5333*
1 Vo^53;- No* 2SE- /ilFridayVL December afe.l9» /
... TAetijflogA—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QuwmnES-
:•'"•-. • [See footnote* at end of tabte 302.41 »
Statutory
Final RQ
Hazardous substance
r.oBN Regulatory
CASRN synonvms RQ
F°3
at I have
F033..
«5duaii"pres«rvatiwe drippage. and dis-
spiations- from wood P™?*Jl
tacNWM That currently use or have prevwusly «»d
olto formulations (except wastes from P'°f
compiled with the cleaning or replacement
forth in § 261.35 and do not resume or mrtiate use of chloro-
ptenote formulations). This listing does not .nclude K001
bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from
wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pemach-
lorophenol.
10
Wastewaters. process residuals, protectant drippage-. and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood surface protection proc-
esses at facilities that currently use or have previously used
chtorophendic formulations (except wastes from processes
that have compHed with the cleaning or replacement proce-
dures set forth in § 261.35 and do not resume or initiate use of
chlorophenolic formulations).
NWastewate^, process "residuals, preservative drippage, and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood preserving processes
that currently use creosote formulations. This listing does not
include K001 bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewater from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachtorophenol.
F035 _ - - "•—
Wastewaters. process residuals, preservative drippage, and dis-
carded spent formulations from wood preserving processes
using inorganic preservatives containing arsenic or chromium.
This listing does not include K001 bottom sediment sludge
from the treatment of wastewater from wood preserving proc-
esses that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol.
1 •
1 •
[FR Doc. 88-30073 Filed 12-29-88; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-H
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-3500-6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Tentative Petition
Denial
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. *-
ACTION: Tenath • Determination to deny
petition for rulemaking; request for
comments. •
SUMMARY: The ILS. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or Agency)
today is issuing a tentative
determination to deny a petition from
the American Wood Preservers Institute
(AWPI), to: (1) Reconsider the.Agency's
interpretation that EPA hazardous .
waste K001 may form from application
of wood preserving wastewatera to
spray irrigation fields and (2) more
clearly define K001 by specifying the
concentrations of listing constituents
that identify a wood preserving
wastewater treatment sludge as K001. If
EPA finds that K001 can form in spray
irrigation fields, the petitioner requests
that owners or operators of such
facilities be given six months from the
date of EPA's response to comply with
the regulations. EPA also has
determined tentatively to deny, this
request. The Agency has, however,
provided in this Federal Register notice
a description of how EPA Hazardous
Waste K001 applies to spray irrigation
fields. This guidance is intended to
provide additional assistance to
generators in indentification of K001.
The Agency bases today's tentative
determination to deny the petition on (1)
the listing description. (2) tie
information provided in the docket
supporting the K001 listing and (3) EPA's
examination of the data submitted by
the petitioner, to support their claim that
spray irrigation fields used for the land
treatment of wood preserving
wastewatera do not generate
wastewater treatment sludges and that
any wastes that are so generated do not
RCRA.
waste
number
Category Pounds (Kg)
4 F032 X —..-..- 1 (0.454)
4 F033 X 1(0.454)
4 F034 X_
1 (0.4541
4 F035 X 1 (0.454)
contain significant concentrations of the
constituents of concern specified for
K001 in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VII.
It is the Agency's tentative
determination that the K001 Background
Document and the data submitted by the
petitioner support the conclusion that
wastewater treatment sludges that meet
the K001 listing description may be
generated, treated or otherwise ' •
managed in spray irrigation fields.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the
K001 listing applies to sludge that forms
"in spray irrigation fields used for the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol. Further, the
Agency believes it provided adequate
notice to wood preservers who use
spray irrigation fields of the description
of K001 by publication of a notice of the
listing in the Federal Register and by
providing opportunities for public
comment on the. listing. For this reason,
the Agency does not propose to give
these facilities additional time to come
into compliance with RCRA regulations-
Accordingly, the Agency tentatively
denies the AWPI petition.
-------
[
Federal Register /• Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday. December 30. 1988 / Propesed Rules 53331
DATES: EPA is requesting public
comments on today's tentative
determination to deny the petition from
AWPI, Comments will be accepted until
February 28,1989. Comments
postmarked after this date will be •
stamped "late" and may not be
considered
Any person may request a hearing on
this tentative determination by filing a
request with Mr. Devereaux Barnes,
whose address appears below, by
January 17,1989, The request must
contain the information prescribed in 40
CFR260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Comments on this tentative
determination should be sent in
triplicate to the EPA RCRA Docket Clerk
(WH-5B2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. All comments
must be marked "Docket Number F-
88WPDP-FFFFF".
Requests for a hearing should be
addressed to Mr. Devereaux Barnes,
Director, Characterization and
Assessment Division (OS-330), Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this
tentative determination is located at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW. (sub-basement],
Washington, DC 20460. The public must
make an appointment in order to review
the docket by calling (202) 475-9327. The
docket is available for viewing from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages of material from any one
regulatory docket at no cost. Additional
copies cost 15 cents per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-
9346. or at (202) 382-3000. For technical
information concerning this notice,
contact Mr. Edwin F. Abrams, Listing
Section, Office of Solid Waste (OS-333),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street. SW.. Washington, DC
20460, (202) 382-4787.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's notice are listed in
the following outline:
I. Background
A. Identification and listing of Hazardous
Wastes
B. American Wood Preservers Institute
Petition
C. RCRA Regulations Governing Petitions
II. Summary of the Determination
III. Analysis of EPA's Tentative
Determination
A. Formation of EPA Hazardous Waste
K001 as a Result of Spray Irrigation
B. Guidance For Determining When EPA
Hazardous Waste K001 Forms in Spray
Irrigation Fields
C. Six-Month Suspension.
IV. References
I. Background
A. Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wastes
Section 3001 of RCRA directs EPA to
promulgate criteria for identifying the
characteristics of a solid waste that
make the waste hazardous and to
promulgate criteria listing specific
wastes as hazardous. Following the
identification of these criteria, the
Agency, is also required to promulgate.
regulations identifying the
characteristics of hazardous wastes and
listing particular hazardous wastes. Any
wastes identified as hazardous are
subject to regulation under Subtitle C.
