration" standards to deep injection
wells.) The additional requirements for
land disposal units that EPA proposed
(53 FR11771) involve the following
factors:
1. Compliance with other applicable
laws; . . -: ,; -
2. Monitoring plans for land disposal
units; ; ..-,' ,, ? -
3. Changes hi operating conditions
from the ones described in the variance
application;and ' •-. ^ • ' %--,
4. Detection of migration of hazardous
constituents. • . .
For today's final rule, these1' ,
requirements remain largely unchanged
from the proposal. The Agency received
a number of comments regarding the
additional requirements for "no
migration" demonstrations promulgated
in today's rule, as discussed below.
1. Other Applicable Federal, State, and
Local Laws
Cbmmenters both supported and
opposed a provision that would require
petitioners to include information
demonstrating that units for which they
seek a "no migration" variance comply
with other applicable Federal, State, and
local laws. Those objecting to this
provision did so implicitly, by opposing
any additional burdens or requirements
on petitioners desiring to demonstrate
"no migration" and receive a variance.
As EPA stated at proposal, this
requirement is needed to reveal
environmentally sensitive areas and
endangered species which must be
protected. Since all subtitle C facilities
obviously must comply with all
applicable laws, the Agency is not
imposing any substantive burden, and
indicating which other laws apply in the
"no migration" petition serves the useful
function indicated above and so justifies
any incremental administrative burden.
2. Monitoring Plans
a. Requirement for monitoring media
of concern to verify compliance with
"no migration" demonstration. EPA
proposed that petitioners monitor their
units (unless monitoring is technically
impractical or infeasible) to determine if
the "no migration" standard has been
satisfied. Commenters both supported
and opposed different aspects of this
provision. The Agency continues to
believe its proposal to be simple
common sense. Without continued
monitoring of a unit to verify the
demonstration that there will be no
migration for as long as the waste
remains hazardous, there is no way to
confirm that the "no migration"
standard is being met Thus, EPA is
requiring monitoring of the appropriate
media at the unit boundary. Since a "no
migration" unit is to prevent migration
for aa long as the waste remains
hazardous, monitoring in theory could
last in perpetuity. EPA believes as a
practical matter that monitoring until the
end of the post-closure care period in 40
CFR 284.117(a)(2) (i) and (ii) (o? until the
wastes are removed from the unit)
should suffice. To preserve flexibility,
however, the Administrator may specify
en alternate monitoring period on a site
specific basis. V
Other commenten emphasized that
monitoring should not be required in a
generic fashion that would cause
unnecessary monitoring at some units,
with no site-specific flexibility. The
Agency agrees. Petitioners should
include information that clearly
demonstrates why monitoring of any
medium would be unnecessary.
Commenters also suggested that
where Subpart F ground water
monitoring already exists, additional
ground water monitoring should not be
necessary. EPA disagrees. Subpart F
ground water monitoring is not
measured at (or as near as possible to)
the unit boundary, and so will not detect
migration at the earliest practicable
time, and therefore will not be sufficient
for the purposes of "no migration"
verification. The Agency believes that
monitoring immediately at, or as near as
possible to, the unit boundary must be
performed to assure that there "will be
no migration from the disposal unit"
b. Exclusion from "no migration"
where monitoring is "technically
infeasible or impractical". EPA.
proposed that monitoring would not be
required for one or more media where
owners or operators demonstrate that
monitoring is technically infeasible or
impracticable. Most comments received
opposed this provision. Commenters
believed that monitoring should be
.mandatory, and that no ^feasibility
exclusion exists under Part 264
monitoring requirements. Some
Commenters argued that if monitoring
cannot be performed to verify "no
migration", a variance should not be
granted, because a demonstration
cannot be made with a "reasonable
degree of certainty" if monitoring is
infeasible. Some commenters felt that
predicting "no migration" based on
modeling cannot replace the use of
monitoring data to verify that migration
is not occurring.
The Agency agrees in principle that, in
most cases, monitoring of surface
disposal units is required to verify a "no
migration" demonstration and that
modeling alone will not be sufficient for
such units. The Agency recognizes,
however, that monitoring immediately at
the unit boundary sometimes will be
difficult in certain locations or under
unusual physical conditions at a site. In
these cases, EPA would require
monitoring (or modified monitoring) to
be conducted as near as possible to the
unit boundary without compromising the
integrity of the unit
3. Changes From Conditions Described
in the Variance Application
This provision requires owners or
operators to report to the Administrator
any changes or planned changes in
conditions at the unit and/or the
environment around the unit that may
affect conditions upon which the
petition was approved. Most comments
received concerning this provision
supported minimizing reporting
requirements for those cases where an
owner or operator plans or observes
changes to a "no migration" unit
Commenters favored immediate
reporting only of those changes to the
variance that are significant and affect
the potential for migration .of hazardous
constituents from the unit EPA agrees
that minor and seasonal changes in
parameters such as pH, conductivity,
salinity, etc. do not warrant a report to
the Agency. However, the Agency .
believes that where changes are planned
or occur that would Significantly depart '
from those conditions described in the
variance and that would affect potential
migration of hazardous constituents, the
owner or operator should report them. In
particular, proposed changes in the '
waste stream received, operating
practices, or unit design and
construction must be reported. In
addition, unusual and significant
changes in the environment, such as the
water table or surface water flow,
warrant reporting.
4. Detection of Hazardous Constituent
Migration
This provision remains essentially
unchanged from the proposal. It requires
that if the owner or operator determines
there is migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit, he must
immediately suspend receipt of
prohibited waste and notify EPA within
10 days. The Agency .is required to
determine the appropriate action to be
taken within 60 days from notification.
Certain commenters indicated that to
avoid false positives, additional
sampling to verify a release should be
allowed before making a determination
that migration has occurred. The Agency
agrees. While some commenters
objected that action should be taken
immediately upon detection of a release,
EPA believes that verification within the
10-day time period is reasonable. The
-------
. •*!j*,*«- in— •s-c
31190 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
proposed 10-day notification period
should provide ample time for the owner
or operator to perform additional
sampling to verify that waste
constituent migration from a unit has
occurred. Therefore, the Agency has
decided to retain a 10-clay notification
period.
Commenters also objected to the .
proposed 60-day period, in which the
Agency determines whsther the owner ..
OT opera tor of a unit caa continue, to •, .,
receive prohibited wasteland whether.
the "no migration" variance is to bel ,'; .•
revoked, as being too lengthy. EPA •
disagrees and believes that the 60-day
period is needed to determine whether
the termination of waste acceptance and
the revocation of the "no migration"
variance is appropriate. Furthermore,
the 60-day time period is the maximum
time for the Agency to decide; under
circumstances that the Agency
determines warrant a faster response, it
will do so.
Some commenters abo stated that
where the release is temporary, or once
it has been corrected, waste acceptance
should be resumed. EPA disagrees. We
instead concur with comments
indicating that once a verified release
has occurred at levels that would
constitute migration, the "no migration"
demonstration will have failed, and the
unit will have violated the terms of the
"no migration" variance. At this point
the "no migration" variance would be
revoked for that unit (Corrective action
might also be required pursuant to
section 3004{u) or 3008{h).)
G. Approach to Comparative Risk
Assessment
I. Proposed Use of Risk Analyses
Within the regulatory framework for
implementing the land disposal
restrictions, the Agency has in the past '
considered certain criteria in the
determination of "available" treatment
technologies. Among the criteria
formerly considered was whether
application of a treatment technology
poses greater risks to human health and
the environment than those posed by
direct land disposal of the waste, See 51
FR 4059Z-M593 (November 7.1988).
The previous framework for
determining Best Demonstrated
Available Technologies employed a
methodology that evaluated the
analytical results of the comparative
risk analyses to identify whether a
treatment alternative was "available" to
set 3004(m) treatment standards.
Because of the strong statutory
presumption against land disposal,
particularly RCRA sections 1002(b){7)
and 1003(a)(6), the analysis required that
a treatment technology must be clearly
more risky than land disposal (beyond
the level of uncertainty in the model)
before it could be designated as
unavailable. 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
7,1988 final rule) and California list
wastes (July 8,1987 final rule), use of the
. Analyse* did not affect the
determination as to whether a specific
treatment technology was available.
In both proposals on First Third
wastes (see 53 FR 11774, April 8.1988
and 53 FR 17606. May 17,1988), it was
explained that the Agency had decided
not to utilize the existing comparative
. risk assessment approach for this .
rulemaking and was reconsidering its
future application in the determination
of "available" treatment technologies.
One of the primary concerns addressed
in the proposals related to cases where
the kind disposal practice is found to be
less risky than any of the treatment
alternatives. In such a situation, the
analysis would result in a determination
that no treatment technologies are
"available" for the purpose of setting
treatment standards. Because land
disposal is prohibited by the statute in
many cases, this determination would
mean that a generator could not treat
and land dispose of such wastes, even
' though the treatment technologies in
question may be incompliance with
other regulatory standards that are
deemed protective of human health and
the environment and may provide
substantial treatment
In the April 8. 1988 and May 17.1988
proposals, the Agency solicited
comment on a risk analysis approach
that would distinguish between the
overall degree of risks posed by
alternative treatment technologies.
Under this proposed approach, the net
risk posed by alternative practices
would be considered in the
identification of "best" treatment
. technologies.
2". Agency Response to Comments
A number of commenters submitted ..
remarks pertaining to the utilization of
some form of risk analysis process.
Several of these commenters specifically
addressed the proposed approach to
comparative risk assessment, while
most of the others made
recommendations to EPA on risk
comparisons between alternative
treatment technologies.
Those who commented on the
proposed approach, generally agreed
that the comparative risk assessment
should be modified to account for the
anomalous results that could occur using
the existing method. One commenter
supported the Agency's decision in
which the risks posed by direct land
disposal and alternative treatment
technologies would no longer be
compared, This commenter asserted that
EPA does not have the authority under
RCRA to conduct such a comparison as
a basis for establishing BOAT. Other
commenters continued to support an
approach that weighs the risks of
treatment technologies against the risks
of disposal of untreated wastes in the.
consideration of "available" treatments.
One commenter argued that the existing
comparative risk approach should be
modified rather than discarded because
it serves as a valuable tool where land
disposal, is less risky than some
treatment alternatives but more risky
than others. Another commenter stated
that Congress could not have intended
the EPA to choose a treatment method
that presents more risks than land
disposal.
As indicated in the November 7,1986
final rule (see 51 FR 40593). EPA
interprets section 3004(m) as directing
•the establishment of treatment
• standards which minimize the threat to
the "environment" as applying to all
' media (i.e., air, land, and water).
Because there is no language indicating
that this term does not include all
media, EPA does not believe that the
section 3004(m) standard can be read to
preclude comparative risk analyses.
However, the development of 3004(m)
standards, which substantially diminish
toxicity or reduce the likelihood of •
migration of hazardous constituents,
specifically apply to "levels or methods
of treatment", and are not contingent
upon a risk comparison of treatments to
land disposal. Upon further
consideration, the Agency believes that
the existing risk analysis approach does
not begin with a comparison of equally
viable options since land disposal of
untreated wastes is not a viable
alternative management practice under
RCRA (see also RCRA sections
1002(b){7) and 1003(a)(6)). In view of this
point-and the concern noted earlier, the
Agency has concluded that use of the
risk analysis method previously
employed provides minimal benefit as a
decision tool. Thus, the Agency has
chosen not to utilize the existing
comparative risk assessment approach
in developing this final rulemaking.
The majority of the commenters who
addressed risk assessments urged the
Agency to compare risks between
alternative treatment technologies.
Several commenters asserted that the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17; 1988 / Rules and Regulations
31191
methodology for selecting BOAT should
assess the-achievement of alternative
treatment technologies in reducing the;
release of hazardous constituents to-
environmental media. Other • •
commenters urged the Agency to
complete comparative risk assessments
between specific technologies and the
proposed BOAT with respect to only
certain, hazardous -waste codes. Tie ••
Agency agrees that comparative risk. •
analyses between applicable1 . •
technologies would likely provide useful
information for identifying BDAT.
3. Future Use of Comparative Risk •
Assessment
In the proposed rulemakings (53 FR
11774, April 8,1988:53 FR 17606, May 17,
1988), EPA indicated that risk analyses
may be conducted 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
light of the commenters' support, EPA is
examining the feasibility of
implementing such an approach under
future land disposal restriction
determinations. However, as a result of
the time constraints of the statutory
schedule, EPA is unable to develop and
utilize such an approach for the waste
codes addressed by today's final
rulemaking. To the extent possible,
additional details of an approach for
comparing risks between alternative
technologies will be included as part of
a proposed rulemaking on land disposal
prohibitions for "Second Third" wastes.
H. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for First
Third Wastes. F001-F005 Spent
Solvents, California List Halogenated
Organic Compounds, and Contaminated
Soil and Debris
As explained in the May 17,1988
proposed rule, EPA developed a new
data base for capacity analyses,
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
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. A complete description of the
TSDR Survey data set and other
supplemental data will be found in the
Background Document for First Third
Wastes to Support 40 CFR Part 268 Land
Disposal'Restrictions First Third Waste
Volume, Characteristics and Available
Treatment Capacity, referred to
hereafter as the "Capacity Background
Document".
On November 8,1988 certain capacity
variances promulgated in the Solvents
and Dioxins final rule (51 FR 40572)
expire and the wastes that had been
covered by the extended effective date
will be subject to the land disposal
restrictions treatment standards. Also,
as explained in section III. H. 4.. the
Agency is rescinding certain capacity
variances promulgated in the California.
list final rule (52 FR 25780). Several
commenters expressed concern that the
increase in wastes requiring treatment
capacity because of variance
expirations and rescissions were not
included in the capacity analyses for the
proposed rule. The commenters argued
that the volumes of these wastes reduce
the capacity available for treatment of
First Third wastes. However, the
commenters were incorrect in this
assertion: the volumes of wastes that
were subject to capacity variances that
are expiring or are being rescinded were
included in the capacity analyses in the
May 17 proposal. The capacity available
for treating First Third wastes presented
ki the May 17 proposal, and in today's
final rule, reflects only the amount of
available capacity remaining after
accounting for the treatment of wastes
restricted from land disposal under the
Solvents and Dioxins and the California
list final rules.
1. Total Quantity of Land Disposed First
Third Wastes
The capacity analyses for the First
Third wastes for which EPA is
promulgating treatment standards were
performed using the new TSDR Survey
data. EPA estimated the total quantities
of First Third wastes that are Sand
- disposed annually based on the results
of the TSDR Survey. The total waste
quantities and the methods by which the
wastes are stored, treated, and disposed
are presented in Table 1 below. One
method of land disposal, underground
injection, is not included in the analyses.
Underground injection has been
addressed in separate rulemakings.
Other methods of land disposal that are
affected by today's rule, such as
utilization of salt dome and salt bed
formations and underground mines and
caves, are not addressed in the capacity
analyses because of insufficient'data.
About 71 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. Stored wastes are eventually
treated, recycled, or permanently
disposed in other units. To avoid double
counting, the volumes of wastes
reported as being stored in surface
impoundments were not included in the
estimates of volumes requiring
alternative treatment capacity.
However, these wastes will eventually
require alternative, storage capacity
because of the restrictions on placement
of wastes into surface impoundments.
About 328 million gallons of First
Third wastes are treated annually in
surface impoundments that do not meet
minimum technology requirements, or
are residuals that have been removed
from those surface impoundments that
do meet minimum technology '
requirements. An additional 49 million
gallons are stored in waste piles, 29
million gallons are treated in waste
piles, and 378 million gallons are
disposed in landfills and land treatment
units.
TABLE 1.—TOTAL VOLUME OF LAND
DISPOSED FIRST THIRD WASTES
[Million gallons/year]
Storage: -
• Waste piles :.... 49
Surface impoundments ,. , 6
Treatment:
Waste piles 29
Surface impoundments 328
Disposal:
Landfills... ... 302
' Land treatment , 76
Surface impoundments 71
Total.
861
Table 2 and Table 3 subdivide the '
total amount of land disposed First
Third wastes into two categories:
wastes for which treatment standards
are being promulgated today, and
wastes for which treatment standards
are not being promulgated but which are
subject to the "soft hammer"
requirements. Wastes for which
standards are being promulgated today
are presented in Table 2 below.
-------
31192 Federal-Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday; August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—VOLUME OF LAND DISPOSED
FIRST THIRD WASTES FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BEINCI PROMULGATED
41
27
320
70
AVMMpilM..
Suf*»impc
WtM«piM.
Surfac* impoundment*,
DitpOMfc '
LandflU •-' --
KnwnL.
Surface ImpoundmanU.
ToUlv
812
Table 3 presents the waste quantities
and the method of land disposal for the
First Third wastes for which treatment
standards are not being promulgated.
and which are subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions. Thiii category
includes all of the First Third P and U
wastes, as well as the following
wastecodes: FOOT, F008, F009. F019,
K011. K013. K014. K017. K031, K035.
K048{partial). K069{partial). K073. K084.
K085. K086, KlOl (partial). K102 (partial).
K106. and wastewaters from F006.-K004.
KOOB. K021, K022. K036. K046. K060.
K061. KOC9 and K083.
Table 3.—VOLUME OF UNO DISPOSED
FIRST THIRD WASTES FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE NOT BEING PROMUL-
GATED
Storage:
Wasm pttas ™
Surface impoundments „
Treatment
Wasto p*M .
. Sortaca impoundments __.._.....
Duposnl:
LandfiBi
, Land treatment.
Surtaco impoundments...
Total „
s
2
2
7
28
<1
1
48
2. Required Alternative Capacity* • - •
The Agency assessed the
requirements for alternative treatment
capacity resulting from the promulgation
of today's rule. EPA first characterized
the volumes of First Third wastes for
which treatment standards are being
promulgated, since these wastes 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 determined
which treatment technologies are
applicable to the waste volumes and
placed the wastes into testability
groups. The volumes of alternative
treatment capacity that would be
required when owners or operators
comply with the land disposal
'restrictions being promulgated was then
determined. Based on this analysis, the
Agency estimates that today's rule could
affect about 812 million gallons of First
Third wastes that are land disposed
annually. Of this total, about 777 million
gallons will require alternative
• treatment capacity, the remainder being
stored. As explained elsewhere in this
preamble. EPA is promulgating
treatment standards expressed as
concentration limits based on the
performance of the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT). It is not
a requirement that BOAT be used to
achieve the concentration levels, but
these technologies, as described in
section HI. A* were generally used as
the basis for determining available
capacity.
Several commenters expressed
concern that the capacity required to
treat "soft hammer" wastes was not
considered in the capacity analyses, and
because of this omission, the amount of
available capacity would be less than
was presented in the May 17 proposed
rule. Since "soft hammer" wastes have
no BOAT treatment standards, there is
nothing upon which to base a capacity
analysis. The Agency evaluated the
characteristics and volumes of these
wastes, and found that because of their
physical form and comparatively small
volume, they will not have a significant
impact on available capacity. (See Table
3.) In addition, the "soft hammer"
provisions require that wastes be
treated where treatment is practically
available (assuming such wastes are
disposed in landfills or surface
impoundments). If treatment is found
not to be practically available, the
wastes may be land disposed after
appropriate: certifications as to
availability and practicality of treatment
are made. In effect, the generators of
• "soft hammer", wastes will do waste-
specific capacity analyses. If treatment
capacity is in particularly short supply,
generators can be expected to certify to
the lack of practically available
treatment and dispose with limited or no
treatment. Thus, these wastes should.
not displace treatment capacity for other
restricted wastes.
