Friday
June 23, 1989
Part
40 CFR Part 148 ©t a|. -^
Land Disposal Restrictiorif' for Second
Third Scheduled Wastes/ final Rule
-------
, ,.. .,
' • ,,•-< I;..,,!'1:*1 * .' : .f:»t'? t ie">-:,l IMJ , ftp'if -'.".if1*1" \ i:-':-: "'->!* ' :E" -•'' •••-• ' -
Federal Register:J Vol. 54, No. A2Q /Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148,264,265,266,268,
and 271
ISWH-FRL-3564-9]
Land Disposal Restrictions for Second
Third Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today promulgating
regulations implementing the
Congressionally mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes
listed in 40 CFR 268.11 (the second one-
third of the Schedule of restricted
hazardous wastes, hereafter referred to
as the Second Third). This action is
taken in response to amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), enacted in the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984. Today's notice promulgates
specific treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates for certain
Second Third wastes, and imposes the
"soft hammer" provisions of 40 CFR
288.8 on Second Third wastes for which
the Agency is not establishing treatment
standards. In addition, this notice
promulgates treatment standards and
effective dates for certain First Third [40
CFR 268.10) "soft hammer" wastes, as
well as for certain wastes originally
contained in the Thigi Third of the
schedule (40 CFR 268.12). Wastes for
which treatment standards are being
promulgated can be land disposed after
the applicable effective dates only if the
respective treatment standards are met,
or if disposal occurs in units that satisfy
the "no migration" standard.
EFFECTIVE DATE This final rule is
effective June 8,1989, except for EPA
Hazardous Waste F006—cyanide
(nonwaslewater) which Is effective July
9,1989.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemakingis identified as Docket
Number F-89-LDll-FFFFF and is
located in the EPA RCRA docket, Room
2427,401M Street SW., Washington, DC
20400. The docket is open from 9:00 to
4tOO, Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 475-9327. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory document at
no cost. Additional copies cost $.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline, Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
101M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460; Telephone: 800-424-9346 (toll-
free) or 382-3000 locally. For general
information on specific aspects of this
final rule, contact Bpb Scarfaerry or
Michaelle Wilson, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-333), (202) 382-4770. For specific
information on BOAT treatment
standards, contact James Berlow, Office
of Solid Waste (OS-322), (202) 382-7917.
For specific information on the
Underground Injection Control Program
and hazardous waste injection wells,
contact Bruce Kobelski, Office of
Drinking Water (WH-550), (202) 382-
5508. For specific information on
capacity determinations or national
variances, contact Jo-Ann Bassi, Office
of Solid Waste (OS-322), (202) 475-6672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OUTLINE
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the Land
Disposal Restrictions Framework.
1. Statutory Requirements.
2. Applicability to Injected Wastes.
3. Solvents and Dioxins.
4. California List Wastes.
5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins, and
California List Wastes in Injection Wells.
6. Scheduled Wastes.
7. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes.
B. Regulatory Framework.
1. Applicability.
2. Treatment Standards.
3. National Variances From the Effective
Dates.
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the Effective
Dates.
5. "No Migration" Exemptions From the
Restrictions.
6. Variances From the Treatment
Standards.
7. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments.
8. Storage of Restricted Wastes.
9. The "Soft Hammer" Provisions.
C. Summary of the Proposed Rule.
D. Comments Received on the Proposed
Rule.
1. Regulation of Lab Packs.
2. Advance Notice of Third Third
Approach.
3. Comments on Stabilization of Organics.
n. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Applicability of Treatment Standards.
B. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BOAT).
C. Applicability of Today's Proposed Rule
to Class I-H Hazardous Waste Injection
Wells Regulated Under 40 CFR Part 148.
D. Waste Analysis Requirements.
E. Nationwide Extensions of the Effective
Date.
F. Treatment Standards for Prohibited
Wastes that are Mixed with Non-Prohibited
Wastes.
G. Rationale for Immediate Effective Date.
HI. Detailed Discussion of Today's Rule
A. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards.
1. Clarification of the General Applicability
of the BOAT.
2. Second Third Wastes From Specific
Sources for Which BOAT Standards Are Not
Promulgated in Today's Rule (K019, K025,
K041, K042, K097, K098, K105).
3. Treatment Standards and Responses to
Major Comments for All Wastes Proposed
With Second Third Wastes.
a. Cyanide Wastes.
1. Comments with General Applicability to
' Cyanide Wastes.
2. Wastes from the Electroplating
Operations (F006, F007, F008, F009).
3. Wastes from Heat Treating Operations
(F010, F011, F012).
4. F019 Wastes. •
5. Wastes from Acrylonitrile Production
(K011, K013, K014).
6. Cyanide Wastes Designated With a "P"
Waste Code (P013, P021, P029, P030, P063,
P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, P121).
7. Cyanide Wastes Designated as D003
Reactive.
b. Wastes from Chlorinated Aliphatics
Production (F024).
c. Wastes from Pigment Production (K002,
K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008).
d. Wastes from Acetaldehyde Production
(K009, K010).
e. Phthalates and Phthalic Anhydride
Production Wastes (K023, K093, K094, U028,
U069, U088, U102, U107, U190).
f. Wastes from the Production of
Dinitrotoluene, Toluene Diamine, and
Toluene Diisocyanate (K027, Kill, K112,
K113, K114, K115, K116, U221, U2.23).
g. Wastes from 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Production (K028, K029, K095, K096).
h. Organophosphorus Pesticide Wastes
K036, K038, K039, K040, P039, P040, P041,
P043, P044, P082, P071, P085, P089, P094, P097,
P10.9, Pill, U058, U087, U235).
i. Wastes from 2,4-D Production (K043).
• B. "Soft Hammer" Applicable Treatment
Standards.
. C. Capacity Determinations.
1. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Effective Dates for Surface Land-
Disposed Wastes for Which Treatment
Standards are Promulgated.
a. Total Quantity of Land-Disposed
Wastes.
b. Required Alternative Capacity for
Surface Land Disposed Wastes.
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates.
2. Extension of the Effective Date for
Contaminated Soil and Debris.
3. Capacity Determination for Underground
Injected Wastes.
a. Effective Date Determinations for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes for Which
EPA Has Not Set Treatment Standards.
b. Scheduled Wastes With Established
Treatment Standards Which Current Data
Indicate are Not Being Injected.
c. Scheduled Wastes With Established
Treatment Standards Which Current Data
Indicate are Being Injected.
i ini|i ill
-------
. Federal Register / Vol 54 No. 120
1089 / Rul?s,and^ Regulations T
20595,:
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States. ,
B. Effect on State Authorizations.
C. State Implementation.
V. Effect of the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program on Other Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated Under the Clean
Water Act.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
C. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act. • ,
D. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.
E. Applicability of Treatment Standards to
Wastes from Pesticides Regulated Under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
f. Regulatory Overlap of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act *
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis.
1. Purpose. .
2. Executive Order 12291.
" 3. Basic Approach. .
4. Results. • ••
a. Population of Affected Facilities.
b. Costs. .'. ;
c. Economic Impact.
d. Benefits.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act.
D. Review of Supporting Documents.
VII. References
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous andSolid
Waste Amendments of1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework.
1. Statutory Requirements
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), enacted on •
November 8,1984, prohibit the land
disposal ofhazardoujS 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, thai
there will be no migration oflazardous
constituents from the disposal wait or
injection zone for as long as Jig wastes
remain hazardous" (RCRA.seganns 3004
(d)(l), {e)(l}, (g)(5); 42 U.S.C.f %){!},
(e)(l), (gj(5)}. Congress establSheda
separate schedule for restricting the
disposal by underground injfition of
solvent- and dioxin-containijg^
hazardous wastes, wastes retired to
collectively as California list \azardous
wastes {RCRA section 3004(5(2), 42
U.S.C. 6924(fJ(2}), and soil, andjebris
resulting from CERClA sectiofj^ and
106 response actions and RCR4
corrective actions when the, soil ani
'
debris contains listed spent solvent,
dioxin, and California list 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
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized" (RCRA
section 3004(m)(l), 42 U.S.C. 6924{m)(l)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited
and may be land disposed. In addition, a
hazardous waste that does not meet the
treatment standard may be land
disposed provided the "no migration"
demonstration specified in RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(l), (e)(i) and (g)(5) is
made. '.•-.•
For the purposes of the restrictions,
HSWA defines land disposal "to
include,,but not be limited to, any
placement of * * * hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection welljand treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed
formation, or underground mine or
cave" {RCRA. section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C,
6924{k)). Therefore, because HSWA
defines land, disposal to include
underground injection ivells, disposal of
hazardous wastes in injection wells is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
The land disposal restrictions are
immediately effective unless the
Administrator grants a national
variance from the statutory or regulatory
deadline and establishes a different date
(not to .exceed two years beyond the
applicable deadline) based on "the
earliest date on whickadequate
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 effective date for up to one year,
renewable once for up to one additional
year, when an applicant successfully
makes certain demonstrations (RCRA
section 3004(h)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(3)).
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
rninimiBH 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)
are "removed for subsequent
management within one year of the
entry of the waste into the surface
impoundment" (RCRA section
30Q5(j)(ll)(BJ, 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(ll)(B)).
In addition to prohibiting the land
. disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress
prohibited 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. 6924Q)}.