On May 19,1980, the Agency
promulgated rules listing specific wastes
that have been found to be hazardous
based upon the criteria set out in 40 CFR
261.11(a). See 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart
D. These criteria require EPA to
evaluate a number of factors, including
the waste's chemical constituents,
whether those constituents that are
hazardous are present in the waste in
significant concentrations, and whether
these, constituents have the potential to
migrate from the waste, persist in the .
environment, and cause substantial
harm when they reach human or
environmental receptors.
. Under section 3001 of RCRA, EPA
listed K001, and other wastes, as
hazardous wastes. K001 is defined as
bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol. This listing
was made effective pursuant to an
interim final regulation, promulgated on
May 19,1980 (45 FR 33084). EPA
concurrently proposed to regulate as
hazardous the wastewaters from wood
preserving processes using creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol (45 FR 33136.
May 19,1980). The Agency, however,
did not finalize the listing of wood
preserving wastewater (45 FR 74884,
November 12,1980). (In a separate part
of today's Federal Register, EPA is again
• proposing to regulate these
wasiewaters.)
B. American Wood Preservers Institute
Petition
AWPI is an industry' trade association
representing approximately 80 member
companies in the wood preserving
industry. Over half of its members use
creosote and pentachlorophenel in their
wood preserving processes. On January
10,1985, AWPI sent a letter to John H.
Skinner, then the Director'of the Office
of Solid Waste at EPA, requesting
reconsideration of EPA's interpretation
that sludges generated in spray
irrigation fields ;used to treat wood
preserving wastewaters are bottom
sediment sludges described as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K001.
Although the AWPI letter was not
sent to the EPA; Administrator (nor was
it sent by certified mail) as prescribed
by the rulemaking petition procedures in
40 CFR 260.20, the caption of the letter,
"Petition for Reconsideration of
Decision to Classify Wood Preserving
Spray Irrigation Fields as Hazardous
Waste Land Treatment Units and for
Clear Definition of K001 Sludge," and
information included in the request
manifested AWPI's intent to have the
letter serve as a petition for rulemaking
under that section. The Agency has
therefore treated the AWPI January 10,
1985 letter as a rulemaking petition.
In the petition, AWPI asserts that EPA
has incorrectly interpreted the scope of
the KOOl listingiAWPI further alleges
that this incorrect interpretation appears
ifl a letter written in November of 1984,
by John Skinner, then Director of the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW), to James
Scarbrough, a Region IV Branch
Manager. In this November 1984
interpretation, the Director of OSW
confirmed the regulatory status of land
treatment units ;used to treat
wastewaters by spray irrigation, plow
injection, or flooding. Mr. Skinner
concluded that such land treatment
units used to treat wastewaters from
wood preserving operations using
creosote or pentachlorophenol can
generate KOOl. Therefore, such units,
when generating, treating, storing, or
disposing of KOOl, are subject to the
hazardous waste regulations, including
appropriate permitting standards, found
in 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, 264, 265, 268,
270, 271 and 124.
In its petition, AWPI argues that the '
application of wastewaters from wo.od
preserving processes to spray irrigation
fields does not result in the production
of KOOl or other sludge, and that the
waste produced in a spray irrigation
field is physically and chemically
different than KOOl. AWPI further
claims that the chemical and biological
interactions between the wastewater
and the soil in the spray irrigation field
would result in a different material from
the KOOl produced from wastewater
treatment by trickling'filters or surface
impoundments. AWPI also.points out
that the wastewater itself is not a listed
waste and asserts that a properly
designed and operated spray irriga tion
field does not allow migration of
-------
53332^ Federal Register/. Vok 53.: No-. 25*.
December 3fr 198fr
constitaents-outside theuniiAzuii •
therefore, caanot be a haaawiauft. waste
land management unit, • .
In addition* AWPI. requested guidance
regarding the K001 listing, including a
description of the physical and chemical
composition of K001, and an
identification of the constituents- of
concern in K001 and of the levels of
concern for the hazardous constiuents of
K001. AWPI believes this additional
information is needed in order for wood
treaters to determine if their spray
irrigation fields produce a sludge and, if
so, whether this sludge is indeed K001.
without this information, AWPI
maintains its member facilities will be
unable to prove to-EPA that ihey do not
generate K001 and will be unable to
delist the waste if they do generate it.
Finally, if the petition to reinterpret
the scope of the listing is denied, AWPI
requests a six-month suspension of the
effective date of the K001 listing and
associated RCRA requirements for
spray irrigation fields, AWPI argues that
a suspension is necessary for their
member facilities to come into
compliance with RCRA because the
Agency's interpretation of the K001
listing is analogous to a new or revised
regulation. AWPI also requests that the
Agency formally notify all facilities that
use spray irrigation fields to treat wood
preserving wastewaters of the Agency's
final decision on AWPI's petition.
C. RCRA Regulations Governing
Petitions
EPA's process for addressing
rulemaking petitions under RCRA is
specified in 40 CFR 260.20. Under 40 -
CFR 260.20. which implements section, .. .
7004(a) of RCRA, any person may
petition the Administrator to modify or
revoke any-provision of Parts 26O
through 285 and 268 or Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Persons
submitting a rulemaking petition must
include a statement of the need and
justification for the proposed action,
including supporting data, tests, studies,
or other information.
Section 260.20 requires the
Administrator to publish in the Federal
Register a tentative determination on
the petition and solicit public comment.