Also, several commenters said that
the capacity for wastes generated at
CERGLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions should be included in
the analyses, since the number of
response actions and corrective actions
will be increasing and they could ••-
require much of the available capacity
to treat large volumes of wastes. The
Agency has determined that the greatest _
likelihood for a conflict of this type is for
those wastes where BOAT is identified
as solids/sludge incineration. The
Agency has evaluated the potential
demand for solids incineration capacity
from CERCLA response actions and
RCRA corrective actions. Although only
gross estimates are available at this
time, it is dear that this-added •
increment of wastes would be in excess
of the solids incineration capacity
available. Therefore, a two-year
national capacity variance has been
granted to soil and debris from RCRA
corrective actions and CERCLA
response actions contaminated with
wastes for which BDAT standards are
based on incineration (see section in. H.
5. b.). Other, types of treatment capacity
(e.g.. stabilization, wastewater
treatment) appear to be available in
amounts sufficient to accommodate
other RCRA corrective action and
CERCLA response action wastes. EPA
plans to do a more quantitative
accounting of these wastes for future
land disposal restrictions rules as
volume estimates become more precise.
Several commenters also argued that
the quantities of wastes requiring
alternative capacity are underestimated
because they do not include "derived
from" wastes. To the extent that
"derived from" wastes were described
in the TSDR survey, they are accounted
for in the capacity estimates. However,
if "derived from" wastes were
misreported or were not included in the
TSDR survey report, they may be
underestimated. The Agency believes
that most of the potential underreporting
of "derived from" wastes was for
landfill leachate. Large, commercial
hazardous waste landfills can produce
substantial quantities of leachate which,
depending on the types and levels of
contamination, may require further
treatment. In response to comments
raising potential capacity problems for
treatment of leachate, the Agency
contacted several large commercial ~ -.-
hazardous waste landfill operators to
determine how they now manage
leachate. They i indicated that most
leachate is now sent to POTW's, to
NPDES discharge or to underground
injection. Since all of these practices can
continue to be used, there does not
appear to be a capacity constraint on
disposal of leachate.
Commenters also raised questions
about the ability to treat leachate
derived from multiple waste streams to
the appropriate treatment standards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, Mb. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31193
The Agency examined data on leachate
submitted by large, commercial
hazardous waste facilities and found
that levels of hazardous constituents
were generally well below those seen in
industrial wastes. This indicates that
wastewater treatment processes should
provide sufficient treatment to allow
leachate to meet the applicable
standards. Since available wastewater
treatment capacity far exceeds the -
demand, the Agency has concluded that
there is no capacity constraint on
treatment of leachate. (See section OL A.
4. for more discussions of the
applicability of treatment standards to
• leachate.)
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 be treated on-site by the
generator. Several conunentera argued
that the Agency overestimated the
amount of on-site capacity since there is
no guarantee that on-site treatment will
achieve the regulatory treatment
standards. However, the Agency
included only BOAT treatment in its
assessment of both off site and on-site
capacity. EPA develops BOAT such that
any well-designed and well-operated
treatment process should be capable of
complying with the standards.
TABLE 4.—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COM-
MERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING CA-
PACITY FOR FIRST THIRD WASTES
tmilSoo gallons/year]
TABLE 4.—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COM-
MERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING CA-
PACITY FOR FIRST THIRD WASTES—'
Continued • '
[m*on gaBons/y«a»J . , .
Waste coda
Fooe
K001.. __ _
K021 , „'
K022
K044 _
K045 „„ ,
K046 „
K047.. _
K06O , , ,
wwa
K086
K087 ™___..J „ ,'.-.......
K101/102 1ZZ™1...S!Z"!ZZ!1"
K004
K008
K01S
K016 „ .
K018
K01 9 _
K020 „._
K024 „
K030
K036
K037. ^
K048
K049.
Required
capacity
1290
3.7
'00
01
00
00
1.6
00
00
,0.1
6.2
1.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
O.O
0.0
03
0.0
0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
37.1
32.6
Wast* cod* :
Kiwn
KWW-. •
KOW
KMM .„„.;„ ......... ,
KOIW ..,.,..-
KOfift
"0™ -„ -, ,.,„ , , \ '
K103
K1«M
Required
capacity
11J
78.1
12.5
83.1
40.1
0.0
3.9
0.1
<0.1
1 Sea section III. H. 3. i. tar a dscussion ol wastes
not requiring attemativa treatment capacity.
3. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates ;
Table 5 below presents the volumes of
First Third wastes that require
alternative treatment capacity, arranged
according to the technology description
of the alternative treatment required.
The amount of capacity that is available
in each case is also presented.
It is important to note that some of
these wastes, because of their actual
physical form, cannot meet treatment
standards simply by using the
technology identified as BOAT. These
wastes must be treated through several
steps, called a treatment train. The
Agency assumed that the residuals in
such cases will be treated using
alternative technologies prior to land
disposal; therefore, the total volumes
reported were assigned to appropriate
technologies.
TABLE 5.—ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL
TREATMENT/RECYCLING CAPACITY FOR
FIRST THIRD WASTES
CMUSoo Gallons/Year J
Technology
Incineration:
LJQtliuS .*•*•* im. .LI. ....mi .........
SoSd/Shidge.
Solvent Extraction — ___.
Stabilization _.^.
High Temperature Metals
Recovery._..__._™......™._.
Wastewater Treatment
Chromium reduction.
chemical precipitation.
settling/ filtration
Carbon adsorption, chro-
mium reduction, chem-
ical precipitation, set-
tling/filtration
Sludge Treatment
Acid leaching, chemical
oxidation, sludge
dewatering ..... -._..
Avatebto
274
7
1
495
" 34
260
12
0
Required
<1
1 6-160
•O-1S4
231
62
40
1
4
1 Both incineration and solvent extraction are al-
ternative technologies for K048-K052. Thus, the al-
ternative capacity required for First third wastes-
ranges from 6 to 160 million gallons/year for solid/
sludge incineration, and 0 to 154 million gallons/year
for solvent extraction. •
a. Liquid Incineration. Treatment
standards for K015, K083 and K086
wastes are based on liquid incineration.
The Agency estimates that about one
million gallons per year of these .wastes
• require liquid incineration treatment
capacity. Using the new TSDR survey
data, the Agency evaluated commercial
capacity and determined that there is
approximately 274 million gallons
available, ample capacity to treat these
wastes. Thus, no capacity variance was
granted for K015, K083, or K086 wastes.
:b. Solid/Sludge Incineration Capacity.
Treatment standards for K001, K016;
K018, K019. K020, K022, K024, K030,
K037, K087, K101. and K102 wastes are
based on solid/sludge incineration. The
Agency estimated that 8 million gallons
per year of these wastes require solid/
sludge incineration capacity. Using the
new TSDR Survey data, the Agency
evaluated commercial incineration
capacity and determined that there was
about 7 million gallons of solid/sludge
incineration capacity available. Based
upon this data, 'the Agency did not grant
a capacity variance for these wastes.
The Agency received a number of
comments on the availability of
incineration for K001 wastes.
Commenters noted that some
incineration facilities refused to take
K001 wastes containing
pentachlorophenol, while other facilities
would accept only "true" K001 wastes,
and hot wastes which resemble, but are
not K001. Commenters also noted that
substantial-volumes of K001 wastes, as
• well as some soils contaminated with
K001. will be generated when surface
impoundments at wood preserving
facilities are closed. Based on these
factors, some commenters requested
that a two-year national capacity
variance be granted for K001 wastes.
An industry association submitted
comments which included an informal
survey conducted by one of its members
of eight solids incineration facilities.
According to these comments, three of
the facilities would accept K001 waste
for incineration without constraints on
whether it was "true" K001 or KOOl-like
waste. A fourth facility expected to
receive a permit modification prior to
August which would enable it to take
K001, again without constraints. Two
facilities said they would incinerate
"true" K001 wastes. One facility would
not accept K001 with pentachlorophenol.
The final facility was not planning to
continue incineration activities.
-------
51134 Federal Register /Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
This information indicates that there
is capacity available to incinerate "true"
K001 wastes. The wastea which
resemble, but are not, K<>01 are not
subject to the treatment standards and.
therefore, cannot be considered in
capacity determinations. Finally, if a
particular generator cannot find an
incineration fadHly that can or wifl
accept hi* waste, he may quality for a
case-by-cas* extension of the effective
date (see 4OCFR28&5). - •
It £• possible UsatKOOtt wastes
produced when old surface
impoundments are closed could exceed
the available commercial incineration
capacity, particularly if the incineration
was scheduled to occur'within the next
twelve months. However, a number of
factors could affect the amount of K001
generated during dosunts, particularly
closure plans which incorporate in situ
treatment either as a final solution oc as
a volume reduction measure prior to
removal of the waste. Abo. as noted
above, the generator can apply under
§ 28&S for a case-by-caffie extension of
the effective date where special
circumstances pertain.
Soils and debris contaminated with
K001 (and other First Third wastes
requiring incineration) are being granted
a two-year national capacity variance
(see section DL M. 5.).
Based upon these factors, the Agency .
will not grant a capacity variance to
K001 wastes.
c. Solvent Extraction ar Incineration.
Treatment standards foir K04&-K052
wastes are based on. solvent extraction
' followed by stabilization of residuals or •
sludge- incineration followed by
stabilization of ash. Tha Agency
estimates that about 154 million gallons
per year of these wastea require either
solvent extraction or sludge incineration
capacity as a result of today's final rule.
The Agency evaluated commercial
capacity and determined that there is
approximately 1 million gallons of
solvent extraction capacity and 7 million
gallons of sludge/solid incineration
capacity available. (Approximately 6
million gallons of sludgu/aoh'd capacity
will be needed for K001, K016, K019.
K020. K022. K024, K030, K037, K087,
K101. and K102 wastes.) Therefore, a 2-
year national capacity variance from the
effective date is being g.vnted for these
wastes.
d. Stabilization, Treatment standards
for F008 and K048 wastes are based on
stabilization. In addition, stabilization is
required for treatment residuals from
other wastes. (As discussed in section
III. A. 7., the Agency is setting a
treatment standard based on
stabilization for non-explosive K046
wastes, while allowing the "soft
hammer" to apply to explosive K048
wastes.) Because the Agency does not
have data which allows it to determine
the volume of waste associated with
each type of K048, EPA has assumed the
entire volume will require stabilization.
The Agency, estimates that about 148
million gallons per year of these wastes
require stabilization capacity as a result
of the treatment standards promulgated
today;
Many commenters questioned the
capacity analysis for F006, arguing that
the evaluation of available stabilization
capacity does not guarantee mat it is
capable of achieving the treatment
ittnnriarH- Tha fttanAarA in hnapd nn thft
performance of cement and pozzolanic-
based stabilization. Although the TSDR
Survey does contain data on other
stabilization methods, only these two
types of stabilization were included hi
the capacity analysis (Le., only the types
considered as BOAT). Furthermore, the
methodology fox determining BOAT
includes factors that account for
performance variability; therefore, the
Agency is reasonably sure that the
capacity included in this analysis is
capable of achieving the treatment
standard. The Agency evaluated
commercial capacity and determined
that there is approximately 496 million
gallons of stabilization capacity
available, more than enough to treat
these wastes. No capacity variance is .
being granted for wastes for which
treatment standards are based on.
stabilization.
e.High Temperature Metala
Recovery/Stabilization. The treatment
standard for K061 waste containing 15% •
or more total zinc (high zinc K061) is
based on high temperature metals
recovery. For wastes containing less
than 15% zinc (low zinc K061) the
standard is baaed on stabilization.
Based on data received from
commenters. approximately 75% of K061
waste contains 15% or more total zinc.
Thus, an estimated 82 million gallons of
high temperature metals recovery
capacity is required but only 34 million
gallons of capacity is available.
Therefore, a two-year national capacity
variance from the high temperature
metals recovery standard has been
granted to high zinc K061 wastes. As
discussed in section in. A. 7., the
Agency is setting an interim standard
for high zinc K061 wastes based on
stabilization. Consequently the entire
volume of K061 waste will require
stabilization capacity on an interim
basis. Thus, the required stabilization
capacity is 83 million gallons for K061
plus 148 million gallons for other wastes,
for a total of 231 million gallons.
Using the new TSDR survey, the
Agency has determined that there is
enough stabilization capacity for K061
wastes and other waste codes and..
therefore, no capacity variance is being
granted for the two-year period during
which th« interim stabilization standard
will be in effect
f. Wastewater Treatment. Treatment
standards for K062 waste are based on
wastewater treatment (chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation and
filtration). The Agency estimates that
less than 42 million gallons per year of
this waste require various types of
wastewater treatment as a result of the
treatment standards promulgated today.
Using the new TSDR survey data, the
Agency evaluated commercial capacity
and determined that there is adequate
capacity available for wastewater
treatment Therefore, no capacity
variance is being granted for K062.
g. Sludge Treatment* Treatment
standards for K071 waste are baaed on
sludge treatment' (acid leaching.
. chemical oxidation, and sulfide
precipitation and filtration). The Agency
estimates that about 4 million gallons
per year of this waste requires sludge.
treatment as a result of the treatment
standards promulgated today.
After analyzing the new TSDR Survey
data, the Agency has determined that
there is not enough treatment capacity
commercially available to treat K071.
Therefore,-a 2-year national capacity
variance is being granted for K071.
. a. Waste* for Which Treatment
Standards an Based on Solvent
Recovery or Solvent Extraction. The
treatment standards for K103 and K104
wastes 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 followed by liquid
incineration and followed by steam
stripping, followed by carbon
adsorption, followed by carbon
regeneration.
Using the new TSDR Survey data,
EPA determined that the only volumes
of these wastes that require alternative
commercial capacity are those "derived
from" wastes not amenable to solvent
recovery or solvent extraction because
of their physical forms. Therefore, the
Agency assumed that the K103 and K104
wastes requiring alternative treatment
will undergo incineration, followed by
stabilization of the ash. 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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
31195
i. Wastes Not Requiring Alternative
Capacity, After reviewing the new
TSDR Survey, EPA determined that a
number of First Third wastes do not
require alternative capacity, even
though treatment standards are being
promulgated. These wastes are: K004.
K008, KOI 5, K018, K021, K036, K044,
K045, K047, K08Q, K099. and some K069.
Each of these is discussed below. .
Treatment standards for K044.K045
and K047 wastes are based on open
detonation, for which there is no
capacity constraint The Agency
believes that when open detonation is
properly conducted, the residuals are no
longer reactive, nor do they exhibit any
other characteristic. Other treatment
methods which achieve the same results
are also permissible. Therefore. K044,
K045, and K047 do not require.
alternative commercial capacity and
further analysis is not necessary.
Treatment standards for K099 waste
are based on chlorine oxidation. The
Agency 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.
Treatment standards for K015 waste
are based on liquid incineration, and
standards for K018 waste are based on
solid/sludge incineration. After
analyzing the new TSDR Survey data,
the Agency determined that neither of
these wastes was reported in the TSDR
survey as being land disposed.
Therefore, no alternative treatment
capacity is required. It is possible that
all of these wastes are being treated on-
site and do not require commercial
capacity. It is also possible that these
wastes are not being land disposed, or if
they are, they are land disposed by a
method not covered in the TSDR Survey
(underground mines) or not included in
the proposed rule (deep well injection).
Finally, the wastes may not have
required alternative capacity in 1986, the
reporting period covered by the TSDR
Survey.
Treatment standards for non-calcium
sulfate K069 waste are based on total
recycle, meaning this waste cannot be
land disposed. Available information
shows that most K069 wastes currently
being generated are being recycled and
do not require alternative capacity. As
discussed in section III. A. 7., some K069
wastes contain high levels of calcium
sulfate. These wastes cannot be
recycled. The Agency is not
•promulgating a treatment standard for
calcium sulfate containing K069 wastes;
these wastes will be subject to the "soft
hammer" requirements.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "no land disposal" for K004,
K008, K021, K025, K036, K060, K073 and
K100 wastes and for wastewaters from
F006, K022, K048, K061, K069. and K106,
based on the belief that they are no
longer being generated or are not being
land disposed. Commenters noted that
these wastes are being generated in the
form of landfill leachate even though
ongoing production processes may no
longer produce the wastes. Also, these
wastes may be present in contaminated
ground water and, thus, may be
generated daring cleanup actions.
Because a "no land disposal"
standard could hinder or preclude
necessary and desirable collection and
treatment of leachate and contaminated
ground water, the Agency has not
established standards for the
wastewater components of the "no land
disposal" wastes. In addition, the
Agency is revising the schedule for the
• prohibition on land disposal and
establishment of treatment standards
(40 CFR 268.10) to move leachate from
"soft hammer" wastes, contaminated
ground water from "soft hammer"
wastes, and certain "soft hammer"
wastewater residues from treatment to
the Third Third to avoid disruptive
effects while standards are developed
(see section III. C. 3. for further
discussion).
For the non-wastewater forms of
K004. K008. K021, K038, and K060 the
"no land disposal" standard is being
promulgated.
J. Other Comments on Capacity
Determinations. Several commenters
felt that available capacity for treating
wastes in tank systems was
underestimated because additional
capacity could be brought on line
quickly by vendors or put into service as
on-site capacity. For example, one
commenter disagreed with the variance
provided to K071 waste because the
BOAT technologies identified for K071
are simple chemical tank treatment
processes (acid leaching, chemical
oxidation, and sulfide precipitation),
which could be supplied readily by
vendors.
The Agency believes that because of
the time necessary to construct such
treatment systems and (in some cases)
to satisfy permitting requirements,
additional capacity cannot be brought
on-line quickly and should therefore not
be considered when analyzing available
treatment capacity. In addition, as part
of the TSDR Survey, facilities were
asked to report any treatment processes
planned to be operational (considering
construction and permit time) by
January 1992. Planned capacity reported
in the TSDR Survey, and taken into
consideration in the Agency's capacity
determinations, did not indicate that
additional capacity that would change
the capacity determinations
promulgated today would be available
in the near future.
Some commenters believe-that the
Agency's capacity analysis
overestimated the national capacity to
incinerate solids and sludges.
Commenters stated that the Agency did
not consider all necessary factors when
determining solid/sludge incineration
capacity. Factors cited as not
considered included material handling
restrictions, downtime for maintenance,
storage restrictions, and siting and
permitting difficulties for future
incineration units. One commenter felt
that the Agency overestimated the
volume of waste requiring solid/sludge
incineration capacity because
pretreatment and volume reduction
were not considered. The same
commenter also felt that the Agency
underestimated solid/sludge treatment
capacity because liquid incineration
capacity could easily be converted for
solid/sludge incineration.
The Agency based its latest
incineration capacity determination on
the 1987 TSDR Survey database. When
completing the TSDR Survey, the
facilities were asked to consider
downtime for maintenance and other
factors when reporting the treatment
capacity for existing and future units.
Therefore, such factors should be
reflected in the estimates of available
solid/sludge incineration capacity. In
addition, the TSDR Survey did request
information on plans to change the types
of capacity available (e.g., liquid to
solid/sludge incineration) and this
information is included in the estimates.
Therefore, EPA disagrees with both of
these comments.