2. Applicability to Injected Wastes
As noted above, disposal of
hazardous wastes hi injection wells is
subject to the provisions of HSWA. The
Agency has previously propose'd and
promulgated regulations pertaining to
injected wastes separately from
regulations addressing wastes disposed
in surface facilities. The Agency chose
this approach for two reasons. First,
injection of hazardous wastes is
controlled by two statutes, RCRA and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The regulations governing injection of
these wastes have been codified along ,
with other regulations of the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the SDWA in Parts 124,
144, 145, 148, 147, and 148 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). EPA believes
that it is useful to the regulated
community and to the State regulators to
have requirements regarding restrictions
on hazardous waste injection located in
the same portion of the CFR as are other
requirements pertaining to injection
wells. Second, the statute established a
separate schedule for the restrictions on
injection of certain wastes.
3. 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
and solvent-containing hazardous
wastes numbesed F001, F002, F003, F004,
and F005 listed hi 40 CFR 261.31. (RCRA
sections 3004 (ejfl), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924
On November 7, 1988, 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
E001-FC05 solvent wastes and F020,
F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-containing
wastes. '•••••'•-
-------
26596 Federal Register / Vol. 54,: No. 120 /. Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
4, California List Wastes
Effective July 8, 1987, the statute
prohibited further land disposal (except
by deep well injection) of the following
listed or identified wastes (RCRA
section 3001) set out in RCRA sections
3004 (d)(l) and (d){2) (42 U.S.C. 6924
(A) Liquid hazardous wastes,
Including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge, containing free
cyanides at concentrations greater than
or equlal to 1,000 mg/1.
(B) Liquid hazardous wastes,
including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge, containing the
following metals (or elements) or
compounds of these metals or elements)
at concentrations greater than or equal
lo those specified below:
(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As)
600 mg/1;
(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (as
Cd) 100 mg/1;
(Hi) chromium (VI and/or compounds
(asCrVI)1500mg/l;
(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb)
500 mg/1;
(v) mercury and/or compounds (as
Hg) 20 mg/1;
(vl) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni)
134 mg/1;
(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as
Se) 100 mg/1; and
(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as
Tl) 130 mg/1.
(C) Liquid hazardous wastes having a
pH less than or equal to two (2.0).
(D) Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
equal lo 50 ppm.
(E) Hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs)
in total concentration greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
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 for liquid corrosive
wastes. The statutory prohibition is also
in effect for California list wastes
containing free cyanides, metals, and
dilute HOC wastewaters.
5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins and
California List Wastes in Injection Wells
Section 3004(f) of RCRA required that
the Administrator prohibit the disposal
of solvents, dioxlns and California list
wastes in deep wells, effective August 8,
1988, unless such disposal had been
determined to be protective of human
health and the environment for as long
as the wastes remained hazardous or
unless a variance had been granted
under RCRA section 3004(h). On July 26,
1988, the Agency established effective
dates for the prohibition on injection of
solvents and dioxin wastes (53 FR
28118). In another regulation, effective
August 6,1988 and published August 16,
1988 in the Federal Register, the Agency
established, in part, effective dates for
the prohibition on injection of California
list wastes (53 FR 30908).
6. Scheduled Wastes
The amendments required the Agency
to prepare a schedule for restricting the
land disposal of all hazardous wastes
listed or identified as of November 8,
1984 in 40 CFR Part 261, excluding
solvent- and dioxin-containing wastes
and California list wastes covered under
the schedule set by Congress. The
schedule, based on a ranking of the
listed wastes that considers their
intrinsic hazard and their volume, is to
ensure that prohibitions and treatment
standards are promulgated first for high
volume hazardous wastes with high
intrinsic hazard before standards are set
for low volume wastes with low
intrinsic hazard. The statute further
requires that these determinations be
made by the following deadlines:
(A) At least one-third (the First Third)
of all listed hazardous wastes by August
8,1988.
(B) At least two-thirds (the Second
Third) of all listed hazardous wastes by
June 8,1989.
(C) All remaining listed hazardous
wastes and all hazardous wastes
identified by one or more of the
characteristics defined in 40 CFR Part
261 (the Third Third) by May 8,1990.
On May 28,1986, EPA promulgated
the schedule for setting treatment
standards for the listed and identified
hazardous wastes (51 FR 19300). This
schedule is incorporated in 40 CFR
268.10, 268.11, and 268.12.
If EPA fails to set a treatment
standard by the statutory deadline for
any hazardous waste in the First or
Second Third, the waste may be
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment provided "such facility" is
in compliance with the minimum
technological requirements specified in
RCRA section 3004(o) for new facilities
(RCRA section 3004(g)(6)).
Note: On August 17,1988, EPA interpreted
the term "such facility" in 3004(g)(6) to refer
to the individual surface impoundment or
landfill unit. See 53 FR 31181, This
interpretation was upheld by the D.C. Circuit
in Steel Bar Mills v. EPA, No. 88-1608 (Order
of Feb. 22,1989).
In addition, prior to land disposal, the
generator must certify to the
Administrator that he has investigated
the availability of treatment capacity
and has determined that he has
contracted to use the practically
available technology that yields the
greatest environmental benefit, or 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,
including underground injection, are not •
similarly restricted and may continue to
be used for disposal of untreated wastes
until EPA promulgates a treatment
standard and sets an effective date, 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)).
For the scheduled wastes, the statute
does not provide different deadlines for
restriction of underground injected
versus surface land disposed wastes;
however, the Agency proposed and
promulgated First Third regulations for
surface disposed and injected wastes on
separate dates. The First Third final .
rule, promulgated on August 8,1988 and
published in the Federal Register on
August 17,1988 (53 FR 31138), set out the
conditions under which wastes may
continue to be land disposed by means
other than by injection. Effective dates
for the prohibition of injection of certain
- First Third wastes are included in the
final regulation published August 16,
1988 (53 FR 30908). In addition, the
Agency promulgated effective dates for
the prohibition on injection of another
group of First Third wastes on June 14,
1989 (54 FR 25416). Today's final rule
promulgates the conditions under which
Second Third wastes may continue to be
land disposed. It also promulgates
treatment standards for some First Third
and Third Third restricted hazardous
wastes. This rule applies to all forms of
land disposal including deep well
injection, and finalizes the January 11,
1989 proposed rulemaking (54 FR 1056).
7. 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
-------
•Federal Register"/
nuations
•
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. Regulatory Framework
The November 7,1986 finarrule (51FR
40572) established the regulatory
framework for implementing the land
disposal restrictions program. Some
changes to the framework were made in
the July 8,1987 California list final rule
(52 FR 25760), as well as in the August
17,1988 First Third final rule (53 FR
31138). Regulations specifying how the
framework applies to injected wastes
were promulgated July 26,1988 (53 FR .
28118).
The following discussion summarizes
the major provisions of the land disposal
restrictions framework. (For a
comprehensive understanding of the
Land Disposal Restrictions program,
•refer to the aforementioned final rules.)
It is included for purposes of
information only, any does not reopen
and of the previously-stated principles
for judicial review. '
1. Applicability
The land disposal restrictions apply
prospectively to the affected wastes. In
other words, hazardous wastes land
disposed after the applicable effective
dates are subject to the restrictions, but
wastes land disposed prior to the
effective dates are not required to be
removed or exhumed for treatment (51
FR 40577). Similarly, only surface
impoundments receiving restricted
wastes after the applicable deadline are
subject to the restrictions on treatment
in surface impoundments contained'in
40 CFR 268.4 and RCRA 3005(j)(ll).
Also, the storage restrictions apply to
wastes placed in storage after the
effective dates.
The provisions of the land disposal
restrictions program apply to wastes
.produced by generators (including small
quantity generators) of greater than .100
kilograms of hazardous waste (or
greater than 1 kilogram of acutely
hazardous waste) in a calendar month.
Wastes produced by small quantity
generators of less than 100 kilograms of
hazardous waste (or less than 1
kilogram of acute hazardous waste) per
calendar month are conditionally
exempt from RCRA, including the land
disposal restrictions (see 40 CFR 268.1).
The land disposal restrictions apply to
both interim status and permitted
facilities. The requirements of the land
disposal restrictions program supersede
40 CFR 270.4(a); therefore, even though
the requirements may not be specified in
the permit conditions, all permitted
facilities are subject to the restrictions.
2. Treatment Standards. . . ,
By each statutory deadline, the
Agency must establish the applicable
treatment standards under 40 CFR Part
268 Subpart D for each restricted
hazardous waste. After the applicable
effective dates, restricted wastes may bs
land disposed if they meet the treatment
standards. If EPA does not promulgate
treatment standards by the statutory
deadlines, such wastes are prohibited
from land disposal (with the exception
of First Third and Second Third wastes
that'are subject to the "soft hammer"
provisions of 40 CFR 268.8).
A treatment standard is based on the
performance of the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT) to treat the
waste (SI FR 40578). EPA may establish
treatment standards either as specific
technologies or as performance
standards based on the performance of
BDAT technologies. Compliance with
performance standards may be
monitored by measuring the
concentration level of the hazardous
constituents (or in some circumstances,
indicator pollutants) in the waste,
treatment residual, or insthe extract of
the waste or treatment residual. When
treatment standards are set as
performance levels, the regulated
community may use any technology not
otherwise prohibited (such as
impermissible dilution) to treat the
waste to meet the treatment standard. ,
Treaters thus are not limited to use of
only a particular technology. However,
when treatment standards are
expressed as specific technologies, such
technologies must be employed.