The tentative determination may be in
the form of an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking, a proposed rule,
or a tentative determination, to deny the
petition. Upon written request of any
interested person, the Administrator
•may at his or her discretions-hold an
. informal public hearing to consider oral
comments* After evaluating ail public
comments, EPA will make a final
decision by publishin&in the Federal
denial of the petition;
This notice constitutes EPA's tentative
determination to deny AWPFs petition.
II. Summary of the Determination
EPA has tentatively determined to
deny AWPI's.requests (!) to consider its
interpretation that K001 may form from
application of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/OE pentachlorophenol to spray
irrigation fields. (2) to define K001 in
terms of the concentrations of listing.
constituents that cause it to be
hazardous, and (3) to grant a six-month
suspension of the effective date of the
Subtitle C hazardous-waste . . ,
management regulations for wood
preserving spray irrigation fields- that
contain K001 following formal
notification to-generating; facilities of the
petition denial. EPA believes that the
existing information and the K001 listing
description clearly indicate that KOG1
may form hi spray irrigation fields, and
this listing, which has been effective;
since 1980, already applies to-facilities
generating or managing KOOt
EPA has. in this tentative -••
determination, provided additional-
guidance for determining when EPA
Hazardous Waste K001 forms in spray
irrigation fields, so that wood preservers
who generate this waste in spray
irrigation fields may more easily identify
it. This guidance is found in Section III.
B. of this notice.
The K001 listing is a broad, generic
listing and includes sludges generated ia
spray irrigation, fields that treat
wastewaters from, wood preserving
processe» that use creosote and/or
penlaehlorophenoL The listing
description for KOO1 bottom sediment
sludges is not based on a concentration',
criterion for hazardous constituents in
the wastes. Instead, all bottom sediment
sludges generated from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol. are listed, regardless
of the concentrations of constituents in
the sludges. Under 40 CFR 261.11(b),.the
Agency has the authority to list classes
or types of waste that typically or
frequently are hazardous. A waste is not
required to contain any minimum.
concentration of toxic constituents hi
order to meet the listing description.
Contrary to AWPFs allegation, the
toxic constituents that, are the basis for
the K001 listing have been identified in.
40 CFR Part 25'i. Appendix VII, since,
I960: However, it ia not necessary to- .
show -that a particular waste contains -
any or all' of tha listing constituents in .
order, to establish that the waste is. . .
hazardMa_TlwlistingestaHisfaea-a,, ...
prestanpthm. th«t-» waste-ia hazardous..-;,
based upon, the constituents that
typically are present in all wastes of this-
general category. The actual presence
and concentrations of toxic .constituents
in wastes, meeting the listing description
are only relevant, however, as to
whether EPA should grant petitions to
delist specific wastes that already are
considered hazardous waste K001.
Delis ting is the only means to refute the
presumption that a waste meeting the
listing description is hazardous and
contains hazardous levels of particular
constituents of concern. Accordingly, if
any sludge is formed or managed in
spray irrigation fields as a result of
spray application of wastewaters from
wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol,
then the sludge is K001 unless delisted.
As explained hi Section III. B. of this
notice, the presence of listing
constituents may be helpful, however, in
demonstrating the presence of K001.
A six-month suspension of the
effective date of the Subtitle C
hazardous waste management
regulations for K001 generated or
managed in spray irrigation fields and
the formal notification of affected
facilities are not warranted. The sludge
generated in spray irrigation fields
treating wood preserving wastewaters
has been listed as a hazardous waste
since November 19,1980. The November
1984 letter from John Skinner to James
Scarbrough was not a new or revised
regulation and did not impose any new
requirements. Any facility generating or
managing K001 as a result of treatment
of wood preserving wastewaters in
spray irrigation fields has been required
to be in compliance with RCRA since
November 19,1980.
III. Analysis of EPA's Tentative
Determination
A. Formation of EPA Hazardous Waste
K001 as a Result of Spray Irrigation
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K001 is
defined as "bottom sediment sludge
from the treatment of wastewaters from
wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol."
The RCRA definition of sludge, found at
40 CFR 260.10, is "* * * any solid, semi.
solid, or liquid waste generated from a
municipal, commercial or industrial
wastewater treatment plant * *-*
exclusive of the treated effluent from a
wastewater treatment plant" The K001
listing is generic, i.e., it is intentionally
broad enough to encompass any waste
meeting the listing description. Bottom
sediment sludge generated during the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
-------
Federal Register / Vofc 53. Mo.- 251 / Friday; December 38, 1988 / Proposed Rules 53338
S- tBAt HS6
and/orpeatachioropfaemd it '
eruMmpassed fay malisting wherever
such sludge is formed.1
The Background Document describes
typical treatment of wood preserving
wastewaters as "• * * evaporation,
combined biological and irrigation
process {sic} or incineration."
(Background Document at 37, emphasis
added). The following specific
wastewater treatment practices that
generate K001 are also described in the
Background Document:
—Sedimentation in the bottom of
wastewater treatment ponds or
lagoons (Background Document at 13.
36,37);
—Flocculation (Background Documeot
at 21,24);
—Sand filtratioa {Background Document
at 24);
—Primary oil water separation
(Background Document at 24);
—Evaporation, with or without the
addition of heat (Background
Document at 2,26);
—Adsorption of wood preserving oils by
the addition of days, resins, alum,
lime, or polymer (Background
Document at 21): and
—Adsorption of pentachlorophenol and
high molecular weight toxic pollutants
onto the biomaas resulting from
biological treatment (Background
Document at 24).
K001 bottom sediment sludge,
therefore, includes wastewater
treatment residuals generated by any of
these mechanisms in any wastewater
treatment unit, including spray irrigation
fields.
Waste water treatment removes
undesirable contaminants from
wastewater, or destroys or inactivates
contaminants contained in wastewater.