Commenters expressed concern
. because the Agency's determinations of
required treatment capacity did not take
into account the volumes of waste that
will be removed from surface
impoundments undergoing clean closure.
Therefore, the commenters felt that the
Agency underestimated the volume of
wastes requiring alternative treatment.
This issue is discussed earlier in this
section with respect to K001 wood
preserving wastes. Some information
was provided by commenters on the
volumes of wastes currently in surface
impoundments at their facilities;
however, for the reasons set out in the
earlier discussion of K001, the Agency
believes that both the timing of closures
and the amount of material which will
actually require incineration are
-------
31196 Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 A Wednesday,-August 17, 1988 / Rolea and Regulations
uncertain at this time, and therefore
cannot be used in the capacity decision.
The newTSDR data have implications
for "soft hammer" certifications-A "soft
hammer" certification for a waste
amenable to treatment by a method for
which ample capacity exists will be
critically examined by EPA and i* more
likely to bo invalidated. Examples are •
waste* •«n*n"bfo (Q. liquid injection
incineration OP to *^a^^ Tatinri. i ... . . .
4. Alternative Capacity (ind Effective '
Dates for Sol vent WastelandCalifornia
List Waste*, • -.--.' .- -
Using the new TSDR data. EPA
Devaluated waste volumes requiring
alternative capacity because of the
Solvents final, rule (51 Fit 40572) and the
California list final rule (52 FR 25760).
The new analyses indicated significant
changes in waste management practices
and capacity, notably, significant
increases hi incineration capacity.
Consequently, some national capacity
variances are no longer necessary.
Capacity variances are no longer
needed for F001-F005 solvents
generated by small quantity generators
(i.e., generators of 100-1000 kilograms of
hazardous wastes per month), CERCLA
response actions, and RCRA.corrective
actions addressed in §5 26&30{a) (1) and
(2), with the exception of solvent-
, contaminated soils. Also, capacity
variances are no longer needed for
California list HOCs, with the exception
of HOC-contaminated soils. BOAT for
these wastes is incineration, and the
new data indicate significant increases
in incineration capacity, assuring
adequate capacity for these wastes.
The May 17 notice proposed to
terminate these national, capacity
variance* as of the date of promulgation
of the final Fust Thud. rule. Based on
comments received, some of which point
out the short comment period on'the
May 17 proposal necessitated by the
statutory deadline, the Agency has
decided to allow the capacity variances
for certain solvent wastes to expire and
to terminate the California list HOCs
variance on November (1.1988. The
Agency believes that thi; three-month
delay will not result hi any adverse
environmental effects and will permit
generators of California list wastes, for
which the variance is being terminate^
eight months earlier than expected, to
arrange for appropriate treatment and
disposal of their wastes, if they have not
done so already.
5. National Variances from the Effective
Date for Contaminated Soil and Debris
a. Legal Authority. Under RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(3) and (e)(3). Congress
provided that the land disposal
restrictions provisions for disposal of •
certain "contaminated soil" and
"debris" from CERCLA 104 and 106
response actions and from RCRA -
corrective action* would not apply until
48 months from the enactment of .
HSWA*Thes» 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 sections 3004 (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 Fust 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. No
commenter disagreed with this analysis.
(See the May 17,1988 proposed rule for
a more detailed explanation of legal
authority and'other aspects of the
proposed variance.)
An important factor in setting this
later effective date for soil and debris
from cleanup actions was Congress'
evident acknowledgment that it would
take extra time to develop treatment
capacity for soils and debris
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)).
b..Soil and Debris Capacity Variance.
In today's rule, the Agency is granting a
national capacity variance for certain
contaminated soils for which BDAT is
based on solids incineration.
A partial estimate of the amount of
soil requiring solids incineration is
shown below. These amounts represent
the quantity of soils land disposed at
RCRA facilities in 1988. The amount of
soils generated by CERCLA response or
RCRA corrective actions requiring solids
incineration is not currently known.
• Solvent—26 million gal/yr.
• Dioxin—(none reported in 1986).
- California List HOCs (other than
First Third wastes for which treatment
standards were proposed)—4 million -
gal/yr.
• First Third (for which treatment
standards were proposed)—12 million
gal/yr.
EPA expects that all of the solids
incineration capacity will be utilized as
a result of other actions taken today,
and therefore that there will be a lack of
capacity for incineration of soils.
In the May 17,1988 proposal, the
Agency also requested comment on the
advisability of applying the variance to
debris contaminated with solvents,
certain dioxins or HOCs above 1.000
. ppm, as well as to debris contaminated
with. First Third wastes. Several
commenters addressed this issue and all
were in favor of including debris in the
2-year national capacity variances. The
Agency agrees and, therefore, debris is
included in the national variances along
with contaminated soils generated from
CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions. Many commenters
urged that the variance be broadened to
apply to soils contaminated with
. solvent, dioxin and California list
wastes other than those from CERCLA
response and RCRA corrective actions.
The Agency believes this to be
precluded by the wording of the statute.
See the May 17 proposed rule-for a more
detailed explanation.
The national capacity variance
applies to soils and debris contaminated
with spent F001-F005 solvents and F020-
F023 and F028-F028 dioxins which result
from a response action taken-under
CERCLA sections 104 or 108 or a RCRA
corrective action. Soils and debris
contaminated with California list HOC
wastes which result from a response
action taken under CERCLA sections
104 or 106 or RCRA corrective actions
are also included in the variance. Such
contaminated CERCLA and RCRA soils
and debris are covered by the capacity
variance until November 8,1990—two
years from the statutory effective date
applicable to these wastes.
A national capacity variance is also
being granted for soils and debris
contaminated with certain Fust Third
wastes for which the treatment >
standards are based on incineration;
however, it is not limited exclusively to
soils from CERCLA response and RCRA
corrective actions. The variance applies
to soils and debris contaminated with
the following First Third wastes: K001.
K015. K018, K018. K019, K020, K022,
K024, K030, K037, K048-K052. K083,
K088, K087, K101, K102, K103 and K104.
Soils and debris contaminated with the
specified First Third wastes receive a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31197
variance that extends the effective date
for the land disposal restrictions to
August 8.1990. ,
The effective dates for soil and debris
established by today's final action have
been summarized in the following table:
SUMMARY OF FINAL EFFECTIVE DATES
debris from CERCLA response or
RCHA corractiva actions
II. Sot and debris NOT from CERCLA
response actions or RCRA con-active
action* contarranated witn les* than
1 % total solvents or certain dioxins
III. Sod and debria contaminated with
California «st HOCs from CERCLA re-
sponse action* or RCRA corrective
acfinmt..,.,-,-;., „ ,
IV. Soil and debris contaminated with
. California list HOC* NOT from
CERCLA response- actions or RCRA
v. AH so* and debris contaminated with
First Third wastes for which treatment
standards are based on incineration
ProhU.
.' (ton '
•Mac**
date in
today's-.
flnaTruta
11-8-90
11-8-88
118-90
7-8-89
8-8-90
The Agency acknowledges that
granting a national capacity variance for
contaminated soils is a policy choice.
That is, EPA could have separated out
some segment of CERCLA and RCRA
corrective, action soils for immediate
prohibition instead of rescinding the
variance for other HOC and solvent
wastes requiring solids incineration.
EPA did not pursue this course for .
several reasons. First, it would be
difficult if not impossible, to separate
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 volume of
other surface disposal wastes requiring
solids incineration capacity is much
better quantified. By rescinding
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 is not reserving scarce solids
incineration capacity for contaminated
soils that might never be generated, and
is thus structuring these variances to
make certain that scarce solids
incineration capacity will actually be
'utilized.
With respect to soils contaminated
with spsnt solvents, certain dioxins, and
HOC wastes, only those that result from
a response action taken under section
104 or 106 of CERCLA or a corrective
action required under RCRA are
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.
e.Befinition of "Soil" and "Debris".
For the purpose of determining whether
a contaminated material is subject to
this national variance, some definition
of the terms "soil" and "debris" 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 solicited comment on
appropriate methods for determining
whether such mixtures should be
considered a soil waste.
Several commenters addressed this
issue; they generally favored the
inclusion of such mixtures in the
capacity variance. However, they did
not offer practical methods for making a
generally applicable determination on
what these mixtures should be..
Therefore, the Agency will make such
determinations on a case-by-case basis. •
As proposed, however, soils do not
include wastes withdrawn from active
hazardous waste management units,
such as impoundment dredgings. Such
wastes are sludges, not soils, and EPA
has evaluated the volume of these
sludges in its capacity estimates (based
on TSDR survey reports), and
determined that sufficient capacity
exists for these wastes.
The variance obviously does 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).
For the purpose of determining
whether a contaminated material is
subject to this national variance, debris
is defined as. materials th.at are primarily
non-geologic in origin such as grass,
trees, and shrubs, and man-made
materials such as concrete, clothing, &•
partially buried whole or crushed empty
drums, capacitors, and other synthetic
manufactured items. This may also
include geologic materials identified as
not indigenous to the natural geological
environment at or near the site or
identified as indigenous rocks exceeding
a total size that, based on engineering
judgement will affect performance of
available treatment technologies.
d. Notes on Drafting of the Regulatory
Language. To implement these changes
. in the various capacity variances, EPA
is amending the regulatory language in
§§ 268.30 through 263.33. With respect to
the solvent wastes covered in § 268.30,
the Agency is adding a new § 268.30(c)
dealing with contaminated soil and
debris from CERCLA response and ;
RCRA corrective actions. This provision
replaces existing § 288.1(c)(3).
New § 268.30(b) groups ail the solvent
wastes having a November 8,1988
prohibition effective date. As noted
above, new § 268.30(c) sets forth the
1990 effective date for CERCLA
response and RCRA corrective action
contaminated soil and debris. Also
added is language indicating that if
these wastes are to be disposed in
landfills or surface impoundments until
the prohibition effective date, the •';
landfill or impoundment unit must meet
the section 3004(o) minimum technology
requirements (see 53 FR11769).
The Agency is making similar changes
in §'§ 288.31, 268.32, and 268.33 to reflect
the revised effective dates. The language
ih § 268.33(c) indicates that the 19flb
effective date applies to all soils
contaminated with First Third wastes
with treatment standards based on
incineration.
/. Recyclable Materials Used in a
Manner Constituting Disposal
Ih the May 17 proposal, EPA proposed
to amend § 266.20 of the regulations to
provide that hazardous waste-derived
products that are recycled by being
placed on the land must meet the •
applicable treatment standard for each
waste that they contain as a condition
for remaining exempt from all other'.
hazardous waste regulation (53 FR
17605). The Agency reasoned that
conditioning, the existing regulatory
exemption in this way would effectuate
the land disposal restrictions statutory
provisions by requiring that hazardous
wastes comply with applicable
treatment standards before they are
recycled by being placed on the land.
Most commenters supported this
proposal, a number urging the Agency to
end the regulatory exemption altogether.
Persons producing fertilizers from waste
KOG1, however, maintained that their
fertilizers were safe to apply and were
similar in composilion to other zinc
containing fertilizers not produced from
hazardous wastes. They therefore urged
the Agency to retain the regulatory
exemption or to reclassify the fertilizers.
Finally, a few commenters argued that
hazardous" secondary materials that are
recycled by being placed on the land are
-------
31198 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
not wastes at all because they are not
being "discarded".
EPA has decided to finalize the
proposed rule with respect to hazardous
waste derived products that are placed
on the land, except that EPA is not
taking any action with respect to
fertilizers that use waste K061 a» an
ingredient (so that such fertilizers will .
remain exempt from regulation). EPA is
conditioning the regulator/exemption
for the reasons stated in the proposal,
most particularly because the land
disposal restrictions statutory •
provisions Indicate that wastes are not
to be placed on the land until they have
been pretreated to meet tine standards
EPA established pursuant to section
3Q04(m). Where a waste-derived product
is produced from more than one
prohibited waste, the waste-derived
product would have to meet the
treatment standard for each hazardous
waste that it contains, and if there are-
different treatment standards for
common constituents, then the
"product1* would have to meet the most
stringent of those standards.
EPA also solicited comment on an
appropriate tracking system for
hazardous waste-derived products to
document that these materials meet the
applicable treatment standards.
Hazardous wastes sent to recycling
facilities for ultimate use in waste-
derived products that are to be placed
on the land are already subject to
regulation under section 2B8.7 (as well
as the rest of subtitle C). and so persons
shipping such wastes already must
notify the recycler that th» wastes are
prohibited (§§ 268.7(a) and 266.21). EPA
has decided, however, that once the
recycler produces a waste-derived
product that meets the treatment
standard, the recycler is not required to
notify the receiving facility that it (the
receiving facility) is receiving a
hazardous waste. The ultimate user of
the hazardous waste-derived product is
not a normal disposal facility, but rather'
operates as a commercial entity. As
such, this entity is not a meaningful
repository of a treatment facility's (i.e.,
the recycler's) certification and tracking
documents prepared pursuant to
§ 268.7(b). Accordingly. EPA has
decided that, instead of the recycler
submitting information to the ultimate
user, ail of the § 26S.7 information is to
be submitted to the appropriate EPA
Regional office or State authority. The
only difference in reporting
requirements would be that the
recycling facility also keep records of
the name and location of each entity
receiving the hazardous waste-derived
product In this way, the appropriate
regulatory authority will be on notice of
the location of each shipment and that
the shipment has met the applicable
treatment standards for the hazardous
wastes contained within the waste-
derived product
EPA has further determined that
fertilizers produced from hazardous
waste K061 should remain exempt from
all regulation for the present time. For a
further discussion of this determination.
see section m. A. 7.
EPA also wishes to take this
opportunity to clarify, in response to
comment; that the underlying regulatory
provision § 266.20, does not apply to
materials, such as cement or aggregate.
that are not produced from hazardous
wastes. This is true even for cement or
aggregate produced in a furnace that is"
powered in whole or in part by
hazardous waste fueL.Section 266.20
applies when a process "use(s)
hazardous wastes as ingredients" to
produce a product that is then applied to
the land (50 FR 628; January 4.1985). To
be covered by the rule, a product must
"contain" the hazardous waste.
Materials such as cement or aggregate
that are produced from raw materials,
but come from processes that may be
fired by hazardous waste fuels, are
• consequently not covered by this
provision. They do not use hazardous
waste as ingredients. Section 266.20 thus
applies when hazardous wastes are
incorporated directly into a product
which is to be applied to the land:
hazardous wastes recycled in this way
thus really are being disposed. There is
no such direct link with disposal when
hazardous wastes are used to power a
process that may be producing a
material that will be used on the land
Products produced in processes that use
hazardous waste fuels thus, are not
covered by section 266.20 unless the
process also uses hazardous wastes as
ingredients in a product destined for
land application.
Finally, EPA responds briefly to those
commenters alleging that materials used
in a manner constituting disposal are
not being discarded and therefore are
not solid wastes. As the Agency has
explained many times, use constituting
disposal involves as a practical matter
the disposal of wastes. The wastes are
being gotten rid of by placing them
directly on the land (see e.g., 53 FR 521-
22; January 8,1988). The indications that
Congress meant to control this recycling
practice under RCRA are legion. [See
RCRA section 3004(1) (use of hazardous- •
waste as dust suppressant or for road
treatment is prohibited); H.R. Rep. No.
198.98th Cong. 1st Sess. at 46, 67-68
(hazardous waste-derived products that'
are placed on the land are to be the
special object of EPA scrutiny under the
Subtitle C program)]. To say that
Congress did not intend to control these
use constituting disposal situations
under RCRA is to say that Congress had
no intention of controlling such damage
incidents as the Times Beach dioxin
spreading incident where a group of
communities were rendered
uninhabitable as a result of use of a
distillation bottoms mixed with used oil
as a dust suppressant No credible .
reading of the statute would authorize
this type of conduct. Accordingly, EPA
views all use constituting disposal
recycling activities involving hazardous
secondary materials as within its
jurisdiction under RCRA subtitle C.
/. Reclamation of Indigenous Waste
In the proposed rules, the Agency
indicated that where it was proposing
treatment standards based on some type
of metal recovery technology, it might
not write treatment standards for the
wastes generated by the metal recovery
technology (for example, for the slag .
generated by resmelting hazardous
waste K069, emission control dust/
sludge from secondary lead smelting).
(53 FR 11782). The Agency indicated that
this result could follow from application
of the so-called "indigenous" principle.
which states that certain wastes
destined for material recovery in
industrial furnaces can be considered to
be indigenous to those furnaces and so
cease to be solid wastes at the point
they are actually placed in the furnace.
(53 FR 11753). The particular waste
codes that might be affected by
application of this principle are K061
andK089.
Although EPA has discussed this
concept for some time, and most
commenters have agreed that some type
of indigenous principle is desirable and
perhaps legally required, EPA has not
fixed the precise scope of the concept.
EPA proposed a definition in the May 6,
1987 rule dealing with emission
standards for boilers and industrial
furnaces, and plans shortly to repropose
a somewhat different meaning for the
term as part of a reproposal of the boiler
and industrial furnace standards. This
proposed revision would evaluate both
the similarity of the process in which the
waste was originally generated and the
one in which it is being recovered, and
would also evaluate the similarity of the
waste from the standpoint of identity
and concentration of Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents, and the raw
material that it is replacing.
Based on the information now before
it, EPA believes that K061 and K069
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No; 159 / Wednesday. Aiigast 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
31339
wastes would be indigenous to metal
recovery processes. K061 wastes are
generated by the same type of furnace
that recovers the K061 dust-furnaces
from both the steel industry and the zinc
smelting industry are part of the same
generic SIC code 331, and the dusts are
similar in composition to tha virgin ores
customarily smelted in zinc smelting.
furnaces. Not only am the zinc levels the
same aa found in virgin ore* (15%.
minimum), the other toxic metals (lead
and cadmium) are also present in zinc
ores hi comparable concentrations.
Hazardous waste K069 is even more
clearly indigenous to the secondary lead
smelting process since it is generated
directly by the secondary lead process
and contains no toxic constituents not
already present in the normal feed
material to the secondary lead smelting
furnace.
It therefore'appears to the Agency
that these two hazardous wastes would
be considered to be indigenous to the
respective metal recovery process under
any of the definitions that EPA is
considering. Because it appears at this
time to be clear that under any ultimate
regulatory regime these wastes would
be indigenous, then the derived from
rule would not apply to any of the
wastes generated by the metal recovery
process. Consequently, the treatment
standards EPA is establishing today for
K001 and K089 do not apply to wastes
from the metal recovery processes
because, by virtue of the indigenous
principle, the derived from rule would
not apply to these processes (Le., the
residuals from such processes would not
be derived from a hazardous waste).
K. Nonrulemaking Procedures for Site-
Specific Variances from the Treatment
Standard
In the November 7,1988 final rule (51
FR 40572), the Agency established a
procedure for obtaining a variance from
the applicable treatment standard (40
CFR 288.44). Use of this variance was
envisioned in cases where restricted
hazardous wastes differ significantly
from the wastes evaluated in setting
treatment standards and, as a result,
cannot be treated to meet the applicable
treatment levels or where the
technology used to establish the
treatment level is not appropriate to the
waste.. The request for this treatability
variance must demonstrate, among other
things, that the waste is significantly
different from the wastes evaluated in
establishing the treatment standard and
cannot be treated in compliance with
the applicable treatment standard. Prior
to today's final rule, the section 268.44
variance procedures were available only
through a rulemaking that would amend
the regulatory treatment standards each
time a variance was granted.