1 3. National Variances from the Effective
Dates ,
The Agency has the authority to grant
national variances from the statutory or
regulatory effective dates, not to exceed
two years, if there is insufficient
alternative protective treatment,
recoverjf or disposal capacity for the
wastes (RCRA section 3004(h)(2)). If
there is a significant shortage of such
capacity nationwide, EPA will establish
an alternative effective date based on
the earliest date such capacity will be
available. ' '
During the .period a capacity variance
is in place, disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment may be made only
in a unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section S004(o). The D.C. Circuit recently
upheld the Agency's interpretation of
the term "such facility" in section
3004(h)(4) to refer to the disposal unit
[SteelBar Mills Ass'n. v.EPA, No 88-
1608, Order of Feb. 22,1989; Mobil Oil
Corp. v.EPA,—F.2d—(D.C. Cir., April4,
1989)). It is the Agency's opinion,
however, that if a waste subject to a
national capacity variance is treated to
meet the applicable treatment standards
(or meets the standards as generated),
the land disposal restrictions allow such
waste to be disposed in a Subtitle C
landfill or'surface impoundment
regardless of whether the unit meets
minimum technological requirements •
(MTRs) (but see RCRA sections
3004(o)(l) and 3005(j)(l), which
independently require that certain
surface impoundments and landfills
meet MTRs). This is because such
waste, once treated to meet the
promulgated treatment standard (or
which meets such standard as
generated), is no longer prohibited from
land disposal. In addition, from a policy
perspective, if a person treats a national
capacity variance waste to meet a :
treatment standard, thus electing not to
take advantage of the variance, he
should receive some benefit under the
law and thus should be able to utilize
non-MTR landfills aiid impoundments as
he would if the Agency had not granted
the national capacity variance.
. 4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the
Effective Dates ' .
The Agency will consider granting up
to a one-year extension (renewable
once) of a ban effective date on a case-
by-case basis. The requirements
outlined in 40 CFR 268.5 must be
• satisfied. During the period that such a
case-by-case extension is in place,
disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment may be made only in a
unit meeting the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA section 3004(o).
In considering whether to grant a case-
by-case extension, the Agency has
stated that it will consider the feasibility
of providing alternative capacity during
the extension period, and that the
determination of feasibility "may
involve considerations of the technical
and practical difficulties associated with
providing alternative capacity." (51 FR
40603, Nov. 7,1986.) EPA wishes to
clarify that in assessing questions of
feasibility, it will never base a decision
solely on the assertion that alternative
treatment is too costly.
5. "No Migration" Exemptions From the '
Restrictions ' ;
The Agency has the authority to allow
the land disposal of a restricted
hazardous waste which does.not meet
the treatment standard upon the
successful demonstration that there will
be no migration of hazardous
-------
26598 Federal Register /• Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous (for surface disposed
wastes see 40 CFR 268.6; for
underground injected wastes see 40 CFR
148.20). If a "no migration" petition is
granted, it can remain in effect for no
longer than ten years for disposal in
interim status land disposal units, and
for no longer than the term of the RCRA
permit for disposal hi permitted units (40
CFR 288.6(h)).
The Agency's plan for implementing
the "no migration" provisions of RCRA
with respect to injected wastes are
outlined in detail hi 40 CFR 148.20 (53 FR
28118, July 26,1988). A petitioner is
required to demonstrate through
modeling that there is no migration of
hazardous constituents from the
Injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. This demonstration
can be made in one of two ways: The
use of flow and transport models to
show that injected fluids will not
migrate vertically out of the injection
zone for a period of 10,000 years or
laterally within the injection zone to a
point of discharge or interface with an
underground source of drinking water;
or, use of geochemical modeling to show
that the waste is transformed so it will
become nonhazardous at the edge of the
injection zone. Also, a showing must be
made that the well is in compliance with
tho substantive area of review,
corrective action, and mechanical
integrity requirements of Part 148.
6. Variances From the Treatment
Standards
The variance from the treatment
standard procedures were established to
account for cases where the treatment
standard is expressed as a performance
level and the waste, after properly-
conducted treatment, cannot meet the
level, or where the treatment technology
is not appropriate for the waste. The
petitioner must demonstrate that
because the physical or chemical
properties of the waste differs
significantly from the wastes analyzed
In developing the treatment standard,
the waste cannot be treated to specified
levels or by the specified methods (51
FR 40605 and 40 CFR 288.44). The
variance procedure can result hi the
establishment of a new treatability
group and corresponding treatment
standard that applies to all wastes
meeting the criteria of the new waste
treatability group. A site-specific
variance from the treatment standard
may also be granted administratively
(without rulemaking), but the variance
has no generic applicability to the waste
if it is generated at other sites (53 FR
31109. August 17,1988).
7. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
Wastes that would otherwise be
prohibited from one or more methods of
land disposal may be treated in a
surface impoundment that meets certain
technological requirements (RCRA
section 3005(j)(ll) and 40 CFR
268.4(a)(3)) as long as treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standard (or statutory
prohibition levels where no treatment
standards are established) are removed
for subsequent management within one
year of entry into the impoundment and
are not placed into any other surface
impoundment. The owner or operator
must certify to the Regional
Administrator that the impoundment
meets the liner, leachate collection
system and ground water monitoring
requirements imposed by RCRA section
3004(o)(l) (unless the impoundment
qualifies for an exemption from those
requirements under RCRA sections 3005
(j)(2) and (j)(4)). The owner or operator
must also submit a copy of the waste
analysis plan that has been modified to
provide for testing treatment residuals in
accordance with § 268.4 requirements.
8. Storage of Restricted Wastes
Storage of restricted wastes is
prohibited except where storage is
solely for the purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities of wastes to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal (RCRA section 3004(j) and 40
CFR 268.50). A facility that stores a
prohibited waste for more than one year
bears the burden of proving that such
storage is solely for this purpose. The
Agency bears the burden of proof if it
believes that storage of a restricted
waste by a facility for up to one year is
not for the purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities to facilitate proper
treatment, recovery, or disposal. Since
any placement of wastes hi landfills,
piles, impoundments, etc. is defined as
land disposal (RCRA section 3004(k)),
only storage in tanks and containers is
affected by the storage prohibition hi
§ 268.50 (see 52 FR 21013, June 4,1987).
9. The "Soft Hammer" Provisions
The First and Second Third wastes for
which EPA has not promulgated
treatment standards may be disposed in
landfill and surface impoundment units,
provided certain demonstrations are
made, and provided these units meet the
minimum technology requirements of
section 3004(o) as specified in 40 CFR
268.a
The Agency's reading that "soft
hammer" wastes destined for landfill or
impoundment disposal can only be
disposed in minimum technology
landfills and surface impoundment units
was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Steel
Bar Mills Ass'n. v. EPA, No. 88-1608
(order of Feb. 22,1989), and endorsed in
dicta in Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA,
_F.2d_ (D.C. Cir., April 4,1989, slip op.
at 7-8). The "soft hammer" provisions
apply only until May 8,1990, or until
EPA promulgates treatment standards,
whichever is sooner. Other types of land
disposal are not restricted until EPA
promulgates treatment standards and
effective dates, or until May 8,, 1990.
C. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The Agency proposed treatment
standards and effective dates for 32
Second Third wastes. In addition, the
Agency proposed treatment standards
and effective dates for 19 First Third
wastes which previously had been
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions,
as well as for 14 Third Third wastes and
4 newly listed wastes. Effective dates
for wastes being underground injected
were also proposed. No changes to the
land disposal restrictions framework
were proposed. The proposed approach,
as well as any changes being made in
today's final rule, is discussed hi
preamble section HI of today's rule.
D. Comments Received on the Proposed
Rule
The Agency received 92 comments
addressing various elements of the
proposed rule. Some of the most
frequently discussed issues were: the
proposed treatment standards for
cyanide wastes, the use of "no land
disposal" as a treatment standard, and
rescheduling of wastes from the Third
Third to the Second Third. A summary
of these issues, along with the Agency's
response, is provided hi the appropriate
preamble sections related to the
individual waste codes of today's rule.'
The Agency also received comments
on the applicability of the land disposal
restrictions to wastes included in lab
packs and on the advance notice of the
Agency's proposed approach for
regulating the remaining listed and
characteristic wastes by May 8,1990. A
summary of these comments and the
Agency's responses follows in this
section.
Detailed summaries of all comments
and the Agency's responses can be
found in the documents "Comment
Response Document for the Second
Third Land Disposal Restrictions
Proposed Rule", Volumes 1-3, hi the
RCRA docket.
-------
Z3<
Regulations'-
1. Regulation of Lab Packs
The Agency received several
comments related to the regulation of
lab packs under the land disposal
restrictions framework. Some
commenters requested an exemption
from the land disposal restrictions for- -"-
lab packs. Other commenters requested
that the Agency establish as the
treatment standard a specified
treatment method for the entire lab
pack, disregarding the treatment _
standards applicable to the wastes it
contains. Several commenters requested
relief from the paperwork burden
associated with providing notice of each
restricted waste in, the lab pack and its.
corresponding treatment standard (as
required undej the land disposal
restrictions recordkeeping
requirements). Commenters also stated
that there may be hundreds of wastes
included in a lab pack and the land
disposal restrictions require that
applicable treatment standards or "soft
hammer" requirements be met for each
waste prior to land disposal. They assert
that such regulation is inappropriate for
lab packs. . ..-.'..