The contaminants found in wood
preserving wastewaters are: Large
particles, such as sand and sawdust;
fine particles, such as suspended clay;
oil and grease, which may be present as
a discrete floating or sinking layer or '
present as large or fine particles; and
dissolved constituents, such as
pentachlorophenol; polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which
1 Tho KDffl Hating definition refers to wood
preserving wastewaier treatment sludges as
"bottom sediment stodges." a reference to the fact
that woodprewnring wastes eoouxoniy accumulate
by gravity «edkneaWto*-on Ihe bottoms-of
tanks, l
Background Document prepared In support of the
. the Agency dMuottaa the Hstingto
which bottMa «erU»»nt«hiags« a*e generated. Jti»
dear, as dUscuicdbebnr.iiut bottom sediment •
iludgt produced fiom treating wood preserving
itewsKera by spray JrilgaCnnls kiduded tntfaa-
are creosote constihieHtsT and wood - <
sugar*; •••.-•••
Wastewatertreatment mechanisms
mat destroy or inactivate contaminants,
such as ultraviolet photolysis and
hydrolysis, have only limited application
to wood preserving wastewater. All
other physical/chemical mechanisms
used to treat wood preserving
wastewaters transfer, the contaminants
of the wastewater to another medium,
thus forming a sludge. The mechanisms
used to treat wood preserving
wastewater and how each mechanism
generates sludge are described below.
Biological treatment uses
microorganisms to digest and degrade
wastewater contaminants. While
contaminants are removed from the
wastewater, a sludge in the form of
expended microorganisms (which may
or may not be contaminated with
toxicants) is generated.
Sedimentation is the separation from
water, by gravitational settling, of
suspended materials that are heavier
than water. It is used to remove large
particles and oils (e.g., creosote) that are
heavier than water from wood
preserving wastewater in devices such
as sumps, holding tanks, and ponds.
Granular bed filtration is an operation
used to remove fine particniate*} from
water. In this operation, wastewater
flows by gravity or pressure through a
bed of granular material, such as sand,
anthracite coal, and/or various types of
gravel The size of the granular material
is much larger than the size of the
particles captured by the filter. Particles
that are larger than the pore space of the
filtering medium are strained out of the
wastewater mechanically. Smaller
particles are captured in the depth of the
filter bed by mechanisms such as
sedimentation, impaction, and
interception. Because the particles are
captured in the spaces between the
granules within the bed, there may be no
visible sludge layer. However, the small
particles captured within the bed do
constitute sludges.
Coagulation and flocculation are two
mechanisms used together to remove
small dispersed particles from water.
Coagulation refers to the addition of
chemicals (lime, alum, ferric chloride,
synthetic polyelectrolyte polymers) to
an aqueous suspension of fine particles
in order to change the electrical charge
on the exterior of the particles, a process
called destabilization. Once the
particles are destabilized, they- -
flocculate; or combine into large-
agglomerates. The flocculated particles-
can lie removed from the wastewater by
some other mechanism such -as
sedimentation, floatation, or filtration. -
Adsorptionaaed for waatewatiB?' '" :
treatment iaihe process of accumulating
dissolved contaminants on a solid
surface called an adsorbent. Activated
carbon is- an adsorbent used to remove
dissolved pentachlorophenol and PAHs
from wood preserving wastewaters.
Activated carbon is effective because »
pentachlorophenol and PAHs have
relatively low polarities, as does the
activated carbon. Dissolved substances
will adsorb to solid materials of similar '
polarity. Other solid surfaces of low
polarity, such as waste biomass in a
biological treatment system and organic
matter in soil, also act as adsorbents for
pentachlorophenol and PAHs in wood
preserving wastewater. The dissolved
constituents that sorb onto the activated
carbon may not be visible but
nevertheless constitute a sludge.
Ion exchange is a process hi which
ions held by electrostatic forces to
charged functional groups on me surface
of a solid (such as soil or a synthetic
resin) are exchanged for ions- of similar-
charge in a solution (such as :
wastewater) in which the solid is
immersed (Weber, p. 261). An example
of the use of ion exchange for
wastewater treatment is the recovery of
ionic forms of precious metals from
plating wastes. Again, in ion exchange,
the ions exchanged onto the solid
surface may not be visible, but spent ion
exchange resin is considered to contain
a sludge. i
Evaporation is a physical process in
. which water is removed from Us
contaminants and, thus, is distinguished
from other wastewater treatment
mechanisms that remove contaminants
from water. Wastewater evaporation
can be accomplished at ambient
temperatures or heat may be added to
speed up the process. Highly volatile
dissolved constituents will evaporate
with the water but other dissolved
constituents, suspended solids, and oils
will form a sludge in the evaporation
unit as water is removed.
All of the mechanisms described
above operate in spray irrigation fields
that treat wood preserving wastewaters.
The technical studies supplied by AWPI,
in support of its argument that K001
does not form in spray irrigation fields,
, confirm the fact that these fields are
used for the land treatment of
wastewaters from pentachlorophenol
and/or creosote wood preserving '
processes. In the context of these
studies, it is clear that spray irrigation of
, wastewaters is not merely a means of
disposal, but also a treatment method
•used to reduce the concenbation of
contaminant* in the wastewater.
: Further, EPA believes this wastewater
-------
53334
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251;/ Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules
treatment may generate sludge by the
mechanisms described above* As •- •
previously explained, such sludge would
meet the K001 listing description;
AWPI, however, claims that the
application of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes to spray fields
does not result in the production of
K001. AWPI states that K001 is
precipitated solid or semisolid matter
produced by wastewater treatment, and
that: (1) The waste generated in a spray
irrigation field and K001 are not
physically and chemically alike and (2)
spray irrigation field waste and K001 are
produced by different "wastewater-soil
chemical and biological interactions"
(AWPI at 2).