Today's final rule amends § 268.44 by
adding procedures for requesting a site-
specific variance from the treatment
standard. As explained below,
opportunity will be provided for public
comment on site specific variances;
1. Background
On September 5,1986. the Agency
published a Notice of Availability of.
Data (51 FR 31783). The notice requested
comments on whether EPA should have
a variance from the generally applicable
treatment standards, and the procedures
under which such variances should be
processed. Commenters generally
supported allowing variances from the
treatment standard. Furthermore, in the
context of today's modification, some
commenters, while recognizing EPA's
authority to grant variances through
nilemaking procedures, supported the
use of nonrulemaking procedures.
Because there was insufficient time to
fully consider all issues relating to the
variance procedure before the
November 7,1988 rule was promulgated.
only, a procedure for obtaining a
variance from the treatment standard
which required rulemaking was
established (51 FR 40572); however, the
Agency noted its intention to raise the
nonrulemaking variance issue in the
future.
The Agency requested comment on
several modifications of the variance
procedure in the December 11,1988
California list land disposal restrictions
proposal (51 FR 44729). Specifically,
comment was requested on the
advisability of allowing nonrulemaking
procedures and on the applicability of
such procedures. Comment was also
requested on establishing a deadline for
variance applications, on provisions for
public comment, and on the criteria for
granting nonrulemaking variances.
Nonrulemaking variance procedures
were again presented for public
comment in a Notice of Availability of
Data published on August 12,1987 (52
FR 30038). It was noted that the July 7,
1987 California list final rule (52 FR
25780) set forth a treatment method
equivalency petition (40 CFR 26442) that
need not be processed through a formal
rulemaking in cases where the relief
sought would not have generic
applicability and effect. In the August 12
Notice, EPA solicited further comment
on the advisability of applying the same
reasoning to the site-specific variance
from the treatment standard so that
formal rulemaking procedures are not
mandated.
2. Major Comments • '• ' :; •''•'.
The Agency received several -
comments addressing various aspects of
establishing a nonrulemaking procedure
> for site-specific variances from the
treatment standard. The majority of
commenters supported the
establishment of nonrulemaking
procedures; their arguments were based
on the need for streamlined procedures
so that variances may be reviewed in a
timely manner. Several commenters
suggested that a site-specific
nonrulemaking variance could be
included in the permitting process, thus
offering an opportunity for public
comment. One commenter cited the
Supreme Court's decision in Chemical
Manufacturers Association v. NRDC,
470 U.S. 118 (1985), as support for EPA's
authority.to use a streamlined variance
procedure. On the other hand, two
commenters expressed concerns about
utilizing nonrulemaking procedures. One
commented that EPA had the authority
to grant variances from the treatment
standard, but stated that all petitions
must be subject to public review and
comment before they are granted. The
other commenter strongly opposed the
Agency's proposed approach, arguing
that nonrulemaking procedures violate
RCRA sections 3004(m). 7004, and 7006.
3. Agency Response and Summary of
Today's Approach
The Agency believes that
nonrulemaking procedures for the
variance.from the treatment standard
are not precluded by the statute in cases
where such a determination is site-
specific, having no generic applicability
and.effect. The Agency is taking this
position for a number of reasons. First,
since a generator-specific treatability
variance would not be of general
applicability and effect, such
administrative action would not be a
rule requiring utilization of the
Administrative Procedure Act informal
rulemaking procedures. Second, to the
extent that section 3004(m) creates an
independent requirement of rulemaking
procedures, this requirement is satisfied
by the initial rulemaking in which the
BDAT treatment standard is
established. In this regard, the Agency
notes that there are numerous instances
where a statute requires that a generally
applicable standard be established by
regulation, but that variances from that
standard need not be established via
rulemaking. Under RCRA, for example,
EPA must use rulemaking to establish
generally applicable standards for'
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (RCRA section 3004(a)). EPA,
-------
31200 Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rulea and Regulations
however, has also established variances
from certain of these generally
applicable requirements which can be
granted by means other Shan
rulemaking—for example, the variance
from the secondary containment
requirement for hazardoiu waste tanks
is implemented by nonrulemaking
procedures. (See ! 264.1JO (g) and (h)).
Under the Clean Water Act EPA is
required to establish; generally
appllcable.effluent limitation guideline!
and standards by regukMontbaifor- - - ,•
years has had in place a fundamentally
different factors variance from these
standards that was implemented by
nonrulemaking procedures. This
Fundamentally Different Factors
variance is now codified in the 1987
amendments to the Clean Water Act,
section 3Ol(n). In the land disposal
restrictions rules themselves. EPA
adopted nonrulemaking procedures for
' processing demonstratipns of
equivalency to a specified BOAT
method. (See § 28&42(b)).
In fact, it appears that at least in
RCRA, where Congress meant to
preclude the Agency from using
nonrulemaking procedures when.
granting variances, it said so explicitly.
(See RCRA section 3001(E)) that mandates
use of informal rulemaking procedures
for processing delisting petitions.) In
other contexts, most notably RCRA
sections 3004(o)(2) and 3005(j) (2), (3).
(4),.and (13), Congress itself explicitly
authorized nonrulemaking procedures
forgrantingothertypesofvariances.lt
thus appears to the Agency that the brief
reference to "regulations" in section
3004{m](l) does not preclude the use of
nonrulemaking procedures to grant
individual variances to im already
promulgated treatment standard
Therefore, today's final rule
promulgates modifications to 40 CFR
268.44 that allow a site-specific variance
from the treatment standard, having no
generic applicability and effect to be
granted through nonrulemaking
procedures. The Agency agrees as a
matter of policy to allow opportunity for
public notice and comment prior to
granting a nonrulemaking variance from
the treatment standard. Because
circumstances under which one might
apply for a site-specific variance vary,
vehicles for public comment will be
specified on a caae-by-case basis.
The Agency received no requests for '
variances from the treatment standards
promulgated in the solvents and dioxins
final rule or the California list final rule.
It is difficult to predict how many
requests for variances from the
treatment standard will be received as a
result of today's final rule. Therefore,
the Agency is not establishing a specific
format for the variance or specifying .
vehicles for providing public comment at
this time. Since the goal of granting site-
specific variances from the treatment
standard through nonrulemaking
procedures ia to streamline the process.
the Agency will likely provide for public
comment through existing public
participation vehicles such as permit
applications or modifications, CERCLA
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility •
Study-documents, or other relevant
procedures, as appropriate. In cases
when there is no existing proceeding
which provides the opportunity for
public participation. EPA will provide
opportunity for notice and comment
through publication hi local newspapers.
by radio broadcast or through other
media, similar to the variance
procedures already in place under
§ 260.33. If necessary, the Agency will
issue guidance at a later date on the
format for an application and will
specify procedures for pubk'c comment
The criteria by which a
nonrulemaking site-specific variance
from the treatment standard will be
evaluated remain the same as those •
previously promulgated. The
demonstration should be made that the
waste is significantly different from the
wastes evaluated in establishing the.
treatment standard and cannot be
treated in compliance with the
applicable treatment standard. On a
site-specific basis, it may be possible to
determine that BDAT treatment is
inappropriate for a particular waste
stream. For example, incineration of
large volumes of contaminated soil
under certain site-specific conditions
may be found to be inappropriate
treatment Such an assertion should be
supported by analytical data and
treatability studies to the greatest extent
possible. Each request for a variance
from the treatment standard must
include a statement signed by the
authorized representative of the
applicant certifying that the information
is correct
The applicant must apply to the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
addressing the criteria contained in
S 288.44. The authority for granting site-
specific variances to the treatment
standard may be delegated to the
Regional Administrator in the future, at
which time the application would be
made to the Regional Administrator in
the region where the applicant is
located
The Assistant Administrator (or
Regional Administrator, if authority is
delegated) will evaluate the application
and issue a draft notice tentatively
granting or denying the application.
Notification of this tentative decision
will be provided by newspaper
advertisement or radio broadcast in the
locality where the applicant is located.
The Assistant Administrator (or
Regional Administrator, if authority is
delegated) will accept comment on the
tentative decision, usually for 30 days.
Public hearings may be held upon
request or at his discretion. A final
decision-will be made-after evaluation
of comments.
L. Rationale for Immediate Effective
Date
The regulations promulgated today
will be effective immediately except
where the Agency has specified a
national variance or otherwise specified
an alternative effective date. HSWA
requires that today's regulations become
effective on or before the August 8,1988
effective date of the restrictions on the
first one-third of the wastes scheduled
pursuant to RCRA section 3004(g](4)(A).
If the Agency fails to promulgate
regulations for any of these wastes by
the statutory effective date, the
restrictions on disposal of the waste in a
landfill or surface impoundment,
stipulated in section 3004(g)(6)(A) take
effect automatically on August 8,1988. If
the Agency has not promulgated
treatment standards for any scheduled
waste by May 8,1990, that waste is
prohibited from all forms of land
disposal unless a generator has been ~ • •
granted an extension of the effective
date (either a national variance or a
case-by-case extension) or a "no . .
migration" finding has been made.
Hence, August 8,1988, is the latest date
for EPA to promulgate regulations that
will prevent the "soft hammer" in
section 3004(g) from falling for all First
Third wastes. Section 3004(h) requires
that regulations established under
sections 3004 (d), (e), (f], or (g) be
effective immediately upon
promulgation. Furthermore, section
3004(m) specifies that regulations setting
treatment standards must have the same
effective date as applicable regulations
established under sections 3004 (d), (e),
(f), or (g). For today's regulations which
set treatment standards and are
promulgated under section 3004(g), this
date will be August 8,1988. Since the
statute clearly states that the regulations
implementing section 3004(g) must go
into effect on or before August 8,1988, in
order to prevent the "soft hammer" from
falling, EPA finds that good cause exists
under section 3010{b)(3) to have an
immediate effective date. For the same
reason, EPA finds that good cause also
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53/No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 /Rules and Regulations 31201
exists under section 553(d){3) of the
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.
section 553(d)(3J, to waive the
requirements that regulations be '
published at least 30 days before the
effective date. •
IV. Modification* to the Land Disposal
Restrictions Framework
Today's final rule does two things.
First, it promulgates the Agency's
approach to restricting the land disposal
of First Third wastes, presenting the
conditions under which land disposal of
these wastes may be continued. Second.
it modifies the existing framework of the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program, as
first promulgated on November 7,1988
{51 FR 40572) and subsequently modified
in the July 8,1987 California list final
rule (52 FR 25780). Unless otherwise
specified, these modifications will apply
to all restricted wastes. This section of
today's preamble summarizes these
modifications and refers to more
detailed discussions in other sections of
this preamble.
A. General Waste Analysis (§§ 284.13
and 265.13)
The Agency is promulgating
modifications to. § 5 264.13 and 265.13 to
reflect provisions for the treatment of
"soft hammer" wastes in surface
impoundments. The framework
promulgated November 7,1988 provided
for an exemption allowing treatment of
restricted wastes in section 3005(j)(ll)
surface impoundments, provided that
residuals that do not meet the treatment
standard are removed annually. As
discussed in section III.C.4., this
exemption is extended to allow for
wastes subject to the "soft hammer"
provisions (i.e., First Third wastes for
which no treatment standard has been
established). EPA is also making certain
nonsubstantive modifications to make
these sections more readable.
B. Operating Record (§§ 264.73 and
265.73) .
The Agency is modifying §§ 264.73
and 285.73 to require retention of the
§ 268.8 demonstration and certification,
i.e. the certifications applicable to "soft
hammer" wastes. EPA is also requiring
facilities to retain the new tracking •
notice required under | 2G8.7 for
generators sending "soft hammer"
wastes to receiving facilities, and for
treatment facilities sending "soft
hammer" wastes to a disposal facility.
The "soft hammer" notice and
certification is discussed further in
sections III.B.2. and III.C.3. respectively.
C. Recyclable Materials Used in a
Manner Constituting Disposal (§26630)
The Agency is amending § 266.20 to
require that hazardous waste-derived
products whose placement on the land
was previously exempt from Federal
regulation must now meet the applicable
Subpart O treatment standard for
3004(d) prohibition levels) prior to such
placement EPA is, however, allowing
. for one exception to this requirement;
namely, K061-derived fertilizers. See
section QL L for a discussion of the
Agency's determination concerning this
amendment
D. Purpose, Scope, and Applicability
(§268.1)
The Agency is modifying 5 258.1 to
include the "soft hammer" wastes in the
applicability of the land disposal
restrictions, and to allow the disposal of
such wastes in landfill and surface
impoundment units meeting the
minimum technological requirements
provided such wastes are the subject of
a valid certification under § 268.8. EPA
is also clarifying the applicability of Part
268 treatment standards to prohibited
wastes generated from CERCLA
response actions.
E. Treatment in Surface Impoundment
Exemption (§ 268.4)
The modifications to the requirement!!
of § 268.4 reflect the special conditions
for allowing this exemption to apply to
First Third wastes for which no •
treatment standards have been
established. Certain nonsubstantive
modifications have also been made to
improve the readability of the section.
The conditions relating to the disposal
of "soft hammer" wastes are discussed
in section III.C.4.
F. Case-by-Case Extensions (§ 268.5)
The modification to § 268.5 reflects
the Agency's new interpretation of
RCRA section 3004(h)(4), that wastes
subject to a national or case by-case
extension of the effective date, if
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment must be disposed in a
unit that meets the minimum
. technological requirements. EPA's
earlier interpretation was that Congress
intended such wastes to be disposed in
a facility that meets the minimum
technological requirements of 3004(o)
(applicable only to new, replacement.
or lateral expansion units). The
discussion for this modification is found
in section III.D.
G. "NoMigration"Petitions (§268.6)
As discussed in section III.F., the
Agency is modifying the existing
requirements for petitioning EPA for a •
"no migration" exemption under § 268.6.
This modification promulgates " '• '••
, additional demonstrations required in a •
"no migration" petition, and certain
other requirements on the owner or
operator of a waste management unit
that is subject to a "no migration"
exemption. '
H. Testing and Recordkeeping (§268.7)
The modifications to § 268.7 extend
the notification and certification
requirements to include the First Third
wastes, including a new notification for
"soft hammer" wastes. EPA is also
applying the recordkeeping
requirements of this section to treatment
and storage facilities not previously
included in the "cradle-to-grave" paper
trail, including an additional change
addressing wastes that may be land
disposed under an extension,
exemption, or variance. Also, a 5-year
record retention period is being
promulgated. The discussion for these
proposed modifications is found in
Section III. B.
Also, as discussed in section III.L, the
Agency is modifying the tracking system
to account for zinc-containing fertilizers
which use K061 as an ingredient which
EPA has exempted from regulation.
. Testing requirements for wastes in
S 268.43 (i.e., wastes for which the
treatment standards are expressed as
concentration levels in the waste, rather
than in the waste extract) are being
promulgated. And finally, other
nonsubstantive modifications are being
made to improve the readability of this
section.
/. Landfill and Surface Impoundment
Disposal Restrictions (§ 268.8)
The Agency is promulgating a new
section 268.8 which addresses the
prohibition on disposal of First Third
wastes for which treatment standards
have not been established. An extensive
discussion in section III.C. presents the
Agency's approach to implementing
RCRA section 3004(g)(6)(A), which is
applicable to the disposal of such
wastes in landfills and surface
impoundments, and also promulgates
EPA's approach to the type of
information which must be supplied and
certified prior to such disposal.
/. Identification of Wastes to Be .- •
Evaluated By May 8, 1090 (§ 268.12)
As discussed in Section III,C.3., the
Agency is amending § 268.12 to move
certain First Third waste water residuals
from treatment for which wastewater
treatment standards have not been set •
into the Third Third. Similarly, the
-------
31202 Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 /Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
Agency is also moving "stoft hammer"
leachate and ground water
contaminated with "soft hammer"
waste* into the Third Third. This action
is taken due to the relatively low
intrinsic hazard of these wastes and to
avoid discouraging substantial
treatment of "soft hammiit" wastes.
Also, as discussed in section Iff.A.C,
the Agency is moving on§ class of First
Third wastes to the third third of the
schedule—mixed hazardous/radioactive
wastes. EPA emphasizes that this action
only affects First Third wastes mixed
with radioactive wastes. Waste
mixtures containing spent solvents.
dioxins and California lint wastes are-
subject to the applicable land disposal
restrictions.
K. Determination as to tfie Availability
of the Two-Year Nationwide Variance
foe Solvent Wastes Which Contain Leaf
Than 1% Total FOOl FOOS Solvent
Constituent* (§26&3O)-
In a June 4,1967 technical collection
notice 52 FR 21010) to th« November 7,
1988 final rule prohibiting land disposal
of certain spent solvent «nd dioxin-
contalning hazardous wastes, EPA
promulgated an amendment to
§ 28&30(a}(3) reclarifyinjj that solvent
wastes that are prohibited in the hands
"of (heir initial generator—1-e.. that are
not subject to any applicable variance—
cannot be permissibly land disposed
until treated to meet the section 288.41
treatment standards. This principle
applies to all residues from treatment
(unless they are part of n different
treatabUify group for which EPA hac
determined that no treatment capacity
exists (sea 52 FR 21012; June 4,1987 and
also 52 FR 22356-22357; June 11.1987)).
Because questions have been raised
regarding the policy basis for the action.
and because the underlying principle is
an important ona which warrants the
fullest consideration, EPA reproposed
amended § 28&30{a}(3) as part of the
April 8 proposal (53 FR 11770).
EPA did not receive comment on this
proposal and thus is promulgating the
rule as proposed for the reasons stated
in the April 8, proposal. 1'ji
repromulgating regulatory language, the
Agency never withdrew its existing
regulation. The Agency notes, however,
that its earlier actions on this issue were
prospective only (see 52 FR 21010,
stating that the revisions are effective
on June 4,1987). Thus, the June 4.1987
revisions to § 2B8.30(a)(3) have no
applicability to any certifications made
before that date or to any treatment
residues land disposed before that date
(see 52 FR 21012, June 4,1987 (item #•
16); id. at 21017 (item * H2)).
L Waste Specific Prohibitions .
(§§268.30.268.31,26&3Z, and 268.33)
Sections 26330,288.31. and 268.32 are
being modified to reflect the
reinterpertation of RCRA section
3004(h](4), pertaining to the disposal of
restricted wastes granted an extension
of the effective date, as discussed in
Section DID. Also § 268.32 is changed to
rescind the previously granted national
variance for California list halogenated
organic compounds. For a detailed
discussion of this rescission, see Section
ntR Although EPA is republishing
certain other language from these
regulations, this is for the readers
convenience and is not'intended to
reopen these provisions for judicial
review (nor did EPA solicit or receive
any comment on these provisions).
Section 288.33 promulgates the actual
prohibitions on the land disposal of First
Third wastes (wastes listed in 5 268.10)
for which EPA has established
treatment standards, and also
establishes effective dates based on the
availability of capacity to treat these
wastes. Section ULA. describes the
development of these treatment
standards, and section UI.C, presents
the capacity data and assumptions on
which the effective dates are based.
Section 288.33(1) promulgates the
prohibitions- placed on "soft hammer"
wastes, as discussed in section UI.C.
It should be noted that the schedules
for wastes K019 and K025 (Second Third
wastes listed in S 268.11) have been
accelerated to include these wastes in
the First Third. KlOO (a Third Third
waste listed in § 288J2) is also included
in the First Third.