The Agency addressed the issue of
applicability of the land disposal
restrictions to lab packs in the final rule
promulgated on November 7,1986 (see
51FR 40584-85), and is not changing its
position in today's final rule. The
Agency maintains that; these wastes
cannot be exempt from the statutory
requirements since the' plain language of
the statute includes them, and there is
no indication in the legislative history to
exclude lab packs from the .land
disposal^ restrictions if they contain
restricted wastes. . '
With respect to means of easing the
administrative burden on lab packs, the
Agency is sympathetic to the concerns
voiced, but lacks the time and resources
(given the pressing statutory deadlines)
to take action in this ralemaking,
particularly when no clearly acceptable
approach is now apparent. The Agency
is thus today soliciting further comment
and data on issues associated with lab
packs. The Agency requests data and
specific suggestion^ supporting
treatment options for lab packs. The
Agency also solicits specific suggestions
on modifications that could be made to
the notification and certification
requirements, in ordet that the_
administrative burdenfor labpacks
might be somewhat relived, while at
. the-same time satisryingNhe "cradle to.
grave" paper trail for ha^rdous wastes
regulated under the land dspoaal
restrictions.
2. Advance Notice of Third Third
Approach
Several comments addressed the
Agency's advance notice of an approach
for regulating the remaining listed and
characteristic hazardous wastes by Mav
8,1990. The Agency appreciates these
comments and suggestions, and will
consider them when proposing land
disposal restrictions for the Third Third
later this year. The Agency will respond
to comments received on the advance'
notice hi the Response to Comments
Document for Third Third wastes.
3. Comments on Stabilization of
Organics
Comments were received in response
to the Agency's request for data on the
effectiveness of stabilization of organic
constituents. The Agency will evaluate
these comments prior to promulgation of
the Third Third final rule.
n. Summary of Today's Fiaai Rule
Today's notice describes the Agency's
final approach to implementing RCRA
section 3004(g) requirements with
respect to certain listed hazardous
wastes included in. 40 CFR 268.11 (as
well as §§ 268.10 and 268.12). The
Agency is required to promulgate
regulations establishing conditions
under which Second Third wastes may
be land disposed by the statutory
deadline of June 8,1989.
A. Applicability of Treatment Standards
Today the Agency is promulgating
. 'treatment standards and effective dates
for only certain Second Third wastes.
Wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.11 for which
EPA does not establish treatment
standards or effective" dates are subject
to the "soft hammer" provisions that .
allow continued land disposal until May
8,1990, or until treatment standards are
promulgated, whichever is sooner (40
CFR 268.8).
The Agency is also promulgating
treatment standards for certain First
Third "soft hammer" wastes, as well as
certain Third Third wastes, to become
effective immediately upon
promulgation. The Third Third wastes
included hi today's final rule were
originally scheduled to be prohibited
from land disposal by May 8,1.990.
These wastes are included in today's
rule because of the similarity of the
Third Third wastes to First or Second
Third waste treatability groups for
which treatment standards are being
promulgated. The Agency maintains that
the original schedule promulgated May
26,1986 (51 FR 19300) is not irrevocable:
the Agency retains a continuing
authority to shift particular.wastes from
. one third of the schedule to another (see
Chemical Waste Management v.EPA,
839 F. 2d 1526,1529 n.2 (D.C.Cir. 1989).
The statutory language likewise
indicates that scheduling decisions are
committed solely to the Agency^s
discretion (RCRA section 3004(g)(3)}i
and that prohibitions need not be
delayed until the end of a scheduling
period to take effect (see, e.g., RCRA
section 3004(g)(lJ: "Not later than
* * *"). Given the Congressional
concern about an expeditious end to
land disposal of untreated hazardous
wastes (see e.g., RCRA sections
1002(b)(7), 1003(5), 3003(6}), it also
makes sense from a policy perspective
to accelerate prohibitions where it is
possible to do so. Thus, the Agency is
not precluded from proposing or
promulgating treatment standards for
any wastes ahead of schedule.
In addition, the Agency is amending .
the schedule so that certain Second
Third wastes are moved to the Third
Third. The Agency is moving
wastewater residues resulting from
certain treatment methods (i.e., metals
recovery, metals precipitation, cyanide
destruction, carbon adsorption, chemical
oxidation, steam stripping,
biodegradatipn, and incineration op
other direct thermal destruction
provided such treatment methods are
well-designed and well-operated) for
which EPA has not promulgated
wastewafer treatment standards. .This
action is being taken in order that
residues from substantial treatment of
these "soft hammer" wastes may be
further treated in land disposal units
that do not meet minimum technology
requirements. As was explained in the
First Third final rule (53 FR 31184), the
Agency fvnds justification for such
action ia that wastes that have
undergone substantial treatment to
levels.that may ultimately satisfy
treatment standards should not be
precluded from further treatment in
polishing os advanced biological
treatmenfjElts (RCRA sections 3005
(j)(3) and ($13)) that are substantially
protective of human health and the
environment
It should Ue noted that the Agency
moved aD multi-source leachate derived
'from most i'sted hazardous wastes to
the Third Third in a final rule
promulgated on February 27,1989 (54 FR
8264). The February 27,1989 rule thus
applies to multi-source leachafe derived
from digs-foal of Second Third listed '
hazardous wastes. This action has the
effect of rescheduling the residues from
treating the leachate and to
contaminated ground/water or soii that
contain sucft leachate. Id. Otherv . .'..>;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. :-54.'.JSIo. 120 / Friday. June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
restricted wastes not initially part of the
leachate that are mixed with it,
however, are not rescheduled and thus
remain subject to all applicable
statutory and regulatory prohibitions. Id.
EPA is today deleting § 208.12(c), as
adopted in the August 17,1988 First
Third regulation. That provision
rescheduled leachate derived from
management of soft hammer wastes to
the Third Third. By rescheduling all
multi-source leachate to the Third Third,
this provision is no longer necessary.
The only leachate to which it would still
apply would be single-source leachate,
and EPA has already determined that all
prohibitions and standards for single-
source leachate should take effect
immediately (see 54 FR 8265, Feb. 27,
1089). Consequently, there is no reason
for this provision to remain in effect.
The Agency is moving Second Third
wastes that are mixed hazardous/
radioactive wastes to the Third Third.
As was explained in the First Third final
rule (53 FR 31147), there are relatively
small volumes of such waste mixtures
being generated, so such waste is more
appropriately addressed in the Third
Third.
B. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BOAT)
Today's final rule defines waste
treatability groups and identifies the
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for each (see
preamble section III.A.). Treatment
standards applicable to each treatability
group are based on the performance
levels achievable by the corresponding
BDAT. Any technology not otherwise
prohibited (i.e., impermissible dilution)
may be used to meet concentration-
based treatment standards. Where
treatment standards are expressed as a
specified technology, the waste must be
treated using the specified technology •
prior to land disposal.
Following are tables listing BDAT for
the wastes for which treatment
standards are promulgated in today's
rule:
Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies for Wastes Included in
Today's Final Rule
L Alkaline cMorination, followed by
precipitation, settling, and sludge
dewatering:
F007 wastewaters
F008 wastewaters
F009 wastewaters
F010 wastewalers
Foil wastcwalers
F012 wastewaters
P013 waslewators
P021 wastewaters
P029 wastewaters
P030 wastewaters
P063 wastewaters
P074 wastewaters • ,
P098 wastewaters
P099 wastewaters
P104 wastewaters
P106 wastewaters
P121 wastewaters
2. Alkaline cMorination, followed by
, precipitation, settling, filtration, and
stabilization of metals:
F006 nonwastewaters
(note: metal standards for this
wastecode were establisehd as part of
the First Third final rule and are not
being repromulgated)
F007 nonwastewaters
F008 nonwastewaters
F009 nonwastewaters
3. Electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chhrination, followed by
precipitation, settling, filtration, and
stabilization of metals:
Foil nonwastewaters
F012 nonwastewaters
P074 nonwastewaters
P099 nonwastewaters
P104 nonwastewaters
4. Electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline cMorination, followed by
precipitation, settling, filtration:
P013 nonwastewaters
P021 nonwastewaters
P029 nonwastewaters
P030 nonwastewaters
P063 nonwastewaters
P098 nonwastewaters
P106 nonwastewaters
P121 nonwastewaters
4. Incineration:
F010 nonwastewaters
F024
K009 nonwastewaters
K010 nonwastewaters
K011 nonwastewaters
K013 nonwastewaters
K014 nonwastewaters
K023
KQ28
K029 nonwastewaters
K038 nonwastewaters
K039 nonwastewaters*
K040 nonwastewaters
K043
K093
K094
K095 nonwastewaters
K096 nonwastewaters
P039 nonwastewaters
P040 nonwastewaters*
P041 nonwastewaters*
P043 nonwastewaters*
P044 nonwastewaters*
P062 nonwastewaters*'
P071 nonwastewaters
P085 nonwastewaters*
P089 nonwastewaters
P094 nonwastewaters
P097 nonwastewaters
P109 nonwastewaters*
Pill nonwastewaters*
U028
U058 nonwastewaters*
U069
U087 nonwastewaters*
U088
U102
U107
U109
U235 nonwastewaters
'Required method of treatment
5. Incineration or fuel substitution:
K027 nonwastewaters*
K113 nonwastewaters*
K114 nonwastewaters*
K115 nonwastewaters*.