The agency does not agree that the
wasewater treatment mechanisms that
occur in a spray irrigation field differ
from the wastewater treatment
mechanisms that form K001 in other
wastewater treatment units.
Additionally, the Agency does not agree
that the waste generated in a spray
irrigation field and K001 generated in
other wastewater treatment units are
physically and chemically different.2 On
the contrary, the Agency believes that
the contaminants removed from wood
preserving wastewater in surface
impoundments, sand filters, and other
wastewater treatment units that AWPI
accepts as generating K001 are similar
or identical to the contaminants
removed from wood preserving
wastewater in a spray irrigation field.
The only issue is whether sludge in fact
forms in the spray irrigation-fields. The
Agency believes that the same
mechanisms that operate in surface
impoundments and sand filters may
operate in spray irrigation fields to
produce sludges. ,
In one of the technical studies
supplied by AWPI, Quagliotti presents
detailed descriptions of the treatment
mechanisms that he believes are
occurring in spray irrigation fields
(Quagliotti at 7-24). Under the scenario
presented by Quagliotti, soil filtration
(i.e., granular bed filtration) and
adsorption act to retain,wastewater
contaminants "in the surface soil matrix
for a long enough period to allow "
material decomposition" (Id. at 17). As
described above, filtration-and
adsorption are wastewater treatment
mechanisms that form bottom sediment
sludge. • '. • • •-
2 The Agency recognizes, however, that bllogical
treatment in spray irrigation fileds may in some
cases effectively degrade the constituents removed
from the land-treated wastewaters. Thus. K001
formed in spray fields may in some instances
contain lower concentrations of particular
constituents than are typically present in other K001
sludges. • •
Other wastewaterandsludge- -
treatment mechanisms that Quagliotti
believes occur in spray irrigation fields
are: biological degradation, both aerobic
and anaerobic; chemical degradation,
including precipitation, hydrolysis and
polymerization; photochemical
degradation; evaporation; and
volatilization (which plays a minor role
in spray irrigation fields due to the
adsorption of wastewater contaminants
to soil). Two mechanisms Quagliotti
considers to play a major role in
wastewater treatment in spray irrigation
fields, biological degradation and
evaporation, are treatment mechanisms
that generate bottom sediment sludge,
as described above. Further,
precipitation and polymerization, two of
the mechanisms Quagliotti includes in
the term chemical degradation, also
form such sludge. It is clear that the
treatment of wood preserving
wastewaters by application to spray
irrigation fields, as described by
Quagliotti, .can generate sludge meeting
the K001 listing description.
. In the other technical study supplied
by AWPI, Koppers Company, a member
facility of AWPI, evaluated the spray
irrigation field at its Florence, South
Carolina facility, as part of a
wastewater treatability study. The
conclusion of the evaluation was "the
field appears to be quite adequate to
serve as a wastewater treatment
process." This conclusion was based on
characteristics of the soil in the field,
which were believed to be "generally
sufficient to adsorb pentachlorophenol
and PAHs * * *".
Other studies performed by the wood
preserving industry were also designed
to show contaminant removal from
wastewater by biological degradation,
filtration, and adsorptive processes, all
sludge-forming wastewater treatment
mechanisms (see NCASI, 1985; Gaudy
et. al., 1971; and Fisher, 1971). Sludges
formed by these methods from wood
preserving wastewates in spray
irrigation fields meet the K001 bottom
sediment sludge listing description.
Koppers Company, moreover,
acknowledged in a Corrective Action
Consent Order, dated June 4,1986, that
K001, bottom sediment sludge, in fact, is
collected in spray irrigation fields as a .
result of wood preserving wastewater
treatment. (See Findings of Fact In the
Matter of Koppers Company, Inc.,
Docket No; VW-86-R-001 at 4.)
AWPI also asserts that K001 is solid
or semi-solid material that "has some
identifiable thickness on the bottom of a
collection unit" {AWPI. petition, at 9,
emphasis added). At the same time,
AWPI asserts that.no sludge, K001 or
other, forms in spray irrigation- fields- -
because it has never been observed (Id.
at 2,12). In short, AWPI claims that the
criterion for the generation of a bottom
sediment sludge in a spray irrigation
field should be the generation of a
distinct, .visible layer of material on top
of the soil.
The Agency disagrees that an
observable sludge layer is a necessary
criterion that must be used to establish
the presence of bottom sediment sludge,
although it would be a sufficient (and
easily implemented) criterion. Using
visible accumulation of matter from
wastewater as a necessary criterion for
sludge formation would preclude from
regulation many wastewater treatment
sludges that were included in the listing
Background Document as specific
examples of the sources of K001. For
example, as described previously, no
visible sludge is formed during
grandular bed filtration, such as sand
filtration, because the fine particulate
separated from wastewater in this
process is captured hi the depth of the
filter bed. However, sand filtration iinits
are specifically described in the K001
listing Background Document at 24).
Also, dissolved constituents that have
adsorbed to a solid material often are
not visible, although saturated solid
adsorbent (e.g., spent activated carbon)
contains waste meeting the listing
definition. (Adsorption is described on
page 21 of the Background Document as
a process that also generates the listed
bottom sediment sludge, K001.)
The petitioner also argues that spray
irrigation fields are not included in the
definition of K001 because the
concentration of 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VII listing constituents are
significantly reduced over time by the
spray irrigation process.
The petitioner fails to recognize and
to appreciate the difference between
treating constituents in the wastewater
and treating constituents in sludge that
has formed from the wastewater, i.e.,
treating hazardous waste.
The Agency recognizes that land
treatment of wastewaters is normally
intended to remove constituents from
wastewater, fay processes such as
adsorption, and to degrade such
constituents before or after removal, by
processes such as biological treatment.