M. Treatment Standards (§§ 268.4O.
268.41.268.42. and 268.43)
Treatment standards, expressed as
concentration levels in both the waste
(§ 268.43, as expressed in a new Table
CCW) and in a waste extract developed
by using the TCLP (§ 268.42), are
promulgated by amendments to Subpart
D. The existing treatment standard as a
specified method (incineration) for
certain California list halogenated
organic compounds is being modified to
allow for burning in industrial boilers or
furnaces (§ 268.42). Also. EPA is
modifying the F001-F005 trpfitsnent
standard for methylene chloride in
wastewaters generated by the
pharmaceutical industry. The new
treatment standards are discussed in
section IILA.' .
N. Variance from the Treatment
Standard (§ 268.44)
Today's final rule promulgates
modifications to 40 CFR 268.44 that
allow a site-specific determination to
grant a variance from the treatment
standard having no generic applicability
and effect to be made by nonrulemaking
procedures. A detailed discussion of this
approach is found in section I1I.K.
O. Storage Prohibition (§268.5O)
Only a slight modification to the
existing storage prohibition in § 268.50 is
promulgated to account for the Agency's
interpretation of RCRA section 3C04(j).
as applicable to "soft hammer" wastes
which are the subject of a certification
under § 288.8. This interpretation is
presented, in section III.C.6. of this
notice.
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 RCRA sections 3008,
3013. and 7003 although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR Part 271.
Prior to HSWA. a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6928(g)). new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
.so. While States must still adopt HSWA
related provisions as State law to retain
. final authorization, HSWA applies in
authorized States in the interim.
Today's rule is promulgated pursuant
to sections 3004 (d) through (k), and (m),
of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924 (d) through (k).
and (m)). Therefore, it has been added
to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 /Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
31203
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. Table
2 in S 271.1Q) is modified to indicate that
this rule is a self implementing provision
of HSWA for the Land Disposal
Restrictions for the First Third of
Scheduled Wastes.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's rule in authorized States until
their programs are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
300G(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 expiru on January 1.1993 (see
section 271.24(0)}.
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 rule. These
State regulations have not been .
assessed against the Federal regulations
being promulgated 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 cooperative 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 are not required to include
standards equivalent to these standards
in their applications. However, the State
must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in § 271.21(c). States
that submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of these standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. Section
271.3 sets forth the requirements a State
must meet when submitting its final
authorization application.
The amendments being promulgated
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 (SOWA) may continue to do so
without seeking authority to administer
these amendments. However, a State
desiring to implement Part 148 and to
receive authorization to grant
exemptions from the land disposal
restrictions must demonstrate that it has
the requisite authority to administer
sections 3004 (f) and (g) of RCRA. The
conditions under which such
authorization may take place are
summarized in section C. A further
discussion must be found in the July 15.
1985 final rule 50 FR 28728.
C. State Implementation
Slate implementation of today's rule is
affected by the following four aspects of
the framework established for the land
disposal restrictions (51 FR 40572).
1. Under Part 288, Subpart C. EPA is
promulgating land disposal restrictions
for all generators, treaters, 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 288. EPA is granting
two-year national variances from the
land disposal restrictions effective date
for certain wastes, based on a lack of
alternative treatment or recovery
capacity. In addition, case-by-case
extensions of the effective date may be
granted for up to one year (renewable
for one additional year) to specific
applicants lacking adequate alternative
capacity.
The Administrator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective dates because capacity
determinations must be made on a
nationwide basis. In addition, RCRA
section 3004(h)(3) specifies that the
Administrator will grant or deny case- '
by-case extensions, after consulting the
affected States, on the basis of national
concerns; therefore. States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. Under § 288.44, the Agency may
grant waste-specific or site-specific
variances from treatment standards in
cases where it can be demonstrated that
the treatment standard is inappropriate
for the waste or 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 may be
the establishment of new waste
treatability groups applicable to all
wastes meeting the new criteria.
Therefore, this aspect of the program is
not delegated to the States. Similarly,
the authority to grant nonrulemaking
variances is retained by the EPA.
4. Under S 268.8. 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.
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
-------
31204 Federal Register / VoL- 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
incurring the cost* of alternative
treatment In shifting from land disposal
to discharge to POTWs, £in increase in
human and environment J 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
tha 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.environme.nt For
example, if incineration were the
pretreatment step, metals and other •
hazardous constituents present in air
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 wastte, the degree of
pretreatment required prior to discharge,
and State and local regulations.
B. Discharges Regulated Under tho
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSAJ
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 trannportation 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 nuiie 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
RCRA
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 rule-makings under section 3004(n)
to address air emissions from other
sources. The first rule-making will
address emissions from equipment such
as pumps, valves, and vents from units
processing concentrated organic waste
streams. The second rule-making will
address other sources of air emissions.
such as tanks and waste transfer and
handling.
VH. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Purpose
The Agency estimated the costs,
economic impacts, and benefits of
today's final rule. This analysis is
required for "major" regulations as
defined by Executive Order No. 12291.
(See the discussion of B.O. No. 12291
below.) 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 final
rule is a major rule. This section of the
preamble discusses the results of the
analysis of the final rule as detailed in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
for the final rule. The RIA is available in
the public docket
2. Executive Order No. 12291
Executive Order No. 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 costs, economic impacts,
and benefits 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 final rule is a
major rule with an annual cost to the
economy of $907-962 million.
3. Basic Approach
EPA is proposing to set treatment
standards fora subset of the First Third
F and K wastes and to let "soft
hammers" fall on the remaining First
Third wastes. The "soft hammer"
provisions place restrictions on the land
disposal of First Third wastes for which
no treatment standards have been set by
August 8,1988. The "soft hammer"
provisions will be in effect until
prohibitions on land disposal ("hard
hammers") fall (on May 8,1990) or for a
shorter period if treatment standards are
promulgated. The possible effects of
prohibitions on land disposal of wastes
and of later extensions of the effective
date were not examined as part of this
analysis; The "soft hammer" provisions
are discussed in greater detail in section
III. C. of this preamble.
EPA estimated the costs, benefits, and
potential economic impacts of the final
rule and of one major regulatory
alternative to it. Only the impacts of the
final rule are presented here: results for
the regulatory alternative are discussed
in the RIA.
Provisions of the final rule, as
analyzed in the RIA. are as follows:
* Treatment standards are
established for certain F and K wastes.
and
• "Soft hammer" provisions apply to
remaining First Third wastes.
Two "soft hammer" scenarios for the
final rule were examined:
• Scenario 1: "soft hammers" fall on
remaining First Third wastes and
treatment capacity is assumed not to
exist; therefore, these wastes may
continue to be land disposed. Landfills
and surface impoundments receiving
"soft hammer" wastes must meet
minimum technological requirements.
• Scenario 2: "soft hammers" fall on
remaining First Third wastes and
treatment capacity is assumed to exist;
therefore, these wastes must meet
"approximate treatment standards"
(treatment that will reduce the mobility
and toxicity of hazardous constituents),
and the treatment residuals must be
disposed of in units meeting minimum
technological requirements (except
where the residuals are exempt from
regulation).
While neither scenario corresponds
exactly to the proposed rule, it was
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 33205
assumed that the two scenarios would
establish upper and lower bounds on the
effects of the final rule. It was assumed
that the "soft hammer" requirements
would not affect wastes managed in
waste piles or in land treatment units,
since the only requirement for facilities
managing these wastes would be
notification.
The effects of the final rule were
estimated by comparing post-regulatory
costs, benefits, and economic impacts
with those resulting under baseline
conditions (La, in the absence of the
regulation). The baseline is defined to be
continued land disposal of wastes in
units meeting minimum technological
requirements.
4. Methodology
a. Determination of Affected Wastes
and Facilities. The first step in
estimating the impacts of the rule was to
determine which wastes and facilities
would be affected by the rule. Based on
waste characterization and volume data
primarily from the 1988 "National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment.
Storage. Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities" (the TSDR Survey), EPA
identified affected wastes and facilities.
(See Section 111 1L for a discussion of
this procedure.) The average quantity of
waste contributed by generator facilities
was based on EPA's "National Survey of
(lazardous Waste Generators and
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in
liffll."
The population of wastes that would
be affected by the rule may include
some wastes from CERCLA responses
or RCRA corrective actions; however,
there are insufficient data at present to
estimate these quantities. Also,
underground injected wastes were
excluded from this analysis since these
wastes wiil be dealt with in the RIA for
a separate rule.
The population of affected facilities
includes:
• Hazardous waste treatment
storage, and disposal facilities with
commercial management processes
("commercial TSDFs"), which charge a
fee for hazardous waste management;
• TSDFs with only non-commercial
processes ("non-commercial TSDFs").
which provide management services for
wastes generated on-site or off-site by
firms under the same ownership; and
• Large and small quantity generators
("generators"), which send their waste
off-site to commercial TSDFs for
management.
b. Cost Methodology. Once waste
types, quantities, and baseline and post-
regulatory management methods were
known for the population of affected
facilities, EPA developed estimates of
baseline and post regulatory costs for
the facilities. In estimating the costs,
wastes at a facility that were amenable
to co-management were grouped to
identify economies of scale.
Baseline and post-regulatory costs
include both on-site and off-site
management costs. On-site management
costs are comprised of two parts:
operation and maintenance (G&M) costs
and capital costs. O&M costs are
incurred annually for operation and
maintenance of waste treatment or
disposal units. Capital costs include
costs for construction and depreciable
assets: these costs are restated as
annual values by using a capital
recovery factor based on a real interest
rate of five percent. The annualized
capital costs are added to yearly O&M
costs to derive overall annual baseline
or post-regulatory costs for facilities. By
taking the difference between the
annualized baseline and post-regulatory
coats, annualized incremental costs for
facilities were estimated.
Off-site management costs are based
on commercial hazardous waste
management prices. Shipping costs were
included for wastes sent off-site.
c. Economic Impact Methodologyr-{\}
Non-Commercial TSDFs. To assess ;-
economic impacts. EPA converted the
before-tax incremental costs for
facilities from the cost analysis to after-
tax compliance costs. Compliance costs
were then compared with facility
financial information, organized by
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code and facility size, to gauge impacts.
(See Section C for references.)
Two ratios were used to identify
facilities likely to experience adverse
economic effects:
• Compliance cost divided by cost of
production (die COP ratio), and
0 Cash from operations divided by
compliance cost (the CFO ratio).
These ratios bound possible effects on
individual firms by looking at what .
would happen with complete pass-
through of compliance costs to
customers and with no pass-through of
costs. The COP 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 CFO ratio represents the-number of
times that a facility's 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
Once facilities experiencing adverse
economic effects were identified using
the two ratios, an analysis was
performed to identify which of these
facilities would be likely to close.
Economic effects on individual facilities
were examined assuming that product
price increases of five percent were
possible. Those facilities for which the
CFO ratio was less than two were
considered likely to close.
(2) Commercial TSDFs. For this group
of facilities, the analysis of economic
effects was qualitative. This analysis
included an examination of the quantity
of waste each facility received as a
percentage of the wastes restricted by
today's rule.
(3) Generators. EPA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this rule on
generators disposing of affected wastes
off-site assumed that commercial TSDFs
could entirely pass on to generators the
costs of compliance (in the form of
higher prices for waste management
services). Because of data limitations.
EPA used a different approach to
estimate economic impacts for
generators than it used for non-
commercial TSDFs. This approach
based compliance costs qn average
waste quantities shipped from
generators to commercial facilities and
then compared those compliance costs
with average financial data for the
generators in order to assess impacts.
The same impact measures used to
assess impacts on non-commercial
TSDFs were used to gauge impacts on
generators.
d. Benefits Methodology. The benefits
of today's 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
land disposal practices. Human health
risk is defined herein as the probability
of injury, disease, or death over a given •
time (70 years) due to responses to
doses of disease-causing agents. The
human health risk posed by a waste
management practice is a function of the
toxicity of the chemical constituents in
the waste stream and the extent of
human exposure to the constituents. The
likelihood of exposure is dictated by
hydrogeologic and climatic settings at
land disposal units and the fate and
transport of chemical constituents in
environmental media.
. EPA estimated human health risk in
four steps. The first step was to estimate
the concentrations of each of the
hazardous constituents of the waste
stream in each of the three media (air.
-------
31206
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
surface water, and ground water) into
which they might be releasied 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 wa* to estimate the
total human intake, or doss, of each of
the chemical* through inhEJation of air
or ingestion of ground water or surface
water. 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. For carcinogenic
constituents within a wastestream, a
dose-response curve was used to
estimate the risk. For non-carcinogenic
constituents, the exposure concentration
was compared with the health-effects
threshold to determine whether
exposure above the threshold had
occurred.
Finally. EPA estimated the population
risk for carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic constituents within a
wnstestreum. Population risk for
carcinogenic constituents was
determined by multiplying the average
individual risk by the number of people
in a given environment. Population risk
for non-carcinogenic constituents was
based on the number of persons
exposed to concentrations exceeding the
health-effects thresholds.
Benefits other than reduction in
human health risk—such as resource
damage avoided and corrective action
costs avoided—were not quantified.
Since these other benefits are likely to
be significant, the benefits presented
here are probably understated.
5. Results
a. Population of Affected Facilities.
The number of facilities affected under
Scenarios 1 and 2 for the final rule is
very similar, as shown in Table 1. Most
of the affected facilities are generators.
TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Corrxr.eroal TSDFs
Non-CommefdaJ
TSDFs ..._..._....„„.....
Goncralofs, .,_... .._..„_.„
Total™..™.
Final rute
Scenario 1
35
102
1.593
1.730
Scenario 2
35
102
1.568
•1.705
$907-962 million per year.
TABLE 2.—COSTS OF THE FINAL RULE
(ANNUAUZEO INCREMENTAL COST IN
MILLIONS OF 1987 DOLLARS)
Treatment at Certain F
MxtK Wintm
"Soft hammer" on
RernairwQ First
Third Wastes
Tnffll , , .......
Final rute
Scenario!
907
0
907
Scenario2
907
55
962
b. Costs. As shown in Table 2, the
final rule is a major rule, with costs of
Most of the costs of the final rule are
due to treatment of F and K wastes. The
F and 1C wastes going to treatment are
high-volume wastes; large portions of
the wastes are managed in landfills,
land treatment units, or treatment
surface impoundments in the baseline
and go to incineration and/or
stabilization under the final rule. The
ash from incineration often requires
stabilization due to the ash's metal
content; the scrubber effluent from
incineration often requires wastewater
treatment to remove metals.
The First Third wastes subject to the
"soft hammer" provisions, on the other
hand, are generated in relatively small
quantities and therefore do not affect
costs significantly. Their management
under the final rule depends on which
scenario is considered. Under Scenario
I. the wastes continue to be land
disposed in units meeting minimum
technological requirements. Under
Scenario 2, the wastes are mostly
incinerated; however, since the wastes
are largely organic with little metal
content, the ash from incineration
generally does not require stabilization.
Under the final rule, the two "soft
hammer" scenarios result in a
significant difference in cost. Scenario
1—continued land disposal of "soft
hammer" wastes—results in zero
incremental cost over the baseline for
"soft hammer" wastes. Scenario 2—
treatment of "soft hammer" wastes
under "approximate treatment
standards"—results in an incremental
cost of $55 million per year. The costs
associated -with the "soft hammer"
would be incurred for less than two
years, i.e., until hard hammers fell,
treatment standards were established,
or extensions to the effective date-were
granted.
[Note: The costs presented in this section
were based on incineration as BOAT for
K048-52. Costs based on solvent extraction
as BOAT for these wastes could be
significantly lower.]
c. Economic Impacts. Most of the
significantly affected facilities under the
final rule are generators, as shown in
Table 3. More generators are affected
under Scenario 2 than Scenario 1 due to
the higher management costs for "soft
hammer" wastes going to treatment.
TABLE 3.—NUMBER OF FACILITIES SIGNIFI-
CANTLY AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE
Commercial TSSDFs
Non-Commercial
TSDFs
Generators
Total
Final rute
Scenario 1
(')
45
S60
1,005
Scenario 2
(')
46
1.119
1,165
'' TSDFs with commercial processes were as-
sumed to pass all compliance costs through to
generators: therefore, the number of s:gmticar.tly-
affected facilities was not calculated.
SIC sector 29 (Petroleum Refining and
Related Products) is the most
significantly affected sector SIC 29
generators and non-commercial TSDFs
account for nearly 40 percent of overall
compliance costs. The number of
facilities likely to close, looking at all
SIC sectors, would be 197 and 199 under
Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively.
(Note: The economic, impacts presented in
this section were based on incineration ;is
BOAT for K048-52. Economic impacts basnii
on solvent extraction as BOAT for these
wastes could be significantly smaller.)
d. Benefits. The reductions in
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk
due to the final rule are shown in Tables
4 and 5.
TABLE 4.—REDUCTION IN CARCINOGENIC
RISK (NUMBER OF CASES AVOIDED
OVER A 70-YEAR EXPOSURE PERIOD)
Treatment of F and K
Wastes
"Soft hammer" on
Remaining First
Third Wastes
Total
Final rule
Scenario 1
295
0
295
Scenario 2*
295
65
360
TABLE 5.—REDUCTION IN NON-CARCINO-
GENIC RISK (REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF
PERSONS EXPOSED TO A NON-CARCINO-
GEN AT A DOSE ABOVE ITS RFD)
Treatment of F and K
Wastes
Fina
Scenario 1
414
rule
Scenario 2
414
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31207
TABLE 5.—REDUCTION IN NON-CARCINO-
GENIC RISK (REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF
PERSONS EXPOSED TO A NON^CARCINO-
GEM AT A DOSE ABOVE ITS Rft))—
Continued
TABLE 6.—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF
FINAL. RULE—Continued
"SoftfoWPWrOB
Remaining FM
ThMwmes
Trtal
Fin* rule
SCMViOl
0
414
ScmrioZ
»
422-
The reduction in number of cancer
cases due to the final rule is 295 and 360
for Scenarios 1 and 2. respectively. The
largest redactions under both scenarios
(150 cases) are treatment of K081 wastes
(Emission Control Dust/Sludge from the
Primary Production of Steel in Electric
Furnaces). Restrictions on K04&-K052
wastes (from the petroleum refining
industry) result in a decrease of another
115 cancer cases.
The reduction in number of persons
exposed to a non-carcinogen at a
concentration above its RFD ranges
from 414 under Scenario 1 to 422 under
Scenario 2. In this case, much of the
benefit under both scenarios is due to
K048. K049. K061. and mixtures of these
wastes, acting through ground water
exposure.
Under both alternatives, the average
carcinogenic risk to an individual in the.
population is reduced across ail media
by imposing land disposal restrictions.
Most of this redaction in average
individual risk is attributable to
reduction in exposure to arsenic via
ground water. [Note-—The benefits
presented in this section were based on
incineration as BOAT for K048-52.
Benefits based on solvent extraction as
BOAT for these wastes may be
different]
e. Cost Effectiveness, The cost
effectiveness of the final rule is
illustrated in Table & Compliance costs
for the regulated community and human
health risk reduction are the basis for
the comparison; other potentially
significant costs (e&. Agency
implementation costs) and benefits (e.g.,
natural resource damage avoided) were
not estimated.