K116 nonwastewaters*
U221 nonwastewaters*
U223 nonwastewaters*
*Required method of treatment
6. Carbon adsorption or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological
treatment or chemical oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption and
incineration:
K027 wastewaters*
K039 wastewaters*
K113 wastewaters*
K114 wastewaters*
K115 wastewaters*
K116 wastewaters*
P040 wastewaters*
P041 wastewaters*
P043 wastewaters*
P044 wastewaters*
P062 wastewaters*
P085 wastewaters*
P109 wastewaters*
Pill wastewaters*
UOS8 wastewaters*
U087 wastewaters*
U221 wastewaters*
U223 wastewaters*
*Required method of treatment
7. Biological treatment:
K036 wastewaters
K038 wastewaters
K040 wastewaters
P039 wastewaters
P073 wastewaters
P089 wastewaters
P094 wastewaters
P097 wastewaters
U235 wastewaters -
8. Steam stripping followed by
biological treatment:
K009 wastewaters
K010 wastewaters ;
-------
9. -No land disposal based on no
generation (generated from the process
• in the listing description and disposed
after June 8,1989):
-K005 nonwastewaters
K007 nonwastewaters
10. Stabilization:
K115—nickel - • '
11. No standards for the Second Third
waste codes ("soft hammer"):
K025 wastewaters
K029 wastewaters
K041
K042 •'...;
K095 wastewaters
K096 wastewaters
K097
K098
K105 ' - ' "
P002, POOS, P007i P008, P014, P026, P027,
P049, P054, P057, P060, P066, P067,
P072, P107, P112, P113, P114,
U002, U003, U005, U008, U011, U014,
U015, U020, U021, U023, U025, U028,
U032, U035, U047, U049, U057, U059,
U060, U062, U070, U073, U080, U083,
U092, U093, U094, U095, U097, U098,
U099, U101, U106, U109, UllO, Ulll,
U114, U116, U119, U127, U128, U131,
U135, U138, U140, U142, U143, U144,
U146, U147, U149, U150, U161, U162,
U163, U164, U165, U168, U169, U170,
U172, U173, U174, U176, U178, U179,
U189, U193, U196, U203, U205, U206,
U208, U213, U214, U215, U216, U217,
U218.U239.U244
C. Applicability of Today's Rule to
Class I-H Hazardous Waste Injection
Wells Regulated Under 40 CFR Part 148
The Agency has previously proposed
and promulgated regulations and
effective dates for underground injected
hazardous wastes covered under RCRA
sections 3004(f) and (g) separately from
regulations addressing wastes disposed
in surface facilities. The Agency is today
addressing all methods of land disposal,
including injection wells regulated
jointly under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) and RCRA.
D. Waste Analysis Requirements
The Agency is today finalizing for
Second Third wastes the waste analysis
requirements already promulgated in the
First Third final rule (53 FR 31146).
Where BDAT is a destruction or
removal technology, a total waste
analysis is required because it is tnost
appropriate for measuring such
' des.truction or removal. Similarly, where
• BDAT is identified as an immobilization
technology such as stabilization,
analysis of a TGU* waste extract is
-irequire'd because it is the most
I "appropriate measure "of imrnebili
..,...
ization..
'
In cases where both types of technology
are identified as BDAT, both types of
waste analyses are required.
In order for the initial generator to
determine whether his waste meets the
applicable treatment standard as
generated, he should analyze the total
waste if a treatment standard is hi
§ 288.41, or he should analyze a wasts
extract if the treatment standard is
found in § 268.43. The generator may
also make this determination based on
his knowledge of the waste provided
there is a reasonable basis for doing so
as, for example, the generator using so
little of a key constituent that it could
not be found in the waste at levels
exceeding a treatment standard (51 FR
40597, Nov. 7,1986; and § 268.7(a)).
E. Nationwide Extensions of the
Effective Date
Due to lack of sufficient alternative
protective treatment or recovery
capacity, EPA is granting a national
capacity extension for soil and debris
contaminated with certain waste codes
covered by today's final rule. A two-
year extension,until June 8,1991, is,
granted for soil and debris contaminated
with First, Second, and Third Third
wastes for which treatment standards
promulgated in today's rule are based
upon the performance of incineration.
(See preamble section HI.G.2.)
A capacity variance is also granted
for certain wastes disposed by '
underground injection, A two-year
extension of the effective date, until
June 8,1991, is granted for hazardous
waste codes F007, K009 (wastewaters),
K011 (nonwastewaters), and K013
(nonwastewaters) (see preamble section
ra.c.3.).
EPA has determined to establish an
effective date of July 8,1989 for the
F006—cyanide (nonwastewater)
treatment standard. Although existing
information indicates that the treatment
standard is readily achievable with
existing treatment systems, the delayed
effective date will provide any time
needed for generators to adjust or fine
tune existing treatment systems, or to
enter into contracts with commercial
treaters. At the same time, given the
information showing that well over 90
percent of generators are already
achieving treatment standards and the
existence of excess commercial
treatment capacity (see preamble
section m.C.), EPA does not believe that
the regulated community needs any
longer period to come into compliance
with the new standard (see RCRA
section 3010|;b)(l)). . , :
EPA does not believe that section
3004(h)(l) mandates an jiinmediate :>-• "..'.
effective date for,the cyanide standard
for F006 nonwastewaters. Section
3004(h)(l) applies to prohibitions issued
under sections 3004(d)-(g)- The cyanide
standard is not a prohibition of the
waste (since F006 is already prohibited
under the First Third rule), but rather an
additional treatment standard issued
pursuant to section 3004(m). The general
policy of section 3004(h), however,
provides good cause within the meaning
of section 3010(b)(3) for not delaying the
new standard's effective date for any
more than 30 days.
The Agency is-also delaying the
effective date for 30 days, until July 8,
1989, for F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
has determined that no long term
national capacity variance for these
wastes.is warranted. The extension is
being granted, however, in order to be
cautious and allow tune (if any is truly
needed) for facilities to adjust existing
cyanide treatment processes to operate
more efficiently, or to enter into
contracts with commercial treatment
facilities.
EPA is also granting a 30-day capacity
extension to Foil and F012 wastewaters:
and nonwastewaters, until July 8,1989.
Additionally, for the period between
July 8,1989 and December 8,1989, Foil
and F012 nonwastewaters will be
subject to the same cyanide standards
as the electroplating wastes (i.e., 590
mg/kg for total cyanide and 30 mg/kg
for amenable cyanide). Effective
December 8,1989, however, these
wastes must meet the 110 mg/kg total
cyanide standard and the 9.1 mg/kg
amenable cyanide standard (see
preamble section III.C.1. for further
discussion of the effective dates).
F. Treatment Standards for Prohibited
Wastes that are Mixed with Non-
Prohibited Wastes
Prohibited wastes are not exempted
from the /and disposal prohibitions
when they are mixed with other wastes
(or any other materials, for that matter.)
Were this not the case, land disposal
prohibitions would be without meaning
since they could, be evaded by the
expediSif of mixing with a non-
prohibled waste. (See 54 FR 8265, Feb.
27,198^
Prohibited wastes are sometimes
mixed with other materials in the course
of treatmetA. I the prohibited waste is
no longer capable of being treated to
meet the treatment standard after
mixing, it is possible that an improper
. form'of mixing is occurring. The Agency
•realizes gid acknowledges, however,
.that mixing wastes canibe a normal-part
of treataentjherefpre,; to- -the extent «
that such m|jg[ng occurs and; can be
-------
Federal. Register / Vol. 34,;Ifo. Iffl ..4iPjida;g,; June -23, 1$89 / Rules and Regulations
determined to be a legitimate part of the
treatment process, the mixture could be
dfgtbltrfor a Ireatabllity variance
pursuant to § 208.44. Part of the
demonstration, however, would be
whether mixing has made the prohibited
waste more difficult to treat, and if so,
whether the treatment method utilized is
still legitimate.
It should be evident that intentional
mixing to evade a treatment standard is
Impermissible, and if such intentional
mixing occurs, it never could serve as
grounds for granting a treatability
variance under § 268.44. The Agency
further expects that generators and
treatment facilities would take
reasonable steps to avoid mixing waste
streams that are generated separately if
such mixing is not a legitimate part of
the treatment process. For example, it
would ordinarily be inappropriate to
mix a metal-bearing waste like F006
with a halogenated organic waste like
F024.
The status of mixtures that consist of
multi-source leachate and other non-
Icachate First Third prohibited wastes is
presently controlled by a recent order
filed by the B.C. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit In that
order, the Court left in effect (by mutual
consent of the parties) a judicial stay of
the applicability of the so-called waste
code carry-through principle to multi-
source leachate. The order continues,
"[ajs to anything contaminated both by
leachate and by other first-third
prohibited wastes, the other wastes
must, to the extent technically feasible,
be treated to the applicable treatment
standards. Prohibited wastes
intentionally mixed with leachate for the
purpose of avoiding applicable
treatment standards remain subject to
all of the standards and requirements in
the August 8,1988 rule," Order of April
24,1989 in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, No. 88-1581.
EPA interprets this order in the
following way: First, by requiring that ,
all non-leachate First Third prohibited
wastes be treated "to the extent
technically feasible", the Court made
clear that only technical considerations
are involved in the determination, and*
that the cost of treatment is not a
relevant consideration. (In fact, the
Court amended its earlier order of
September 23.1988, which required
treatment "to the extent feasible", in
response to the government's pleading
that cost could not legally be considered
In determining treatment standards.) Iri
determining whether treatment has
occurred to the extent technically
feasible, H ordinarily would be
necessary to address the possible means
of treating all of the hazardous
constituents in the prohibited waste,
including both organics and inorganics.