. The petitioner has not attempted to
demonstrate, that all wastewater
contaminants are destroyed in the'
wastewater, precluding the formation of
sludge. Nor has the petitioner attempted
to demonstrate that no treatment of
sludge, once formed, occurs when
constituents are destroyed. The Agency
does not believe that any such
-------
Federal Register / Vofc' 53,- Na 251 --/ Frtday, .December 30?-
Prepea&l :.;Rafes-.;
5333S
demonstration oooid be forthcoming..
The Agency.rontedatfce'petitioner..-
however, that «ny.«J«iiruction of
hazardous constitaeat* contained la
K001. whether in spray irrigation fields
or elsewhere, is treatment of a listed
hazardous waste. As such, a treatment
permit and compliance with Subtitle C -
treatment regulations are required.
Finally, the petitioner contends that a
properly designed and operated spray •
irrigation unit does not allow migration
of any hazardous constituents beyond
the unit's boundaries (AWPI Petition at
10). Although proper design and
operation of a spray irrigation unit may
not allow migration of any hazardous
constituents from the unit, wastes ace
evaluated and included on the RCRA
hazardous waste lists based on several
criteria, including the potential of the
hazardous constituents to migrate from
the waste if improperly managed.
Therefore, the ideal or actual design and
operation of wood preserving
wastewater treatment units is irrelevant
to whether the wastewater treatment
sludge is hazardous and to whether the
wastewater treatment unit is required to
comply with the Subtitle C treatment
regulations.3
B. Guidance for Determining When EPA
Hazardous Waste KO01 Forms in Spray
Irrigation Fields
In its petition, AWPI claims that the
Agency's definition of EPA Hazardous
Waste K001 is so vague that it does not
provide clear guidance to wood treaters
as to whether their spray field contains
a waste sludge and. if so, whether that
sludge is Hazardous Waste K001. The
petitioner argues that without clear
guidance on the identify of K001,
including identification of the
concentration of those constituents in
the sludge which cause the listing, wood
perservers are not able to demonstrate
that K001 is not formed in their spray
irrigation units, nor are they able to
delist the sludges in such units (AWPI
petition at 10).
Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol was listed as
a hazardous waste because it typically
and frequently meets the criterion for
listing found at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3).
(Under Section 281.il(b), the Agency
9 Tha fact that a particular waste might be
managed property does not mean that the waste
doe* not meet the feting description, and is not
hnzatdom.Tin I'l JMI > Imi niiiliimilj i linlnl
DID potential hnrinh po«ed by the phnaribto
miimanagcmenl nf 4ha haaaidoua eomtitoeBt*
found In K001, a* described IB the Background
Document aupportfag the K9(n listing, and found •
Ihera to be significant. • .
has the aathdtftyio IfefclassiMiot types?;
of wasterthat typically «r ftwqtieirtly-ape'"
hazardous.)-K091 contains a number of •
the toxic constituents identified by EPA
in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIH. In
addition, the Agency determined that
this waste is capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise
managed. This determination was not
challenged during the public comment
period following the proposed listing of
EPA Hazardous Waste K001.
The presence, generally, of Appendix
VIII hazardous constituents in wood
preserving bottom sediment sludge is
documented in the Background
Document supporting the K001 listing.
The concentrations of these constituents
typically and frequently found in these
sludges were sufficient to meet the
§ 261.11{a)(3) criterion and are described
in the Background Document. Moreover,
the 19 hazardous constituents for which
K001 was listed are found in 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VII, entitled "Basis for
Listing Hazardous Waste." Appendix
VII was publishd on November 12,1980
(45 FR 74884.74891) in the same Federal
Register document as die publication of
the Interim Final K001 listing. Therefore,
the petitioner's request that the Agency
identify the constituents of concern in
K001 has been satisfied since 1960.
AWPI also requests that EPA clarify
the concentrations of hazardous
constituents that would cause waste
generated in spray irrigation fields to be
K001, presumably so wood preservers
may test their fields to determine if they
contain wastes meeting the K001 listing
description. Again, the listing
description for K001 wastewater
treatment sludges, while based on the
typical and frequent presence of
constituents of concern at hazardous
concentrations, does not contain
particular concentrations of hazardous
constituents in specific wastes. There
are no minimum concentrations for the
19 toxic constituents for which K001 was
listed below which the waste fails to
meet the listing description. Instead, the
entire class of bottom sediment sludges
generated from wastewaters from wood
. preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol are listed as
hazardous.
A waste, therefore/may meet a
general listing description and'
accordingly be regulated as a hazardous
waste without having the hazardous
properties for which it was listed. It is
precisely for this reason that the Agency
developed procedures to exclude from
the lists of hazardous wastes {OP
m partttasfar—
facifities-'
Until a petition for exclusion is granted.'
however, wastes meeting the listing
description are hazardous and must be .
treated as such pursuant to Subtitle C of
RCRA.
In order to determine if their spray
irrigation fields contain materials that k
meet the listing description of K001.
wood preservers need only determine if
"bottom sediment sludge from the t
treatment of wiastewaters from wood
preserving processes thatuse creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol" has been-
generated and stored, treated, or
disposed of in their fields. Wood
preservers need not measure the
concentrations of hazardous •• •
constituents in their spray irrigation
fields. For the purpose of clarity,
however, EPA will explian how wood
preservers may determine if K001 is
forming in their spray irrigation fields.