TABLE 6.—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF
FINAL RULE
Bflneflto (Reduction in
Cencar CUM per Y«v)_
Banoflla (BeducSonin Ex-
PMUCW tolNcivCarcino-
9os si Conwrtnfllcfls
thwo ThcoohoM)
Co* EHirt!mi»m (Ma-
ton of DoRws per
Co* BhcfMnatt (IUB-
tons of OotafS per Nan-
CivcinoQer) Exposw
A't^ftM)
Ftoalrato
Scenario
1
«
414
215
12
Scenario
2
6.1
422
190
2J3
Costs (Millions of 1987
Dollars per Yetrij ______
Final rule
Scenario
1
907
Scenario
2
962
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., whenever an
agency publishes a notice of ralemaking.
it most prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) that describes the effect
of the rale on small entities (L&. small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). An
RFA 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 believes that the final role
could potentially have a significant
effect on • substantial number of small
entities, and particularly generators who
are small businesses. However, the
Agency doe* not have sufficient data to
distinguish small business generators
from large business generators or to
identify alternatives for small
businesses. The Agency did receive
extensive comments and some data on
generators of F006. a substantial number
of whom are small entities. Therefore,
EPA has conducted a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for facilities
affected by the standards for F006
wastes.
When EPA proposed this rule, it
concluded that there would not be a
substantial impact on a significant
number of small entities. Since the
proposal, EPA has conducted additional
analysis of small business impacts. That
analysis indicated that six of the nine
non-commercial TSDFs that are small
businesses would be significantly
impacted. EPA does not consider six
significantly affected facilities a
substantial number of affected facilities.
EPA's analysis of small business
impacts did not address commercial
TSDFs or generators. Without an
evaluation of impacts on generators,
which represent over 90 percent of all
facilities that manage First Third
wastes, no definitive conclusions can be
drawn on the potential impacts to small
businesses. It is reasonable to expect
that, since 60-71 percent of generators
overall are significantly affected, there
may be substantial impact on small
business generators. However, EPA has
no data to support this premise due to
the lack of information on which
generators are small businesses.
In order to determine whether
alternatives are available to minimize
impacts on small businesses, it is
necessary to identify those wastes
generated by small business generators
that are most likely affected by the final
rule. Based on concerns expressed in the
comments, it appears that the treatment
standards for FOOB wastes from
electroplating operations could impact
small business generators significantly.
Therefore, the Agency has examined
three alternatives to minimize the
estimated impact on small businesses
generating F008 wastes. The Agency
recognizes that small businesses hi
other industries may also be affected
significantly.
The first alternative considered was
not to set treatment standards for F008,
and to allow the "soft hammer"
provisions to apply instead. Under this
alternative, generators could continue to
dispose untreated F006 wastes in
landfills and impoundments until May
1990 provided appropriate treatment
capacity was not practically available.
However, if appropriate treatment was
practically available, the generator
would be obliged to obtain that
treatment before land disposing the
waste (assuming these wastes are
disposed in landfill* or impoundments).
Because the treatment standards for
F006 wastes were based on a widely
available form of stabilization, it
appears unlikely that small business.
generators could successfully
demonstrate that appropriate treatment
is not practical or is not available. (Note
that part of the commenters concerns on
F006 arose because a major waste
treatment firm, whose stabilization data
formed the basis for the proposed
standard, later determined that the
levels achieved in those tests could not >
be achieved routinely. However, this
was determined to be true for only two
of the constituents—zinc and copper for
other reasons, the Agency has deleted
zinc and copper from the F006
standards. Therefore, stabilization as
normally practiced by waste treatment
and disposal firms should be capable of
achieving the F006 standards. The firm
which developed the original test data
agrees with this conclusion.) Since this
alternative only provides relief for small
-------
31208 Federal Register'/ Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulation's
business generators if treatment is not
practically available, and it appears that
appropriate treatment wilil be widely
available for F006 wastes, this
alternative will not be effective in
providing relief to small business
generators.
The second alternative considered
was to set treatment standards, but to
grant a two-year extension of the
effective date based on lack of
treatment capacity. Whilu this
alternative could provide relief to small
entities for the two-year extension
period, the Agency cannot legally grant
this extension for reasons other than
limited capacity. As noted above,
stabilization capacity is widely
available. The Agency's recently .
completed capacity analysis indicates
that the amount of available
stabilization capacity exceeds the
amount needed for First Third wastes.
Thus, the Agency cannot .make the
finding of insufficient capacity
necessary to support an extension of the
effective date.
The third alternative considered was
to alter the treatment standards for F006
wastes. As noted, the Agency has
deleted copper and zinc from the
standards; this change should ensure
that well-designed and well-operated
stabilization will achieve the treatment
standards. Any further change in the
treatment standards would require a
change in the BOAT upon which the
standard is based. Alternative BDAT
technologies that fulfill the mandate of
the statute are likely to bet more costly
to the small business generators, rather
than less. Less costly technologies, such
as de'watering and sludge drying, do not
fulfill the requirement that treatment
achieve significant reductions in toxicity
and mobility of hazardous constituents.
Therefore, this alternative does not
minimize impacts on small entities.
Based on this examination of the
alternatives, the Agency has concluded
that there art not practical and legally
available alternatives to minimize
possible impacts on small business
generators of F006 wastes.
C, Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMLij under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq and
have been assigned OMB control
Number 2050-0085. Reporting and
recordkeeping burden on the public for
this collection is estimated at 10.745
hours for the 19.679 respondents, with
an average of 0.55 hours per response.
These burden estimates include all
aspects of the collection effort and may
include time for reviewing instructions.
searching existing data sources.
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, completing and reviewing the
collection of information, etc.
If an interested party wishes to submit
comments regarding any aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, or
would like a copy of the information
collection "request (please reference ICR
#1442), contact Rick Westlund.
Information Policy Branch. PM-223. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 (202)
382-2745; and Marcus Peacock, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Office of Management and Budget.
Washington. DC 20503. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in (his proposal.
D. Review of Supporting Documents
The primary source of information on
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by this rule was
EPA's 1986 "National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage,
Disposal and Recycling Facilities" (the
TSDR Survey). The average quantity of
waste contributed by generator facilities
was obtained from EPA's "National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in
1981" (April 1984).
Waste stream characterization data
and engineering costs of waste
. management were based on the
following EPA documents:
• "Characterization of Waste Streams
Listed in 40 CFR Section 261 Waste
Profiles," Vols. I and II (August 1985);
• "Characterization of Constituents
from Selected Waste Streams Listed in
40 CFR Section 261." Vols I and II
(August 1985);
• RCRA background and listing
documents for 40 CFR Section 261:
• RCRA Section 3007 industry studies;
• "RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model
Appendix A: Waste Stream Data Base"
(March 1984); and
• Source assessment documents for
various industries.
• "1986-1987 Survey of Selected Firms
in the Commercial Hazardous Waste
Management Industry: Final Report"
(March 1988).
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.
VIII. Implementation of the Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions Program
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 clarified
the distinction between "restricted" and
"prohibited" wastes in the May 17
proposal (53 FR 17620). For the benefit of
the regulated community, the Agency is
repeating the clarification in today's
rule.
"Restricted" wastes are those
categories of hazardous wastes that are
prohibited from land disposal either by
regulation or statute (regardless of
whether subcategories 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
subcategories 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 waste
subject to RCRA regulation. To
determine whether a hazardous waste is
"restricted," generators need only
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31209
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, Le., 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 288 requirements apply.
The first Part 288 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 waste 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 5 268.5 extensions, § 288.8
"no migration" exemption, 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 § 288.5 extension. § 268.8
"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.
As a result of the regulations
promulgated today-under Part 268,'
several options will be available to the
generator or owner or operator of a
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
for the management of restricted
hazardous wastes. This section helps
the regulated community determine the
appropriate waste management
procedures. It provides references to the
applicable 40 CFR Parts 284 and 265
requirements as well as Part 268
requirements for implementation of the
various waste management options.
• All the sequences in the generator's
decision-making process must
commence with a determination as to
whether the hazardous waste is
restricted in Part 268 Subpart C or RCRA
section 3004(d). If the hazardous waste
is not restricted, it cannot be subject to
the land disposal restrictions of Part 263.
It must nevertheless be managed in
accordance with Parts 284 and 265.
The generator of a restricted waste
must determine the appropriate
treatment standards (if any) under Part
268 Subpart O (or prohibitions under
RCRA section 3004(d)). The applicable
treatment standards must be determined
at the point of initial generation prior to
any treatment (Of course, if in the
course of managing the waste a new
treatabiliry group is created, for example
a scrubber water from the incineration
of a nonwastewater, the treatment
standard applicable to this new
treatability group will apply.) At this
time, he must determine the effective
date of the applicable treatment
standard under Part 268 Subpart C. EPA
has the authority to delay the effective
dates of the Part 268 treatment
standards based on the unavailability of
adequate national treatment capacity.
Determinations as to the adequacy of
treatment capacity are based on the
quantity of waste generated and the
availability of alternative treatment,
recovery or disposal technologies. For
these wastes where EPA has determined
that alternative capacity is adequate, or
has for whatever reason not established
an alternate effective date, the
treatment standards take effect
immediately upon promulgation. The
generator must use analysis of his waste
(or waste extract, when applicable) or
knowledge of his waste to make
determinations as to whether his waste
may go directly to land disposal or first
must be treated (data supporting such
.knowledge and any waste analysis data
must be kept on-site).
If the concentrations of the hazardous
constituents in the waste (or waste
extract, when applicable) are in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standards, the waste may go
directly to land disposal. The' generator
must submit a notice and certification
statement to the land disposal facility as
required under § 268.7. The land
disposal facility must verify the records
of the generator in accordance with the
facility's waste analysis plan. A
generator that operates an on-site land
disposal facility must put the
information contained in the notice
(except for the manifest number) in the
operating record of the land disposal
facility.
If the concentrations of the hazardous
constituents hi the waste (or waste
extract, when applicable) exceeds the
treatment standards, placement of the
waste in land disposal units as of the
effective date specified in Part 268
Subpart C is prohibited (unless the
waste is subject to a case-by-case
extension under § 268.5. or a "no-
migration" exemption under § 268.6).
An off-site treatment or storage
facility must obtain a notice from the.
generator as required in § 268.7. This
notice must be placed in the operating
record. Generators that are also
treatment facilities must keep the
information contained in the notice
(except for the manifest number) in the
facility's operating record.
When shipping the treatment residual
to an interim status or RCRA permitted
land disposal facility, the treatment or
storage facility must certify in
accordance with § 268.7 that the
treatment residue meets the applicable
treatment standards and must also send
a notice (§ 268.7) to the land disposal
facility.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in 5 268.10 (i.e., a First
Third waste) where treatment standards
have not been set, and such waste is
land disposed off-site by methods other
than landfills or surface impoundments,
the generator must provide a notice in
accordance with § 268.7. The off-site
disposal facility is required to keep the
generator's notice in its operating
record, and is responsible for ensuring
that the waste is not disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment. If the
generator disposes on-site, the
information contained in the notice
(except for the manifest number) must
be kept in the facility's operating record,
and the generator must ensure that such
waste is not disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in § 288.10, where treatment
standards have not been set, and are
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, such waste may only be
disposed in landfill or surface
impoundment units that meet the
minimum technological requirements of
RCRA section 3004(o) (double liner.
leachate collection system, and
groundwater monitoring), or satisfy the
section 3004(o)(2) equivalence standard.
Prior to such disposal, the generator
must certify to the Regional
Administrator in accordance with
§ 288.8.
To make this certification, the
generator must investigate practically
available technologies appropriate for
treating his waste (see sections III. A. 8.
and III. C. of this preamble for guidance
on appropriate technologies and on
determining whether such technologies
are practical). The generator must
demonstrate that he has made this
investigation, certifying that either no
practically available technologies exist
-------
31210 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
for treating his waste, or Chat the best
technology(ies) practically available has
bean contracted to treat the waste. Prior
to treatment (if any) and disposal, the
generator must send the demonstration
and certification to the Regional
Administrator, to the receiving facility,
and also keep records on-site. Provided
the conditions of the certification remain
unchanged, demonstrations and
certification* need not be sent again to
the Regional Administrator. However, if
changes do occur, the generator must
submit a new demonstration and
certification to the Regional
Administrator. Should EPA notify the
generator that his certification is
invalidated, the generator is responsible
for immediately notifying the
facility (ics) receiving his waste of such
action and must keep records of such
communication on-site.
Where the generator demonstrates
and certifies that no practically
available treatment exists, the waste
may be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment meeting the minimum
technological requirements. For off-site
disposal, the demonstration and
certification required in § 268.7, as well
as the notice required in § 268.7 must be
provided with the initial waste
shipment. The § 268.8 demonstration
need not be provided again as long as '
the conditions of the demonstration
have not changed. Thereafter, only the
notice required in 5 288.7 and the
certification required in § 268.8 must be
provided with each waste shipment. If
such waste is disposed on-site, the
demonstration and certification required
is § 268.8, as well as the notice (except
for the manifest number) required in
§ 268.7 must be kept in the: operating
record.
If the generator's waste is a restricted
waste listed in § 268.10 where no
treatment standards has been set, and
the waste goes off-site for treatment, the
generator must send the demonstration
(only for the initial shipment), and
certification required in § 268.8 and the
notice required in § 268.7. The treatment
facility must keep a copy of the
certification, demonstration (if .
applicable), and notice in its operating
record. If treated on-site. the information
contained in the notice (except for the
manifest number) must be kept in the
facility's operating record. After
treatment, the residuals may be land
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements of section
3004(o). The owner or operator must
certify that the treatment indicated in
the generator's demonstration has been
done, prior to disposal. For off-site
disposal, with the initial waste
shipment, the generator's demonstration.
certification and notice must be sent to
the disposal facility along with the
owner operator's certification.
Thereafter, only the generator's and
owner or operator's certification and
notice must be sent For on-site disposal,
the information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number) as well as
all certifications and demonstrations
must be kept in the operating record.
[Note: As discussed in section in. C. 3.,
. certain wastewater residuals from
treatment of First Third wastes for
which EPA has not promulgated
treatment standards, as well as leachate
and contaminated ground water derived
from the management of First Third
wastes for which EPA has not
promulgated treatment standards are
not prohibited from land disposal until
May 8, 1990 (by virtue of amending
S 268.12, reprioritizing the schedule) or
until treatment standards are
established, whichever is sooner.]
IX. Rei
(1) U.S. EPA. "Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Restrictions of the Land Disposal on First
Third Wastes", August. 1908.
(2) U.S, EPA. "Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Restrictions on Land Disposal of First
Third Wastes. Appendices". August, 1988.
(3) U.S. EPA. "Alternative Waste
Management Technology Cost Estimates for
the First Third Land Disposal Restrictions",
August 1988.
(4) U.S. EPA, "Background Document for
First Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR 268
Land Disposal Restrictions Final Rule. First
Third Waste Volumes, Characteristics, and
Required and Available Treatment
Capacity", August a 1988.
(S) U.S. EPA. "Comment Response
Background Document for the First Third
Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions Rule",
August 8. 1988.
(6) U.S. EPA. "Response to Capacity
Related Comments Submitted on the First
Third Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
Rule", August 8, 1988.
(7a) U.S. ERA. "Response to BOAT Related
Comments Submitted on the First Third
Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions Rule",
Vol. I. August 8, 1988,
(7b) U.S. EPA. "Response to BOAT Related
Comments Submitted on the First Third
Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions Rule",
Vol. II, August 8. 1988.
. (7c) U.S. EPA. "Response to BOAT Related
Comments Submitted on the First Third
Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions Rule",
Vol. in. August 8, 1988.
(8) U.S. EPA, "Guidance Document for
Applicable and Demonstrated Technologies
for First Third Waste Codes", EPA/530-SW-
88-031P, August 8. 1988.
(9) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for F001-F005, Addendum". EPA/
530-SW-88-031R. August 8, 1988.
(10) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document forFOOe", EPA/530-SW-88-O31L.
August 8.1988.
(11) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K001", EPA/530-SW-88-0310,
August 8,1988.
(12) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K015", EPA/530-SW-88-031A,
August 8,1988.
(13) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K018, K018, KO19, K020, K030".
EPA/530-SW-88-O31B, August 8,1988.
(14) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K022". EPA/S30-SW-88-031Q,
August 8,1988.
(15) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K024", EPA/530-SW-88-031H,
August 8,1988. '
(16) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K037", EPA/530-SW-88-031I.
August 8,1988.
(17) U.S. EPA.. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K046". EPA/530-SW-88-031J.
August 8,1988.
(18) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K048, K049, K050. K051, KOS2",
EPA/530 SW 88 031 C, August 8,1988.
(19) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K061", EPA/530-SW-88-031D,
August 8,1988.
(20) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for k082", EPA/530 SW 88 031E,
August 8.1938. .
(21) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K071"; EPA/530-SW-88-031F,
August 8,1988.
(22) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K088", EPA/530 SW-88 031N,
August & 1988.
(23) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K087", EPA/530-SW-88-031M,
August 8,1988.
(24) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K101, K102", EPA/530-SW-88-
031K, August 8,1988.
(25) U.S. EPA. "Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for K103, K104", EPA/530-SW-88-
031G. August 8.1988.
X. List of Subjects
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
Hazardous waste, Insurance,
Packaging and containers. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures, Surety bonds
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 31211
4OCFR Part 266
Energy, Hazardous waste. Petroleum.
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements
4OCFRPart271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste, Indian
lands, Intergovernmental relative.
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply
Dated: August 8, 198a
Lee M. Thomas .
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the _
preamble. Title 40, Chapter I of the CFR
is amended as follows:
I. In Part 264:
PART 264— STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 284
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a). 6824. and
0925:
Subpart B— General Facility Standards
, 2. Section 264.13 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(7)(iii) to read as.
follows:
§ 264.13 General waste analysis.
(')**•
(iii) The annual removal of residues '
which are not delisted under § 260.22 of
this chapter or which exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste and
either:
(A) Do not meet applicable treatment
standards of Part 268, Subpart D: or
(B) Where no treatment standards
have been established;
(1) Such residues are prohibited from
land disposal under § 268.32 or RCRA
section 3004{d); or
^?7 Such residues are prohibited from
land disposal under | 268.33(f).
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
3. In § 264.73 paragraphs (b) (10), (11).
(12), (13) and (14) are revised and
paragraphs (b) (15) and (16) are added to
read as follows:
§264.73 Operating record.
* * * * *
(b) * * • •
(10) Records of the quantities (and
date of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5. a petition
pursuant to S 288.6. or a certification
under § 26(18, and the applicable notice
required by a generator under § 268.7(a):
(11) For an off-site treatment facility, a
copy of the notice, and the certification
and demonstration, if applicable,
required by the generator or the owner
or operator under S 268.7 or § 268.8;
(12) For an on-site treatment facility,
the information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number), and the
certification and demonstration if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator under 5 268.7 or
§ 268.8;
(13) For an off-site land disposal
facility, a copy of the notice, and the
certification and demonstration if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under § 268.7 and § 268.8.
whichever is applicable; and
(14) For an on-site land .disposal
•facility, the information contained in the .
notice required by the generator or
owner or operator of a treatment facility
under § 288.7, except for the manifest
number, and the certification and
demonstration if applicable, required
under § 268.8, whichever is applicable.
(15) For an off-site storage facility, a
copy of the notice, and the certification
and demonstration if applicable.
required by the generator or the owner
or operator under 5 268.7 or § 268.8; and
(16) For an.on-site storage facility, the
information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number), and the
certification and demonstration if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator under 0 268.7 or
§268.8.