Second, all of the parties in their
pleadings to the Court represented that
any mixing of prohibited wastes and
multi-source leachate that occurred after
September 23,1988, the date of the first
amended order entered by the Court
related to this situation, would be
deemed to be mixing with the purpose of
avoiding a treatment standard and that
therefore all applicable treatment
standards w;ould continue to apply to
the non-leachate prohibited waste(s) in
such mixtures. (See Petitioners'
Response of April 13,1989 at pp. 5-6, 8
expressing this understanding, and
Petitioners' Supplemental Response of
April 24,1989 characterizing language
suggested by petitioners that documents
this understanding as stating that
"restricted wastes in such mixtures
occurring on or after the date of
amendment of the stay order will have
to be treated to the'applicable treatment
standards, notwithstanding the presence
in the mixture of multi-source
leachates.") Consequently, any
prohibited waste that was mixed with
multi-source leachate after September
23,1988 remains subject to treatment
standards.
EPA believes that any person seeking
to dispose of a leachate-non-leachate
First Third prohibited waste mixture
would have the burden of demonstrating
that the mixture has been treated to the
extent technically feasible. This is
because that person would be claiming
an exception to a remedial statutory
scheme, see, e.g., SEC v. Ralston Purina
Co., 346 U.S. 119,126 (1953), and in
addition would be in possession of facts
within its special knowledge. The
Agency notes in addition that States
could evaluate the validity of an "extent
technically feasible" claim only if the
State is authorized to administer the
land disposal prohibition regulations.
Since no State is so authorized at the
present time, any regulatory
concurrence would have to come from
EPA.
EPA believes it important that the
Court's order not be used as a means to
evade technically achievable treatment
standards. Therefore, the Agency
recommends careful evaluation of any
claim that one of these mixtures has
been treated to the extent technically
feasible. In addition, the Agency-
recommends that EPA headquarters
personnel be notified of such claims in
order to assist in the technical
determination and in order to have
technology-based determinations of
waste treatability be as consistent as
possible.
G. Rationale for Immediate Effective
Date
The regulations promulgated today
will be effective immediately except
where the Agency has specified a
national extension of the effective date
or otherwise specified an alternative
effective date. HSWA requires that
today's regulations become effective on
or before the June 8,1989 effective date
of the restrictions on the second 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)(B) take effect
automatically on June 8,1989. 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
capacity extension or a case-by-case
extension) or a "no migration" finding
has been made. Hence, June 8,1989 is
the latest date for EPA to promulgate
regulations that will prevent the "soft
hammer" in section 3004(g) from
becoming effective for all Second Third
wastes.
Section 3004(h) requires that
regulations established under sections
3004 (d), (3), (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 June 8,1989. Since the
statute clearly states that the regulations
implementing section 3004(g) must go
into effect on or before June 8,1989 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
exists under section 554(d)(3) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
section 553(d)(3), to waive the
requirements that regulations be ..
published at least 30 days before the
effective date. ., , • •
c1:,, , :.,„ f,,i :i :. — „ v „
;!"•:;,«,1 "ill!! !''l;il*' ''"'"''''IIJ'''"'''"'''*" '"'|
.,; •;.,:;.
i&MBtl I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 3.20 /Friday, June 23,1989 /-Rules and Regulations'
26603•
III. Detailed Discussion of Today's Rule
A. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards
Today's rule promulgates BDAT
treatment standards for many Second
Third wastes, some First Third wastes ,
for which land disposal has been
previously restricted according to the
"soft hammer" provisions, and several
Third Third wastes. Sections HI.A.I.
through III.A.11. of the January 11,1989
Proposed Rule [54 FR 1062-1104)
presented discussions on the
determination of treatability groups and
the development of treatment standards
for RGRA hazardous wastes. Sections
IH.A.1. through III.A.7. (54 FR 1062-1065)
presented an overview of the general
procedures that the Agency follows for
these determinations. A detailed
discussion of the methodology for
identification of BDAT is provided in the
November 7,1986 Final Rule for
Solvents and Dioxins [51 FR 40572). The
Agency specifically stated that it did not
reopen the issues presented in these
sections for public comment, but merely
restated the Agency's position on these
issues in order to save readers the
trouble of referring to earlier documents.
The same is true for most of the
reiterated discussions in today's
preamble. However, the Agency is also
adding a clarifying discussion of certain
issues, particularly the comparison of
.treatment standards to Practical
Quantitation Limits (PQLs), and,the use
, of grab and composite samples for
.. purposes of establishing and enforcing ;
treatment standards. .• .' -, i;; ',; - -
1. Clarification of the General %
Applicability of BDAT
.• • :... • ' • ' ,.. • i :.•• t;. ';•,••. :••>•*•.«•,;•.•.--.•.••"-
a. Wastewater.versus nonwcistewgter
' standards'. The te^atjn'ent/standards in, \-
' today's rule are generally expressed, as .
- cdnstituent cpncehtratidns' for , ,
\ :i'wa§tew'aters" and for ,; . /
" "honwastewaters'SThe treatment
.standards apply to the prohibited waste
as well as td all residuals generated by
treating the original prohibited Waste.
Therefore, solids generated from ,
treatment of a particular waste must
; meet the nonwastewater treatment
standards and wastewaters generated
from treatment of this waste muslmeet
the wastewater treatment standards.
Section III.A.3.(f.) and (h.) of today's rule
provides a discussion of the
applicability of treatment stpcfa.rds to
• treatment residuals where BDAT is
established as a method of treatment
rather than as numerical concentration-
based standards. §
For purposes of this rule, foe Agency
defines wastewaters as those wastes
(listed wastes, including wastes
generated as a result of the "mixture"
and "derived-from" rules) that contain
less than 1% total organic carbon (TOG)
and less than 1% total suspended solids,
except for those wastes identified as
FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 solvent-
water mixtures. See 53 FR 31145 (August
17,1988) adopting this definition for
First Third wastes and 51 FR 40579
(November 7; 1986) for the definition of
FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 solvent-
Water mixtures. Those wastes (listed
wastes, including wastes .that are .
hazardous as a result of the "mixture"
and "derived-from" rules) that do not
meet these criteria are defined as
rionwastewaters and thus would contain
greater than or equal to \% TOG, or
greater than or equal to 1% total
suspended solids. It is not permissible 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). (See 52 FR 21012 (June 4,
1987); but see 52 FR 25767 (June 8,1987)
noting special circumstances when
California list wastes are involved).
Dewatering technologies (such as
filtration and centrifugation) that are
designed to separate wastewater from
nonwastewaters are not prohibited.
b. Analytical requirements and
relationship of PQLs to BDAT, For all
wastes in today's rule, BDAT has been
identified as a-destruction technology
for all of the organic constituents and for'
cyanides. The corresponding treatment
standards for these constituents are -
based on the analysis of total .'.."'
concentration. Since these technologies
are specifically designed to destroy the
organics and cyanides, the Agency
maintains that the best measure of
treatment performance is the one that "-'
reflects the extent to which these
organics and cyanides have been
' destroyed. '-;•', :
Note: The land disposal restrictions for
solvent waste codes F001-F005 (51 FR 40572)
require the analysis of TCLP extracts as a
measure of performance. At the time that the
treatment standards for F001-F005 were
promulgated, useful data were not available
on total constituent concentrations in treated
residuals and, as a result, the TCLP was
considered to be the best available measure
of performance.
In cases where treatment standards
for metals in nonwastewaters .are based
on stabilization, the use of the TCtP is
required as a measure of the
performance of the treatment
technology. The Agency maintains that
where data are available, the TCLP data
best reflect the extent to which the
mobility of these metals can be
minimized. Where treatment standards:. "
fornonwastewaters are based on
multiple treatment processes due to the
presence of organics and metals, the
waste has to meet both total constituent
concentrations for organics and TCLP
concentrations for metals prior to land
disposal.
The Agency evaluates all BDAT list
constituents when establishing
treatment standards. This list of
chemicals was derived from the
constituents listed hi 40 CFR Part 261
Appendix VII and Appendix VIII. The
rationale for selection of the particular
constituents to be regulated can be
found in the background document for
each waste or waste treatability group.
The Agency believes that it is not
restricted to regulating only those
constituents for which a waste is listed
(40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VII). This is
appropriate given that Appendix VII,
setting forth the constituents that were
the basis for listing, is not an exhaustive
list of hazardous constituents in each
waste, and was never intended to be.
(See RCRA section 3001(f), a provision
designed to force EPA to consider
hazardous constituents other than those
for which the waste was listed when
evaluating delisting petitions. Section
3001(f) thus acknowledges that
Appendix VH is only a partial list of the
hazardous constituents that can be
present in a listed waste.)
EPA has been asked a number of
questions about the relationship of
BDAT treatment standards to the
practical quantitan'on limits (PQLs) for a
number pf constituents. In response, it is
important to clarifytie definition of
PQLs, their intended use, and their
relationshipi to BDAT treatment '.-':,.;: • ;'
standards. : ''."•..••. '.
In the September, 1986, edition of S,W-
846 (Volume IB, Chapter 1, p. 1-9), the ':.
Agency defines PQLs as follows: "-The,
practical quantitatidn limit '(PQL) is the: i
lowest level .that can be reliably
achieved within the specified limits of ;. j
precision* and accuracy during routine:
laboratory operating conditions."