Wastewater treatment consists of the
removal of contaminants from
wastewater. Bottom sediment sludges
are generated during wastewater
treatment as described above in Sectioa
HI. A. Spray irrigation treatment of wood
preserving wastewater may generate
sludge by the following mechanisms:
The simple evaporation of water;
sedimentation >and/br filtration of
particulate matter; adsoprtion of
dissolved constituents to solid or
organic matter in the soil; in exchange of
any dissolved cations in the wastewater
with soil cations; conversion of
dissolved constituents to biomass
through the action of microorganisms;
and sedimentation, filtration,
adsorption, or biodegradation of free or
emulsified oils contained in the
wastewater. Therefore, if wood
preservers test their wastewater from -
processes using creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol (by methods
specified in Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste. SW-846, 3rd Edition, 1987,
or by other EPA-approved methods) and
find particulate matter, dissolved
constituents (such as chlorophenols,
PAHs, or wood sugars) or oil and grease,
they should presume that the
wastewater will form bottom sediment
sludge (K001-) when applied to a field by
spray irrigation. Alternatively, having
found contaminants in the wastewater,
the wood preserver could attempt to
demonstrate why none of the sludge-
generating mechanisms described above
would occur in the particular field to
which the wastewater is applied.
If the wastewater that is applied to a
spray irrigation field is tested (by
methods specified in SW-848 or by
other EPA-approved methods) and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules:
determined to contain no participate
matter, dissolved constituents, or oil and
grease, a wood preserver may presume
that no treatment of this wastewater
will occur as a result of the spray.
irrigation process. No treatment will
occur because there are no
contaminants present that can be
* removed [i.e. treated) during spray
application.'If no wastewater treatment
' occurs, no bottom sediment sludge can ,
be generated and the spray irrigation
field can contain no waste materials
that meet the listing description of
Hazardous Waste KOOl.
Wood preservers, may also identify
the presence of K001 by testing their
spray irrigation fields. If any of theKOOl
listing constitutents found in 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VII, are present
above the background concentration of
the soils before the wastewaters were
first applied, and the presence of these
constituents cannot be traced
conclusively to sources other than
treatment of wastewaters from
{.recesses using creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol, the. wood preserver
should presume that the spray irrigation
field contain bottom sediment sludge
that meets the K001 listing description.
For example, EPA Region IV collected
toil samples from a spray irrigation field
used to treat wastewater from wood
preserving proceses using creosote and
pentachlorophenol. At the same time, a
background soil sample was collected
from a location outside of the
boundaries of the wood preserving
facility. Nine K001 listing constituents
were detected in the sprayfield soil, all
at concentrations above the
concentrations measured in the
background soil. For example,
pentachlorophenol was detected at 32
mg/kg in the sprayfield soil, but it was
not detected in the background soil.
Chrysene was present in the sprayfield
soil at 210 mg/kg but the concentration
in the background soil was only 0.33
mg/kg. (USEPA, Transmittal of RCRA
Waste Sampling Investigation'Report,
December 1,1986.) Because of these
. analytical results and the knowledge
that the wastewater applied to the spray
irrigation field is derived from wood
preserving processes using
pentachlorophenol and/or creosote, the
wood preserver should presume that the
field contains bottom sediment sludge
that meets the KOOl listing description.
If, however, a spray irrigation field is
tested and no listing constituents are
found to be present above background
soil concentrations, the wood preserver
cannot necessarily conclude that K001
does not form.br has never formed in the
spray irrigation field. The lack of such
concentrations may demonstrate
successful treatment of the sludge
(rather than the waistewater). In
addition, the listing; constituents may
have been converted to different
chemical species by bioligical
degradation, chemical degradation, or
photodegradation. Similarly, sludge may
be present in the field, but may not be
detectable, because of dilution with a
large volume of soil. Sludge also may
have been formed in the spray irrigation
field but may have been washed off or
washed through the soil.
Finally, testing a spray irrigation field
and finding no listing constitutents
present above soil background
concentrations may simply result from
the presence of high background
concentrations. This is a likely scenario
at wood preserving facilities where
preservative solutions drip or have
dripped from treated wood-as it is
moved from the treatment area to
storage yards or preservative is-
dispersed over the treating facility area
by aerosols from pressure treating
equipment (See, e.g., Quagliotti at 58=-
59).
If a wood preserver tests a spray
irrigation field and finds K001 listing
constitutents are not present above soil
background concentrations, the wood
preserver may believe that, the spray
irrigation field, although containing
wastes that meet the listing description
of KOOl, presents no risk to human
health or the environment. The wood
preserver may then petition EPA to
exclude from regulation or "delist" the
wastewater treatment sludge contained
in their particular spray irrigation field.
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, the
Agency must consider the factors for
which the waste was originally listed;
then, the Agency must examine factors
other than those for which the waste
was listed (including additional
Appendix yni constitutents) in cases
where the Administrator has a
reasonable basis to believe that such
other factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. Additional information is
provided in a guidance document
entitled, "Petitions to Delist Hazardous
Waste, A Guidance Manual" (April
1985, Office of Solid Waste). Further
information on delisting is available by
contacting the Assistance Branch of the
Permits and State Programs Division,
Office of Solid Waste.
AWPI also claims that spray irrigation
effectively would be banned if wood
preservers were required to determine .
that no sludge forms in the irrigation
fields or if they were required to delist. -
any sludge that does form in .order to
avoid the need to comply with the
Subititle C treatment and permit
requirements (AWPI Petition at 11).
AWPI is also concerned that wood
preservers who treat and dispose of
their wastewater by spray irrigation
might lack alternative dispposal options.
Additionally, AWPI is concerned that
spray irrigation fields operated by wood
preservers might need alteration in
order to comply with Subtitle C
requirements and that, after
modification, the disposal of the KOOl
that forms in the spray irrigation fields
might be banned by the land disposal
restrictions mandated by HSWA1984
(Id. at 13; see also id. at 11).
The Agency agrees with many of
these comments. Most treatment of
hazardous, sludge (not treatment of the
wastewater) will, as a matter of law,
sujbect the facility to the RCRA
treatment standards and permit
requirements. If KOOl forms, the facility
is required to obtain appropriate
storage, treatment, or disposal permits
(unless accumulated pursuant to 40 CFR
Section 262.34}.