* * • ' » *
II. In Part 265:
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 265 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a). 6924.
6925, and 6935.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
2. Section 265.13 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(7)(iii) to read as
follows:
S 265.13 General waste analysis.
« * * * ' *
(b)
(7) * *' *
(iii) The annual removal of residues
which are not delisted under § 260.22 of
this chapter or which exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste and
either:
(A) Do not meet applicable treatment
standards of Part 268, Subpart D; or
(B) Where no treatment standards
have been established;
(1) Such residues are prohibited from
land disposal under § 268.32 or RCRA .
section 3004(d); or
(2) Such residues are prohibited from
land disposal under § 268.33(f).
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
3. In S 265.73 paragraphs (b) (8), (9),
(10), (11) and (12) are revised and
paragraphs (b) (13) and (14) are added to
read as follows:
§ 265.73 Operating record.
**.••*
(b) * * *
(8) Records of the quantities (and date
of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5, monitoring
data required pursuant to a petition
under S 268.6, or a certification under
§ 268.8, and the applicable notice
required by a generator under § 268.7(a).
(9) For an off-site treatment facility, a
copy of the notice, and the certification
and demonstration if applicable,
required by the generator or the owner
or operator under § 268.7 or § 268.8;
(10) For an on-site treatment facility,
the information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number), and the
certification and demonstration if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator under § 268.7 or
§ 268.8;
(11) For an off-site land disposal
facility, a copy of the notice, and the
certification and demonstration if
applicable, required by the generator or
the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under 5 268.7 or § 268.8;
(12) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the information contained in the
notice (except the manifest number),
and the certification and demonstration
if applicable, required by the generator
or the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under § 268.7 or § 268.8.
(13) For an off-site storage facility, a
copy of the notice, and the certification
-------
31212 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
and demonstration if applicable,
required by the generator or the owner
or operator under § 26S.7 or § 268.8; and
(14) For an on-site storage facility, the
information contained in the notice
(except the manifest number), and the
certification and demonstration if
applicable, required by the! generator or
the owner or operator of a treatment
facility under § 288^ or § 28&8,
• •••••
FIL In Part 266:
PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 0905.6M2{a). 6924. and, '
0934.
Subpart C—Recyclable Materials Used
In a Manner Constituting Disposal
2. Section 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 of Part
268 (or applicable prohibition levels in
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d), where
no treatment standards have been
established) for each recyclable material'
(i.e.. hazardous waste constituent) that
they contain. However, zinc-containing
fertilizers using hazardous waste K081
that are produced for the general
public's use are not presently subject to
regulation.
IV. In Part 208:
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 8921. and
6924.
Subpart A—General
2. In § 2G8.1 paragraph (c)(3) is
removed, paragraph (c)(4J is
redusignated as paragraph (c)(3);
paragraph (c)(5) is redesignated as
paragraph (c)(-l) and revised, and
paragraphs (c)(5) and (d) are added to
read as follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose. *cope and applicability.
* * • • * . •
(c)
(4) Where a fanner is disposing of
waste pesticides in accordance with
5 262.70: '
(5) Prior to May 8. 1990, in a landfill or
surface impoundment unit where all
applicable persons are in-compliance
with the requirements of 5 268.8. with
respect to wastes that are not subject to
the treatment standards set forth in
Subpart D and not subject to the
prohibitions in § 268.32 or RCRA
§ 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 268.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 268.4 Treatment surface Impoundment
exemption.
(a) • ' ' .
(2) The following conditions are met:.
(i) Sampling and testing. For wastes
with treatment standards in Subpart O
of this part and/or prohibition levels in
Subpart C of this part or RCRA section
30C4(d). the residues from treatment are
analyzed, as specified in § 268.7 or
5 288J2, to determine if they meet the
applicable treatment standards or where
ho treatment standards have been
established for the waste, the applicable
prohibition levels. The sampling method,
specified in the waste analysis plan
under § 284.13 or § 285.13, must be
designed such that representative
' samples of the sludge and the
supernatant are tested separately rather
than mixed to form homogeneous
samples.
(ii) Removal. The following treatment
residues (including any liquid waste)
must be removed at least annually:
residues which do not meet the
treatment standards promulgated under
Subpart D of this part: residues which
do not meet the prohibition levels
, established under Subpart C of this part
or imposed by statute (where no
treatment standards have been
established); residues which are from
the treatment of wastes prohibited from
land disposal under Subpart C of this
part (where no treatment standards
have been established and no .
prohibition levels apply); or residues
from managing listed wastes which are
not delisted under § 260.22 of this
chapter. However, residues which are
the subject of a valid certification under
§ 268.8 made no later than a year after
placement of the wastes in an
impoundment are not required to be
removed annually. If the volume of
liquid flowing through the impoundment
or series of impoundments annually is
greater than the volume of the
impoundment or impoundments, this
flow-through constitutes removal of the
supernatant for the purpose of this
requirement.
(iii) Subsequent management.
Treatment residues may not be placed
in any other surface impoundment for
subsequent management unless the
residues are the subject of a valid
certification under § 268.8 which allows
disposal in surface impoundments
meeting the requirements of section
268,8(a).
(iv) Recordkeeping. The procedures
and schedule for the sampling of
impoundment contents, the analysis of
test data, and the annual removal of
residues which do not meet the
treatment standards, or prohibition
levels (where no treatment standards
have been established), or which are
from the treatment of wastes prohibited
from land disposal under Subpart C
(where no treatment standards have
been established and no prohibition • .
levels apply), must be specified in the
facility's waste analysis plan as
required under § 264.13 or § 205.13 of
this chapter.
• • «' •' •
4. Section 268.5 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 268.5 Procedures for case-by-case
extension* to an effective date.
• • • • •
(h) • • *
(2) Such hazardous waste may be
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment unit only if such unit is in
compliance with the following
requirements:
*****
5. Section 268.6 is amended by adding
new paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5), by
redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d). (d) as (g). (e) as (h), (f) as
(i). (g) as (j), (h) as (k). (i) as (1), Oi as
(m), (k) as (n). and by adding new
paragraphs (c). (e). and (!) to read as
follows:
§ 268.6 Petitions to allow land disposal of
a waste prohibited under Subpart C of Part
268.
(a) ' ' '
(4) A monitoring plan that detects
migration at the earliest practicable
time;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Sufficient information to assure the
Administrator that the owner or
operator of a land disposal unit
receiving restricted waste(s) will comply
with other applicable Federal. State, and
local laws. .
• * » • *
(c) Each petition referred to in
paragraph (a) of this section must
include the following;
(1) A monitoring plan that describes
the monitoring program installed at and/
or around the unit to verify continued
compliance with the conditions of the
variance. This monitoring plan must
provide information on the monitoring of
the unit and/or the environment around ,
the unit. The following specific
information must be included in the
plan:
(i) The media monitored in the cases
where monitoring of the environment
around the unit is required;
(ii) The type of monitoring conducted
at the unit, in the cases where
monitoring of the unit is required:
(iii) The location of the monitoring
stations;
(iv) The monitoring interval
(frequency of monitoring at each
station);
(v) The specific hazardous
constituents to be monitored;
(vi) The implementation schedule for
the monitoring program;
(vii) The equipment used at the
monitoring stations;
(viii) The sampling and analytical
techniques employed; and
(ix) The data recording/reporting
procedures.
(2) Where applicable, the monitoring
program described in paragraph (c](l) of
this section must be in place for a period
of time specified by the Administrator.
as part of his approval of the petition.
prior to receipt of prohibited waste at
the unit.
(3) The monitoring data collected
according to the monitoring plan
specified under paragraph (c](l) of this
section must be sent to the
Administrator according to a format and
schedule specified and approved in the
monitoring plan, and
(4) A copy of the monitoring data
collected under the monitoring plan
specified under paragraph (c}(l) of this
section must be kept on-site at the
facility in the operating record.
(5) The monitoring program specified
under paragraph (c)(l) of this section
meet the following criteria:
(i) All sampling, testing, and
analytical data must be approved by the
Administrator and must provide data
that is accurate and reproducible.
(ii) All estimation and monitoring
techniques must be approved by the
Administrator.
(iii) A quality assurance and quality
control plan addressing all aspects of
the monitoring program must be
provided to and approved by the
Administrator.
• • • • •• .* .
(e) After a petition has been
approved, the owner or operator must
report any changes in conditions at the
unit and/or the environment around the •
unit that significantly depart from the
conditions described in the variance and
affect the potential for migration of
hazardous constituents from the units as
follows:
(1) If the owner or operator plans to
make changes to the unit design,
construction, or operation, such a
change must be proposed, in writing.
and the owner or operator must submit
a demonstration to the Administrator at
least 30 days prior to making the change.
The Administrator will determine
whether the proposed change
invalidates the terms of the petition and
will determine the appropriate response.
Any change must be approved by the
Administrator prior to being made.
(2) If the owner or operator discovers
that a condition at the site which was
modeled or predicted in the petition
does not occur as predicted, this change
must be reported, in writing, to the
Administrator within 10 days of
discovering the change. The
Administrator will determine whether
the reported change from the terms of
the petition requires further action.
which may include termination of waste
acceptance and revocation of the
petition, petition modificationo. or other
responses.
(f) If the owner or operator determines
that there is migration of hazardous
constituent(s) from the unit, the owner
or operator must:
(1) Immediately suspend receipt of
restricted waste at the unit, and
(2) Notify the Administrator, in
writing, within 10 days of the
determination that a release has
occurred.
(3) Following receipt of the
notification the Administrator will
determine, within 60 days of receiving
notification, whether the owner or
operator can continue to receive
prohibited waste in the unit and
whether the variance is to be revoked.
The Administrator shall also determine
whether further examination of any
migration is warranted under applicable
provisions of Part 284 or Part 265.
6. Section 288.7 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
by revising paragraphs (a)(l)
introductory text (a)(2) introductory
text (a)(3). by redesignating paragraph
(a)(4) as (a)(5) and revising it, by adding
new paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6), by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
by redesignating paragraph (b](l) as
(b){4) and (b)(2) as (b)(5), by adding new
paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(2). (b)(3). (b)(8),
(b)(7), and (b)(8). and by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§268.7 Waste analysis and recordkMoing.
(a) Except as specified hi § 268.32 or
section 268.43 of the part, the generator
must test his waste, or test an extract
developed using the test method
described in Appendix I of this part, or
use knowledge of the waste, to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part.'.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste does not meet the
applicable treatment standards set forth
in Subpart O of this part or exceeds the
applicable prohibition levels set forth in
§ 268.32 or RCRA § 3004{d), with each
shipment of waste the generator must
notify the treatment or storage facility in
writing of the appropriate treatment
standards set forth in Subpart D of this
part and any applicable prohibition
levels set forth in 5 268.32 or RCRA
§ 3004(d). The notice must include the
following information:
* • * •, *
(2) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment, with each shipment of waste
he must submit to the treatment,
storage, or land disposal facility, a
notice and a certification stating that the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards set forth in Subpart D of this
part and the applicable prohibition
levels set forth in § 268.32 or RCRA
§ 3004(d).
• • • • •
(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
notice must include the following
information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in § 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d);
-------
31214 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
(Hi) 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 § 288.33(0 of this part
and is not subject to the 'prohibitions set
forth in § 268.32 of this pint, with each
shipment of waste the generator must
notify the treatment, storage, or disposal
facility, in writing, of any applicable
prohibitions set forth in ii 268J3(f). The
notice must include the following
information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number
(ii) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in section 268.33(f):
(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 wante, all
supporting data used to make this
determination must be retained on-site
in the generator's files. If a generator
determines whether the waste is
restricted based on testing this waste or
an extract developed using the test
method described in Appendix I of this
part, all waste analysis d.ata must be
retained on-site in the generator's files.
(6) Generators must retain on-site a
copy of ull notices, certifications.
demonstrations, waste analysis data.
and other documentation produced
pursuant to this section for at least five
years from the date that the waste that
is the subject of such documentation ,
was last sent to on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal. The five
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator.
(b) Treatment facilities must test their
wastes according to the frequency
specified in their waste analysis plans
as required by 5 264.13 or § 265.13. Such
testing must be performed as provided
5n paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(IZ) and (b)(3) of
this section.
(1) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract (§ 268.41), the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility must test the treatment residues,
or an extract of such residues developed
using the test method described in
Appendix I of this part, to assure that
the treatment residues or extract meet
the applicable treatment standards.
(2) For wastes that are prohibited
under § 266.32 of this part or RCRA
section 3004(d) but not subject to any
treatment standards under Subpart D of
this part, the owner or operator of the
treatment facility must test the
treatment residues according to the
generator testing requirements specified
in § 268.32 to assure that the treatment
residues comply with the applicable
prohibitions.
• (3) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste (§ 268.43), the owner or
operator of the treatment facility must
test the treatment residues (not an
extract of such residues) to assure that
the treatment residues meet the
applicable treatment standards.
* • • • • •
(6) If the waste or treatment residue
will be further managed at a different
treatment or storage facility, the
treatment, storage or disposal facility
sending the waste or treatment residue
off-site must comply with the notice and
certification requirements applicable to
generators under this section.,
(7) For wastes that are subject to the
prohibitions under § 268.33(f) of this part
and are not subject to the prohibitions
set forth in § 268.32 of this part, with
each shipment of such waste the owner
or operator must notify any subsequent
treatment, storage, or disposal facility,
in writing, of any applicable prohibitions
set forth in § 268,33(f). The notice must
include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number
(ii) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in section 268.33(f):
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste: and
,. (iv) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(8) Where the wastes are recyclable
materials used in a manner constituting
disposal subject to the provisions of
§ 266.20(b), the owner or operator of a
treatment facility (the recycler) is not
required to notify the receiving facility.
pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this
section. With each shipment of such
wastes the owner or operator of the
recycling facility must submit a
certification described in paragraph
(b)(5) of this section, and a notice which
includes the information listed in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section (except .
the manifest number) to the Regional
AdminiiJfptor, or his delegated
representative. The recycling facility
also must keep records of the name and
location of each entity receiving the
hazardous waste-derived product.
(c) The owner or operator of any land .
disposal facility disposing any waste
subject to restrictions under this part
must:
(1) Have copies of the notice and
certifications specified in paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section, and the
certification specified in § 268.8 if
applicable.
(2) Test the waste, or an extract of the
waste or treatment residue developed
using the test method described in
Appendix I of this part or using any
methods required by generators under
§ 268.32 of this part, to assure that the
wastes or treatment residues are in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standards set forth in Subpart
D of this part and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in § 268.32 of this
part or in RCRA section 3004(d). Such
testing must be performed according to
the frequency specified in the facility's
waste analysis plan as required by
§ 264.13 or § 265.13.
(3) Where the owner or operator is
disposing of any waste that is subject-to
the prohibitions under § 268.33(f) of this
part but not subject to the prohibitions
set forth in § 268.32, he must ensure that
such waste is the subject of a
certification according to the
requirements of § 268.8 prior to disposal
in a landfill or surface impoundment
unit, and that such disposal is in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 2C8.5(h)(2). The same requirement
applies to any waste that is subject to
the prohibitions under § 268.33(f) of this
Part and also is subject to the statutory
prohibitions in RCRA section 3004(d) or
the codified prohibitions in § 268.32 of
this Part.
* • • • *
7. Section 268.8 is added 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(f) 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
generator has made a good faith effort to
locate and contract with treatment and
recovery facilities practically available
which provide the greatest
environmental benefit.
(2) Such generator submits to the
Regional Administrator a demonstration
and certification that the requirements
of paragraph (a)(l) of this section have
been met. The demonstration must
include a list of facilities and facility
officials contacted, addresses, telephone
numbers, and contact dates.
(i) If a generator determines that there
is no practically available treatment for
his waste, he must indicate so-in his
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 /Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
demonstration, and provide a written
discussion of why he was not able to
obtain treatment or recovery for that
waste. The generator must also provide
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that the-
requirement* of 40 CFR 28as(aHl) have been
met and that disposal ia a landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical alternative
to treatment currently available. I beiisv* .-
that the information subaiitted is tma,
accurate, and complete. I as aware that there-
are significant peaalties for submitting falsa
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment • • •
(iiJ If a generator determines that
there are practically available
treatments for his waste, be. must
contract to use the practically available
technology that yields the greatest
environmental benefit, as indicated in
his demonstration. He must provide the
following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that the •
requirements of 4O CFR 2o&8(a)(l) have been
met and that I have contracted to treat my
waste (or will otherwise provide treatment}
by the practically available technology which
yields the greatest environmental benefit, as
indicated in my demonstration. 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) Where the generator has
determined that there is no practically
available treatment for his waste prior
to disposal, with the initial shipment of
waste, such generator must submit a
copy of the demonstration and the
certification required hi paragraph
(a)(2)(A) of this section to the receiving
facility. With each subsequent waste
shipment only the certification is
required to be submitted provided that
the conditions being certified remain
unchanged. Such a generator must retain
on-site a copy of the demonstration (if
applicable) and certification required for
each waste shipment for at least five
years from the date that the waste that
is the subject of such documentation
was last sent to on-site or off-site
disposal. The five-year record retention
requirement is automatically extended
during the course of any unresolved
enforcement action regarding the
regulated activity or as requested by the
Administrator.
(4) Where the generator has
determined that there is practically
available treatment for his waste prior
to disposal, with the initial shipment of
waste, such generator must submit a
copy of the demonstration and the
certification required in paragraph
(a](2)(B) of this section to the receiving
facility. With each subsequent waste
shipment only the certification is
required to be submitted provided that
the conditions being certified remain
unchanged. Such a generator must retain
on-site a copy of the demonstration (if
applicable) and certification required for
each waste shipment for at least five
years from the date that the waste that
ia the subject of such documentation
was last sent to on-site or off-site
disposal, The five-year record retention
requirement is automatically extended
during the coarse 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) A generator 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 practically available treatment
exists where the generator has certified
otherwise, or that there exists some
other method of practically available
treatment yielding greater
environmental benefit than that which
the generator has certified, the Regional
Administrator may Invalidate the
certification.
(3) If the Regional Administrator
invalidates a certification, the generator
must immediately cease further
shipments of the waste, and inform all
facilities that received the waste of such
invalidation and keep records of such
communication on-site in his files.
(c) A treatment recovery or storage
facility receiving wastes subject to a
valid certification must keep copies of
the generator's demonstration (if
applicable) and certification in his
operating record.
(1) The owner or operator of a
treatment or recovery facility must
certify that he has treated the waste in
accordance with the generator's
demonstration. The following
certification is required:
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining this information, I believe that the
treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly so as to comply with
treatment as specified in the generator's
demonstration, i am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting, false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment
(2) The owner or operator of a
treatment, recovery or storage facility
must send a copy of the generator's
demonstration (if applicable) and
certification under § 288UJ(a)(2), and
certification under § 28&8(c)(l) (if
applicable) to the facility receiving the
waste or treatment residues.
(d) The owner or operator of a
disposal facility must ensure that those
wastes prohibited under § 283.33(f) are
subject to a certification according to
the requirements of this section prior to
disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment and that the units
receiving such wastes must meet the
minimum technological requirements of
§ 268.5(h)(2).