Further, in Method 8250 of SW-846 (the
analytical method for determination of
semivolatile organics. in wa'stes by.gas \
chromatography/mass spectrometry). the
Agency states "Sample PQLs are highly
matrix-dependent. The PQLs listed :
herein are provided for.guidance and:
may notialways be achievable" [Ibid, • • •.
Table 2, p. 8250-5), and further defines
PQLs. as the method detection limit
(from Table 1, p. 8250-2, 3, and 4)
multiplied by a matrix dependent factor !
that was estimated for four matrices •
(Table 2, p. 8250-5).
As evident from the above citations, '•
the Agency recognizes the importance of- f
the dependency of the waste matrix to -. '
-------
26604
Federal Register / Vol. 54K.No. 12Q,,/ Friday, June 23, 1989 /.Rules and Regulations
the level of PQLs obtainable. The
Agency also recognizes that PQLs listed
In SW-848 are not always achievable
for constituents as measured in
untreated wastes. However, the Agency
points out that the levels of PQLs are
directly related to the amount of
interferences that are present in the
different waste matrices. Most treatment
processes, particularly destructive
technologies such as incineration, do not
destroy only the hazardous constituents
of the waste. They destroy other
organica present that typically interfere
with the analysis for constituents in
untreated wastes. Thus, PQLs are
typically significantly lower for
treatment residuals such as incinerator
ash than for untreated wastes. These
differences in PQLs for untreated and
treated wastes are demonstrated in
almost every BDAT background
document where incineration has been
established as BDAT.
With respect to the use of PQLs, the
Agency points out that PQLs were
established as a means of guidance for
analysis of waste samples and were
intended to act as minimum
performance criteria for analytical
laboratories. They do not necessarily
represent the lowest limits of achievable
analytical performance for any given
waste. They were also intended to be
broadly applied to groups of wastes. The
matrix dependent correction factors
were not developed for any particular
waste code, and as listed in Table 2
(cited above) do not specifically apply
to any particular treatment residuals
(i.e., Table 2 only lists correction factors
for matrices identified as ground water,
low-level soil, high-level soil, and non-
water miscible waste). Further, the
Agency is currently in the process of
modifying and expanding these matrix
correction factors, as well as modifying
the detection limits from which the PQLs
are derived.
The major point of confusion
regarding PQLs is that the PQLs noted in
SW-848 for some constituents are higher
than some of the promulgated treatment
standards. This apparent anomaly
results primarily from the fact that the
PQLs in SW-848 were not based on
testing the matrices that were tested in
developing the treatment standards. The
treatment standards for a given waste
code, in contrast, are based on
analytical testing of the residuals from
the treatment of that waste (or in some
cases, a similar waste from which the
treatment standards are transferred).
Thus, the resulting treatment standards
appropriately reflect the level of
analytical performance achievable for
(hat waste.
Other commenters questioned
whether constraints posed by the limits
of applicable analytic methods allow the
treatment standards to be met on a
reliable, routine basis. The Agency
points out that the laboratories used in
the development of the BDAT standards
are themselves reliable and must
maintain compliance with all QA/QC
requirements on a routine basis. Further,
the background documents for all
wastes for which incineration has been
established as BDAT, indicate a
consistency of the laboratories in
obtaining low detection limits for the
regulated constituents in these wastes,
thus providing additional support that
these treatment standards are
achievable on a routine and reliable
basis.
In cases where a facility believes that
particular, waste-specific treatment
standards cannot be obtained due to the
inability of their laboratory to achieve ,
PQLs below the treatment standards on
certain treatment residuals, the facility
may submit a petition for a variance
from those particular treatment'
standards for that particular waste or
wastes. In such a case, the facility must
demonstrate that the analyses are in
compliance with all other BDAT QA/QC
provisions and that 'the treatment
process is a well-designed and well-
operated BDAT process. (As outlined in
the BDAT Generic Quality Assurance
Project Plan (EPA/530-SW-87-011,
March 1987), the Agency may also use
analytical methods for setting treatment
standards that are not specifically
identified in SW-846, provided that the
methods comply with all appropriate
detection limits, spike/surrogate
recoveries, and other quality assurance
criteria.)
c. Restrictions on the use of
technologies identified as BDAT. All of
the treatment standards expressed as
concentrations of specific constituents
in the waste reflect performance
achieved by the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT). As such,
compliance with these standards only
requires that these concentrations
(treatment levels) be achieved prior to
land disposal. The standard generally
does not require or restrict the use of
any particular treatment technology to
achieve these levels. The Agency
emphasizes that the technologies
identified as BDAT (for those wastes
with only concentration-based
standards) are simply those
technologies that EPA utilized to
develop the waste specific
concentration-based performance
standards. The waste need not be
treated by that specific technology. Any
treatment, Including recycling or any
combination of treatment technologies,
unless prohibited (such as impermissible
dilution), can be used to achieve these
concentration-based standards unless
that technology is defined as land
disposal [i.e., land treatment).
Treatment standards promulgated
today are expressed as numerical
concentration levels, with a few
•exceptions. Because of difficulties
associated with analysis of specific
Constituents in wastes from the
production of toluene diisocyanate
(K027, K113, K114, K115, K116, U221 and
U223) and certain organophosphorus
pesticides (K039, P040, P041, P043, P044,
P062, P085, P109, Pill, U058 and U087),
some treatment standards in today's
rule are expressed as a technology
rather than as a concentration-based
standard (see sections III.A.3.(f.) and
HI.A.3.[h.)). In addition, treatment
standards for K005 and K007 wastes that
are generated from the process
described in the listing for these waste
codes (rather than derived from
residuals from prior disposal of these
wastes) are expressed as "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" (see
section m.A.3.(c.)).
In situations where wastes subject to
concentration-based standards are
mixed with wastes subject to treatment
standards that are specified
technologies, the mixture would have to
be treated by the specified BDAT
method, and would have to meet the
concentration-based treatment
standards for any other prohibited
wastes that are contained in the matrix.
See generally 53 FR 31146-147 (August
17,1988).
It may not be appropriate to apply the
specified technology to every mixture
that contains the .waste subject to that
technology. However, EPA has
structured the final rule in a way that
the technology specified as BDAT is
likely to be appropriate for the types of
mixtures that are most likely to be
encountered in the near term application
of this rule.
For example, EPA has specified
incineration or fuel substitution as the
treatment technology for certain wastes
prohibited by today's regulation. The
most likely mixture for which these
technologies might be inappropriate is
contaminated soil and debris. In today's
rule, however, EPA is granting a two-
year national capacity variance for soil
and debris for those wastes where
BDAT has been specified as
incineration. Multi-source leachate
might also be contaminated with these
wastes, but EPA has deferred standards
for such leachates until the Third Third.
-------
Federal Regigter / 'Vol. 54,
jvtn'e_ j3' 1989 / Rules ;and Regulations
v-26805
See 54 FR 8264 (February 27,1989). EPA
also notes that in other situations it may
be inappropriate for multi-waste
mixtures to be treated by the specified
treatment methods which are
demonstrated treated methods for most
wastes that contain organic
contaminants. Given the lack of
immediate applicability to soil and
debris and multi-source leachate, the
Agency does not believe that there are
may other situations where the
promulgated treatment standards would
prove inappropriate. However for those
situations, the treatability variance in 40
CFR 268.44 is available.
d. Applicability of treatment
standards to treatment residues
identified as "derived-from " wastes.
BOAT typically consists of a treatment
operation, or series of operations, that
generate additional waste residues. For
example, the BDAT for K001
nonwastewaters is incineration
followed by stabilization. (See 53 FR
31153 (August 17,1988).) Incineration
generates two residues that may require
further treatment, namely ash and
scrubber waters. Treatment of scrubber
waters to remove metals may generate
additional inorganic residues also
requiring stabilization. Ultimately these
additional wastes (i.e.; treatment
residues) may be land disposed, so they
must meet the same standards as the
stabilized ash. With respect to these
additional wastes, the Agency
emphasizes that all residues from
treating the original listed waste are
likewise considered to be the listed
waste by virtue of the "derived-from."
rule contained in 40 CFR 261.3(c){2).
Consequently, all wastes generated in". ,
th§ course of treatment-are; prohibited
fromJand disposal unless, they comply
'with the treatment standard or are
otherwise exempted from the
prohibition through a no-migration
petition or by a capacity variance.
The Agency is, however, developing .
"de minimis" levels forcertain ....:
hazardous constituents in listed wastes
below which the waste will no longer be
a hazardous waste for purposes of
Subtitle C regulation. At this time, EPA
has not proposed these "de minimis"
levels. In addition, the Agency has not
pompleted its evaluation of the
regulations that would be impacted by
these "de minimis" levels—in particular,
their relationship to BDAT treatment
standards. ' '
e. Transfer of treatment-standards.
Some treatment standards are not based
on testing the performance of BDAT on
the specific waste subject to the
treatment standard. Rather, in certain
instances, the Agency examines
similarities in waste characteristics and
constitutents and determines whether
the treatment standards can be
transferred. EPA believes that
transferring treatment performance data
to establish, standards for untested
wastes or constitutents is technically
. Valid when the untested wastes are
generated from similar industries and/or
similar processing steps or when the
constituents have similar chemical and.,
physical properties. Transfer of
treatment standards to wastes from
similar processing steps involves
relatively minimal amount of analysis
because of the likelihood that the
production processes will produce a
waste matrix with similar
characteristics.