With regard to the applicability of the
land disposal restriction rules, EPA has
developed treatment standards for KOOl
that must be met before KOOl is land
disposed (i.e., placed into, a land-based
unit), unless placement occurs in a no-
migration unit. All generators and
treaters of KOOl are subject to this
standard, wherever KOOl is generated,
even if this makes spray irrigation more
costly or less practicable.
As applied to spray irrigation fields,
KOOl generated in the fields prior to the
effective date of the land disposal
restrictions, August 8,1988, will not be
subject to the restriction unless the KOOl
in the field is managed so as to create -
an act of placement after the effective
date (for example, if sprayfield soil
containing KOOl is excavated and
removed to a landfill). Treatment in situ
is not normally considered to trigger the
land disposal restrictions, since it does
not involve "placement." See RCRA
section 3004(k). Generation on the land
after the effective date, however, does
constitute disposal, see id., and the
waste consequently must meet the
treatment standard at the time of
placement (or the irrigation field must
satisfy the no-migration standard). The
facility might be able to demonstrate, by
measuring the concentrations of the
constituents of the wastewater applied
to the field, that spray irrigation sludges
will not exceed BOAT levels when
generated. EPA will consider any such
demonstration on a case-by-case basis.
Testing the'sludges in the spray
irrigation fields will not suffice,
however, since subsequent treatment or
-------
Federal Register / Vol; 53, No. 251 / Friday* December 30, 1988 A Proposed Rules
53337
accumulation of sludges is. the field may
alter the concentration* originally
present in the sludga when it is
generated. •
C. Six-Month Suspension'
In the petition, AWPI requests that if
the Agency does not reinterpret the
scope of the K001 listing so as to
exclude wood preserving spray
irrigation fields, then EPA should
suspend the applicability of the Subtitle
C regulations for such units until six
months after the Agency has responded
to flie AWPI petition and has formally
notified all affected facilities of the
petition denial. EPA believes that
AWPI's arguments in support of such, a
request have no merit and, '
consequently, the Agency tentatively
denies the request for a six-month
suspension.
Bottom sediment sludge generated in
spray irrigation fields treating wood
preserving wastewaters has been EPA
listed hazardous waste K001 since
November 19,1980. No modifications
have been made to the K001 listing since
that time. The "Skinner memo" was not
a new or revised regulation and did not
impose any new requirements on the
regulated community. The memo merely
provided interpretive guidance to
Regional employees on the scope of the
existing K001 listing. Accordingly, any
facility generating or managing K001 as
a result of treatment of wood preserving
wastewaters in spray irrigation fields
has been required to be in compliance
with RCRA since November 19,1980.
EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
extend the compliance date for six
months when these facilities may have
been out of compliance for over eight
years.
Date: December 23,1988.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
IV. References
USEPA. Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
Regulations. Supplemental Proposed Rule. 44
FR 49402 (August 22,1979).
USEPA. Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste. Final Rule, Interim Final
Rule, and Request for Comments. 45 FR 33084
(May 19,1980).
USEPA. Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wastes. Final Rule and Interim
Final Rule. 45 FR 74884 (November 12,1980).
USEPA. Listing Background Document-
Wood Preserving. Washington, DC
November, 1980.
Quagliotti, John A., Jr. An Investigation of
Spray Irrigation Treatment Systems at the
Koppers' Green Spring and Susquehanna
Plants. Monroeville Science & Technology
Center, Monroeville, PA. January 24,1983.
Koppers Company, Inc., Water Quality
Engineering Section, Environmental
Resources Department Wastewater
Treatability Study, Report for Koppers
Company, Inc., Florence, South Carolina
Wood Treating Plant February 1985..
USEPA. Regulatory Status of Sludges from
Land Treatment of Wood Preserving •
Wastewaters. Memorandum from John H.
Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste,
USEPA, to James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Air and
Waste Management Division, Region IV,
USEPA. November 23,1984.
AWPI. Petition for Reconsideration of
Decision to Classify Wood Preserving Spray
Irrigation Fields as Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Units and for Clear Definition of
K001 Sludge. Letter from Walter G. Talarek,
General Counsel American Wood Preservers
Institute, to Dr. John Skinner, Director, Office
of Solid Waste, USEPA. January 10,1985.
Consent Order, In re Koppers Company,
Inc., USEPA Docket No. VW-86-R-001 (June
4,1986).
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse.
Second Edition. New York, 1972.
Sundstrom; Donald W. and Herbert E. Klei.
Wastewater Treatment. EnglewOod Cliffs, NJ,
1979.
Weber, Walter J., Jr. Physicochemical
Processes for Water Quality Control. New
York. 1972.
NCASI. "The Land Application of
Wastewater in the Forest Products Industry,"
Technical Bulletin No. 459. May 1985.
Gaudy, A.F., R. Scudder, M.M. Neeley, J.J.
Perot, and L.E. Crane. "Studies on the
Treatment of Wood Preserving Wastes,"
American Wood Preservers'Association:
Proceedings. 1971.
Fisher, C.W. "Soil Percolation and/or
Irrigation of Industrial Effluent Waters—
Especially Wood Treating Plant Effluents,"
E'orest Products Journal 21_, pp. 76-79.
September 1971.
USEPA. Transmittal of the RCRA Waste
Sampling Investigation Report; Southern
Wood Piedmont Company; Spartanburg,
South Carolina. EPA ID #SCD049690001 ESD
Project #86-436. Memorandum from Steve
Hall, Hazardous Waste Section, USEPA,
Region IV to Alan Antley, Chief, Waste
Compliance Section, USEPA, Region IV.
December 1,1986.!'
[FR Doc. 88-30077 Filed 12-29-88; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6S60-SO-M
------- |