(e) Once the certification is received
by the Regional Administrator, and
provided that the wastes have been
treated by the treatment (if any).
determined by the generator to yield the
greatest environmental benefit
practically available, the wastes or
treatment residuals may be disposed in
a landfill or surface impoundment unit
meeting the requirements of
§ 268.5(h)(2), unless otherwise
prohibited by the Regional
Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0085).
8. In 5 268.12. the existing text ia
designated as paragraph (a) and
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are added to
read as follows:
9268.12 Wentmcatlon of wastes to be
evaluated by Way 8,1990.
• • • »
(b) Wastewater residues (less than 1%
total organic carbon and less than 1%
suspended solids) resulting from the
following well-designed and well-
operated treatment methods for wastes
listed in 5 2SaiO for which EPA has not
promulgated wastewater treatment
standards: metals recovery, metals
precipitation, cyanide destruction,
carbon adsorption, chemical oxidation,
steam stripping, biodegradation, and
incineration or other direct thermal
destruction. The treatment standards
applicable to wastes prohibited under
§ § 268.30-268.33 of this part still apply.
' (c) Leachate derived from the
treatment storage or disposal of wastes
listed in § 268.10 for which EPA has not
promulgated wastewater treatment
standards, and contaminated ground
water that contains such wastes. The
treatment standards applicable to
wastes prohibited under §§ 268.30-
268.33 of this Part still apply.
-------
31216 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Hazardous wastes listed in
§ 268.10 which are mixed hazardous/
radioactive wastes. The treatment
standards applicable to wastes
prohibited under §§ 2B&30-268.32 of this
part still apply.
SUBPART C—PROHIBITIONS ON
LAND DISPOSAL
9. Section 288.30 is revised to read as
Follows: ,
§26130 WnttsfMcffieprohibition*—
Sotvtnt waste*.
(a) Effective November 8,1986, the
spent solvent wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
FOOT. F002, F003. F004, and F005. are
prohibited under this par! from land
disposal (except in an injection well)
unless one or more of the following
conditions apply:
(1) The generatorof the- solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month: or*
(2) The solvent waste in 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 debiis: or
(3) The initial generator's solvent
waste is a solventwater mixture,
solvent-containing sludge or solid, or .
solventcontaminated soil (non-CERCLA
or RCRA corrective actioa) containing
less than 1 percent total F001-F005
solvent constituents listed in Table
CCWE of § 268.41 of this part; or
(4) The solvent waste iu a residue
from treating a waste described in
paragraphs (a](l), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this
section; or the solvent waste is a residue
from treating a waste not described in
paragraphs (a)(l), (a](2), or (a)(3) of this
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.
(b) Effective November 8,1988. the
F001-F005 solvent was tea listed in
paragraphs (a) (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this.
section are prohibited from land
disposal.
(c) Effective November 8,1990, the
F001-F005 solvent wastes which are
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 fRCRA) 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 in a landfill or
surface impoundment only if such unit is
in compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(d) The-requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) of this section do not
apply if:
(I) 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 and units
covered by the extension.
10. Section 26&31 is revised to read as,
follows:
§ 26SJ1 Wait* specific prohibitions—
Dloxln-containtng wastes.
(a) Effective November 8,1988, the
dioxin-containing wastes specified in 40
CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F020, F021. F022, F023. F026. F027.
and F028, are prohibited from land
disposal unless the following condition
applies:
(1) The F02O-F023 and F028-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 taken 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 November 8,1988, and
November 8.1990, wastes included in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section may be
disposed 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.
(d) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply if:
(1) Ths 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 § 263.6, 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.
. 11. In Section 268.32 paragraphs (d),
(e), (f). (g}» introductory text, and (h) are
revised to-read as follows:
§26&32 Wast* specific prohibiHono—
California list wastes,
*- * o * •
(d) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (e) of this section do not apply until:
(1) July 8,1989 where the wastes are
contaminated soil or debris not resulting
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 108 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) or a corrective action taken
under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Between July 8,1987 and July 8.
1989, the wastes may be disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if
such disposal is in compliance with the
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(2) November 8,1990 where the
wastes are contaminated soil or debris
resulting from a response action taken
under section 104 or 106 of CERCLA or a
corrective action taken under Subtitle C
of RCRA. Between November 8,1988,
and November 8,1990, the Wastes may
be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in 5 268.5(h)(2).
(e) Effective November 8,1988, the
following,hazardous wastes are
prohibited from land disposal (subject to
any regulations that may be
promulgated with respect to disposal in
injectioa wells):
(1) Liquid hazardous wastes that
contain HOCs in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/1 and
are not prohibited under paragraph
(a)(3) of this section; and
(2) Nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing HOCa in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg and
are not wastes described in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(f) .Between July 8,1987 and November
8,1988, the wastes included in
paragraphs (e)(l) and (e)(2) of this
section may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment only if such
disposal is in compliance with the
requirements specified in § 263.5(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),
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday; August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30217
and (e) 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., 5 26&30(a)).
* * • • •
12. Section 268.33 is added to read as
follows:
§26&33 Wa»t» specific pfoWtoWon*--
First Third wastes
- (a) Effective August 8,1988, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F006
(nonwastewater). K001. K004
(nonwastewater), K008
(nonwastewater), K015. K018. K018.
K019. K020. K021 (nonwastewater), K022
(nonwastewater). K024. K025, K030,
K036 (nonwastewater), K037, K044.
K045, nonexplosive K046
(nonwastewater), K047, K060
(nonwastewater), K061
(nonwastewaters containing less than
15% zinc), K062, non CaSOt K069
(nonwastewaters), K083
(nonwastewaters), K088 (solvent
washes), K087, K099. KlOO. K101. K102,
K103, and K104 are prohibited from land
disposal (except in an injection well).
(1) Effective August 8.1988 and
continuing until August 7,1990. K061
wastes containing 15% zinc or greater
are prohibited from land disposal
pursuant to the treatment standards
specified in § 268.41 applicable to K061
wastes that contain less than 15% zinc.
(b) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as .
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K048, KQ49.
K030. K051. K052. K081 (containing 15%
zinc or greater), and K071 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 and debris
are prohibited from land disposal.
(d) Between November 8,1988 and
August 8,1990, wastes included in
paragraphs (b) and (c) 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 5 268.5(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 thia Part are not
applicable, including those wastes
which are subject to the statutory
prohibitions of RCRA section 3004(d) or
codified prohibitions under § 268^32 of
this Part but not including wastes
subject to a treatment standard under
§ 288.42 of this Part, are prohibited from
disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment unless the wastes are the
subject of a valid demonstration and
certification pursuant to § 268.8.
(g) To determine whether a hazardous
waste listed in § 288.10 exceeds the
applicable treatment standards
specified in § 288.41 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.
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
13. Section 268.40 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standard*.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
5 268.41 may be land disposed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
residue of the waste developed using the
test method in Appendix I of this part
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of § 268.41 for any
hazardous constituent listed in Table
CCWE for that waste.
* * * * * .
(c) A restricted waste identified in
5 268.43 may be land disposed only if
the constituent concentrations in the
waste or treatment residue of the waste
do not exceed the value shown in Table
CCW of 5 268.43 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCW for that
waste.
14. In Table CCWE in § 268.41(a), in
the column headed " F001-F005 spent
solvents,"' "methylene chloride (from the
pharmaceutical industry)" and its
corresponding concentrations is deleted,
and the following subtables to Table
CCWE are added in numerical order by
EPA Hazardous Waste Number
§ 268.41 Treatment standard* expressed
aa concentration* in waste extract
(a) * * •
TABLE CCWE—CoNSTrruTENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
F006 nonwastewaters (see also Tabto
CCW in $288.43)
Cadmium... -- ,-
Chromium (Total)—...—.™
Lead „.-
Nickel
Silver
Cyanides (Total) ~.«
K001 nonwastewaters (see also
Table in 5 268.43)
1 o«l , „ ,.,, „„„.„. .,-„-",-,-,.,
K022 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCW in § 268.43)
Chromium (Total) ....»..». »..
Nickel , .. . „
K046 nonwastewaters (Nonreactive
Subcategory)
Lead . _ ....
K048, K049, K050, K051 and K052
nonwastewaters (see also Table
CCW in} 268.43)
Chromium (Total)
Nickel .
K061 nonwastewaters (Low Zinc
Subcategory— less than 15% total
zinc)
Cadmium;. «.
Chromium (Total) ..«.
Lead _ ....
Nickel '. _
K061 nonwastewaters (High Zinc
Subcategory — 15% or greater total
zinc): effective until 8/8/90
Cadmium......... ,
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.068
5.2
.51
.32
.072
Reserved
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.51
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1>
5.2
0.32
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
I)
. 0.18
Concentra-
tion (in mg/'
1)
0.004
1.7
.048
.025
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
•0.14
5.2
.24 '
.32
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.14
52
.24
.32
-------
3J218 "Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
K062 nonwastawaters
Chromium (Total).
Lead
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
0.094
J7
K071 nonwaii»«iief»
boo (in rug/
0.025
K08« nonwactewalers (Sober*;
Washes Sotcttogory) see also TjMe
CCW«5263.43)
Chfomwni (Total)...
Lead..--™.
Concentra-
Bon (in mo/
1)
0.094
.37
K087 nonwastowaters (sea also
Tabta CCW io 5268.43)
Load
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
D
0.51
K101 and K102 honwastewatoru
(Low Arsorac Subcategory— tees tlian
1% Tool Arsenic) (soa also Table
CCW m § 268,43)
Cadmium.........™,,
CHomtom (Total)™.
Load.-. ,
N«kul.™,
Concentra-
tion (m mg/
D
0.066
5.2
.51
22
15. In § 268.42 paragraph (a)(2) is
revised to read aa 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
1268.32(e](l) of this part must be
incinerated in accordance with the
requirements of Part 264, Subpart O or
Part 265, Subpart O, 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 288, Subpart C treatment
standard for a speciflc.HOC (such as a
hazardous waste chlorinated solventfor
which a treatment standard is
established under § 268.41(aj).
• • * • *
10. Section 268.43 is amended by
adding paragraphs (a) and (b) and Table
CCW to read as follows:
§ 268.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentrations.
(a) Table CCW identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous
constituents which may not be exceeded
by the waste or treatment residual (not
an extract of such waste or residual) for
the allowable land disposal of such
waste or residual
TABLE CCW— CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
F001. F002,'F003. FOO4 and F005
wtstewaiere (Pharmaceutical
Industiy)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.44
FOOS nonwastewators (see also
Table CCWE in $ 268.41)
Cyanides (Total).
Concemra-
Uon (in mg/
kg) ^
Reserved
K001 nonwastewaters (see also
Tabte CCWE in §268.41)
NaphHulono , ,,. ,
Pentachlcrophenol „ ....
Pnenantniene.....................^..^...
Pyrana „....,„ ,
Tnipam. ., .,„., .-. „
Cortccntc a-
bon (tnmg/
• Kg)
. 8.0
37
.8.0
7.3
.14
.18
K001 waatewaters
Pyrofm— ,„„..,, ,,
Toloen«._..........^_._..... ..„.„.....„.„.„.
XylrnVM ,. ..„.,,
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
D
0.1S
.88
.15
.14
.14
.18
.037
K01S wastewaters
Anthracene .„
Benzal chlonde „ ...
Benzo (b and/or k) fluoranthene.
Toluene
Chromium (Total)..
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
1.0
.23
.29
3.7
.15
22.
K016 nonwastewaters
Hexachlorobenzene._
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachiorocyclopentadiene '
Hexachloroethane.......
Tetrachloroethene
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
28
5.6
5.6
28
6.0
•K0 16 wastewaters
HexachloroDenzene .
Haxachlorobutadiene _ „
Hexachiorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene ................
K018 nonwastewaters
Chloroethane_.™...™_-..._....__ _.
1,1-Oichloroethane ....... _. _
1,2-OichlOfoollMno ,,,„„„
Hexachlorobenzene .
Hexachkwobutadiene .
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
1.,1,1-Trichloroethane ._._.....„.......„.
K018 wastewaters
Chkjroelhane...... „..„.„
Chkxomethano .„„„....„..„..... „
1.2-Oichloroettiane. „ .............
Hoxachkxobenzene ... „
Hexachtocobutadiene
Pentachloroethane _.
1,1,1 -Trichtoroethane
K019 nonwastewaters
Bis<2-chloroethyf)ether..._ -
Chlorobenzeno
1 ,2*rjichlofoethane .»._.»».«...........
' Hexachloroethane .....»...««».....«.
Naphthalene........... _-...._...._
"TRtnrfilninalbnna , ,,„,,..,„
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene ._„__.„_ —
1.1.1-Trichloroethane...
K019 wastewaters
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Chlorobenzene.......... .
Chloroform ._...„......_ __...__.
p-Dichlorobenzene _
1 ,2-Oichloroethane . ____.
Runi»n»... I,,-,,,,,,,,,,..,..... ,...,... ,
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene „ „..,_.„_
Phenanthrene _ _. _.._....
1 ,2,4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene _
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ™
K020 nonwastewaters
1 ,2-Oichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane'.
Concentra-
tion (m mg/
D
0033
007
. 007
.033
.007
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
Kg)
6.0
8.0
6.0
28
5.6
28
5.6
6.0
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.007
.007
007
.007
.033
.007
.007
.007
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
28
5.6
5 6
6.0
19
6.0
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.007
.006
.007
.008
' .007
007
.033
.007
.007
.017
007
.023
007
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
Kg)
60
5.6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No, 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 3121&
K020 nonwastewaters
Tetrachkxoethene
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
6.0
K020 wastMralars •
t.2-aehloro»than«____
1 t,2,2.Tn«nv*io«>*»<«fl»
TetracMiVMHMM , ,;
Coocsrtrft*
tionOnmg/
0.007
ffff
.007
K022 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in J 268.41)
Acetophenono.™™.____..._.. .„„_ .™.
Sum of Oiphenylamine and Diphenyi-
Phenol.. .........™.™™~™_— ™™_.
GoncontMK
tioo (inmg/
kg)
19
13
12
0.034
K024 nonwastewaterc
Phthalicacid „ ;
Concentra-
tion (nmg/
kg)
28
K024 wastewaters
Phthafc acid
Concentra-
tion (mmg/
1)
0.54
K030 nonwastewaters
Hexachkxobutadien* '. _.
Hexachkxoethane
Hexachloropropene ...............
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane .„.„. ™ „„.
1.2.4.5-Tetracftlorobenzeoe
Tetrachloroethene _ „
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....„
Concentra-
tion (inmg/
. kg)
5.6
28
19
28
5.6
14
6.0
19
K030 wastewaters
p-Dichlorobenzene ,™.™™™..™-.....™.
Hexachlorobutadiene .....~........— ...........
Hexachloroethana ...„.„. . „
Pentachloroethane.™ „„.„
1 ,2.4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachkxoethena. _.
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.008
.008
.007
.033
.007
.017
.007
.023
K037 nonwastewaters
Disulfoton. „ „ _.
Toluene ™.™. ,™.™... .„ . .
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
0.1
28
K037 wastawaters
DtaiHntQo
Toluem
. Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.003
.028
K048 nonwasOwaters (sea also
Tabto CCWE in 9 £68.41)
H««Mn« .„..„ ,
B«go
-------
31220 Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17, 1988 / Rulea and Regulations
K052 nonwastawaters (see also
Table CCWE in J 268.41)
BoTLm(a)pyrrwv» .,„ ;i
ewCriwftl. ,,
O-CfMnl
ElhyB»n»«n« ,,,,,, ,
MAphth^xu
PtMOBl ..,.,.„. ..,
Toluene „
Xvte««
Cyuwfem (Tnui) , , , •
KQ5? wa&Awsttfire
Banrnna ,,..,
BonicMlpyreon.™,...... „
o-Cresol..., - .-._ ..
P°CfQSQl
2,i*l),,,
Lt-a-
-------
Federal Regfcter / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday. August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
K104 wwtewoters
Nitrobenzene ...,.
Phonal
Cyanides (Total) _
ten (in rag/
D
1.4
2.7
No Land Disposal for:
K004 Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Generation]
K008 Nonwastewfitero [Based on No
Generation]
K01S Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Ash]
K021 Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Generation]
K025 Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Generation]
K038 Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Generation]
K044 [Based on Reactivity]
K045 [Based on Reactivity]
K047 [Based on Reactivity]
K060 Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Generation]
K061 Nonwastewaters—High Zinc
Subcategory (greater than or equal to
15% total zinc) [Based on Recycling]:
, effective 8/8/90
K069 Nonwastewallers—Non-Calcium
Sulfate Subcategoiy [Based on
Recycling]
K083 Nonwastewaters—No Ash
Subcategory (less t:han 0.01% total
ash) [Based on No Ash]
KlOO Nonwastewaters [Based on No
Generation]
(b) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
treatment the treatment residue must
meet the lowest treatment standard for
the constituent of concern.
17. In 5 288.44. paragraphs (h) through
. (1) are added to read as follows:
§268.44 Variance from a treatment
standard.
••••'•'•
(h) Where the treatment standard is
expressed as a concentration in a waste
or waste extract and a waste generated
under conditions specific to only one
site cannot be treated to the specified
level, or where the treatment technology
i* not appropriate to the waste, the
generator or treatment facility may
apply to the Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, or his delegated
representative, for a site-specific
variance from a treatment standard, The
applicant for a site-specific variance
must demonstrate that because the
physical or chemical properties of the
waste differs significantly from the
waste analyzed in developing the
treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated to specified levels or by the
specified methods.
(i) Each application for a site-specific
variance from a treatment standard
must include the information ia
S 280.20(b){lH4):
(j) After receiving an application for a
site-specific variance from a treatment
standard, the Assistant Administrator,
or his delegated representative, may
request any additional information or
samples which may be required to
evaluate the application.
(k) A generator, treatment facility, or
disposal facility that is managing a
waste covered by a site-specific
variance from a treatment standard
must comply with the waste analysis
requirements for restricted wastes found
under 5 288.7.
31221
(I) During the application review
process, the applicant fora site-specific
variance must comply with all
restrictions on land disposal under this
part once the effective date for the
waste has been reached.
Subpart E—Prohibitions on Storage
18. Section 28&50 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
S26&50 Prohibitions on storage of
restricted wa«te«.
* * * • •
(d) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this section does not apply to waste
which are the subject of an approved
petition under § 268.8, a nationwide
variance under Subpart C of this part
an approved case-by-case extension
under § 268.5. or a valid certification
under §268.8.
« • • « .
V. In Part 271:
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for Part 271 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6905. 6912(a), and 6928.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
promulgation in the Federal Register:
5 271.1 Purpoa* and scope.
'
TABUM.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENT.NQ THE HAZARDOUS AND Souo WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation data
THte d regulation
Federal Rvgtetar reference
Effective date
,988.
3. Section 27l.l(j) is amended by
adding the date of publication and the
Federal Register page numbers to the
following entry in Table 2.
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
-------
31222 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
EHectiva data
Self-nnp!emenhng provision
RCRA citation
Federal Hegtater reference
Augusta, 1S88...... Land disposal restrictions on 1/3 of listed 3004(g)(6)(A)..
wastes.
[Insert date of publication] 53 FR tinsert Fed-
eral Register page numbers]
[FR Doc. 88-18298 Filed 8-16-8B; 8:45 am]
BIUJWO CODE 6SSO-50-U
\
------- |