In cases where only the industry is
similar, EPA closely examines the waste
characteristics prior to concluding that
the untested waste constitutents can be
treated to levels associated with tested
wastes. EPA reviews the available
waste characteristic data to identify
those parameters which are expected to
affect treatment selection. Some of the
most important constitutents, as well as
other parameters, are identified to
facilitate the selection of the appropriate
~ treatment technology for a given waste.'
When the analysis suggests that the
untested waste can be treated with the
same technology as a waste for which
treatment performance data are already .
available, a more detailed list of
constituents is analyzed to identify the
most important.waste characteristics
which the Agency believes will affect
the performance of the technology. By
examining and comparing these
characteristics, the Agency determines
whether the untested wastes will
achieve the same level of treatment as
the tested waste. Where the Agency
determines that the untested waste can
be treated to the same concentration-
based levels as well as the tested waste,
the treatment standards can be
transferred. A detailed discussion of this
transfer process can be found in the
BDAT background documents for each
waste or waste treatability group.
f. Treatment standards based on
single facility data and grab samples
versus composite samples. As discussed
previously in the August 17,1989 final
rule for First Third wastes, the Agency
believes that Ihe use of a small number
of data sets from a single treatment
facility can be representative of the
treatment achieved by the particular
treatment system. This is particularly
true when no other treatment data is
available, or when data exist but there
is no verification that the treatment
process from which the data was -
obtained was well-designed or well-
operated. It is not possible for .the
Agency to sample every facility
generating the waste or every treatment
system treating the waste. For the
purposes of determining BDAT
treatment standards, the Agency has
established a procedure and
methodology for selecting particular •
facilities and treatment systems that it
considers to be wellrdesigned and well-
oeprated (53 FR 31138). The Agency also
selects wastes that are representative of
those most difficult to treat.
The Agency recognizes that there are
certain variabilities inherent to every
treatment system as well as a certain
amount of variability in the
characteristics of the wastes. In the
calculation of the treatment standards,
the Agency accounts for these by
multiplying the mean of the
concentration of the constituents to be
regulated by a correction factor known
as the variability factor. This factor is
derived utilizing a quantitative
procedure that determines the statistical
99th percentile for the treatment
standard. This results in the ; ~--
establishment of a treatment standard
that is believed to be achievable 99
percent of the time by a well-designed;
well-operated system.
The Agency further accounts for
variability due to analytical
reproducibility by adjusting the -r
treatment standard for the analytic^:!
recovery data for constituents. In
addition, fee Agency performs all
analyses of hazardous constituents used
in the development of the treatment
performance data, in accordance with
an established quality assurance/
quality control plan (as outlined in the
BDAT Generic Quality Assurance
Project Plan).
Where performance data exist based
on both the analysis of composite
samples and on the analysis of grab
samples, .tie Agency establishes the
treatment standards based on the
analysis of grab samples. There are two
principal reasons for this* It is normally
easier and more expeditious, for EPA to
enforce on &e basis of grab samples. In
addition, grab samples normally reflect
maximum process variability, and thus.
would reasonably characterize the
ranges of treatment system performance.
In cases where only composite data
exist, the Agency considers the QA/QC
of the data, the inherent efficiency of the
process design, and the level of
performance achieved; The Agency may
then choose to use this composite data
to develop the treatment standard.
Where this data is used to establish the •
treatment standard, the treatment
-------
VlW'ie a;«Y!:tRJJ.Mft lift
26606 Federal Register
\ i«!*t IS 970! .unf.h'J 1 P*' .oVf .*? "oV "
54. No.^120 / Friday, June 23^ 1989 / Rules and Regulations
standard is identified as based on
analysis of a composite sample.
Enforcement of that standard thus
would also be based on composite
samples.
An individual facility's waste analysis
Elan will provide the basis for that
tcility's compliance monitoring. This
plan must be adequate to assure
compliance with Part 268. However, a
facility remains strictly liable for
meeting the treatment standards, so that
if it disposes of a waste that does not
meet a treatment standard, it is in
violation of the land disposal'
restrictions regulations. If the facility
complied with its waste analysis plan, it
would not be in violation of the waste
analysis plan provisions. Put another
way, a waste analysis plan cannot
immunize land disposal of prohibited
wastes, although such plans may be
written to authorize types of sampling
and monitoring different from those
used to develop the treatment
siandard(s).
If a waste analysis plan were to
authorise a different mode of sampling
or monitoring, there would need to be a
dcBurasttatlon that the plan [and the
specific deviating feature) is adequate to
assure compliance with Part 268 (see 40
CFR 264.13(a}). This might require, for
example, a demonstration of statistical
equivalence between a composite
sampling protocol and one based on
grab sampling, or a demonstration of
why monitoring for a subset of
pollutants would assure compliance of
those not monitored. (EPA repeats that
enforcement of the rule is based on the
treatment standard, not the facility's
wasje analysis plan, so that
enforcement officials would normally
take grab samples and analyze for all
constituents regulated by the applicable
treatment standards.)
2. Second Third Wastes From Specific
Sources for Which BDAT Standards are
not Promulgated in Today's Rule
K019 and K02S wastes were originally
scheduled to be examined as part of the
Second Third rulemaking. However,
EPA promulgated treatment standards
for these wastes in the First Third Qnal
rule on August 8,1988 (53 FR 31155,
31158 and 31174 (August 17,1988)).
.Concentration-bused treatment
standards, based on the performance of
rotary kiln incineration, were
promulgated for the wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K019 and a
treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" was
promulgated for nonwastewater forms
of K025. EPA recently amended the
standard for K025 nonwastewaters so
that it applies only to wastes generated
from the process description in the
listing of K025 wastes and that are
disposed after August 17,1988. See 54
FR 18836 (May 2,1989).
EPA did not promulgate treatment
standards for the K025 wastewaters on
August 8,1988. The "soft hammer"
provisions, however, did not apply
because K025 wastes were originally
scheduled in the Second Third. The
Agency is not promulgating treatment
standards for these wastewaters in -
today's rule (i.e., prior to their statutory
deadline); therefore, land disposal of
K025 wastewaters is now restricted
according to the "soft hammer"
provisions in 40 CFR 268.8. EPA is
presenting this information in today's
preamble as a matter of convenience, in
order to show treatment standards for
all of the Second Third wastes. EPA did
not reopen the comment period on the
promulgated concentration-based
treatment standards for K019 wastes or
on the promulgated "No Land Disposal
Based on No Generation" standards for
K025 nonwastewaters.
The Agency has not completed its
evaluation of BDAT for Second Third
wastes identified as K029 wastewaters,
K095 wastewaters, K096 wastewaters,
nonwastewater and wastewater forms
of K041, K042, K097, K098, K105 as well
as certain other Second Third wastes
identified with a "U" or "P" waste code.
Therefore, the Agency is not
promulgating treatment standards for
these wastes in today's rule. Since the
Agency is not promulgating standards
for these Second Third wastes by their
statutory deadline, land disposal of
these wastes is regulated by the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
The Agency believes that the majority of
these "soft hammer" wastes, as
generated, are nonwastewaters
containing relatively high
concentrations of chlorinated prganics.
In addition, EPA believes that the
majority of these wastes contain high
enough concentrations of halogenated
organics (greater than 0.1%), that they
are already restricted from land disposal
as Halogenated Organic Compounds
(HOCs) under the California List Rule.
Treatment standards for some
wastewater or nonwastewater forms of
other Second Third wastes have not
been promulgated in today's rule. An
explanation of each can be found in the
discussion of treatment standards for
the appropriate treatability group in the
ensuing section (HI.A.3.) of today's
preamble.
3. Treatment Standards and Responses
to Major Comments for All Wastes
Proposed With the Second Third Wastes
This section of today's rule discusses
treatment standards for all wastes and
waste treatability groups proposed in
the Second Third proposal. This
includes many of the Second Third
wastes, some of the First Third wastes
that were, until today, regulated under
the "soft hammer" provisions, and some
Third Third wastes for which the
Agency decided to promulgate
restrictions ahead of schedule. A more
detailed explanation of the Agency's
action is found in relevant background
documents and response to comment
documents which are part of the
administrative record to this rule.
a. Cyanide wastes. Today's rule
promulgates treatment standards for
many wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of RCRA hazardous wastes that
contain cyanides. Wastes containing
cyanides are generated primarily by
facilities performing operations such as
electroplating (generating F006, F007,
F008 and F009 wastes), heat treating
(F010, F011 and F012), chemical
conversion coating of aluminum (F019),
other metal finishing, and acrylonitrile
production (K011, K013 and K014).
Facilities in these industries as well as
others can also generate cyanide wastes
listed as P013, P021, P029, P030, P003,
P074, P098, P099, P104, P106 and/or P121.
Wastes designated with these "P" codes
are typically discarded, out-of-date, or
off-specification chemicals used by
these industries. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these "F" and "K"
wastes and background on the specific
chemical represented by the "P" waste..
codes can be found in the background
documents for the listing of these
wastes.
The same industries often generate
other reactive cyanide wastes identified
simply as D003 wastes (as defined in 40
CFR 261.23(a)(5)). Today's rule,
.however, does not promulgate treatment
standards for these D003 wastes.
In the )anuary 11,1989 proposed rule,
the Agency defined three subcategories
of cyanide wastes from the metal
finishing industry: Metal Finishing
Aqueous Liquids, Metal Finishing
Organic Liquids, and Metal Finishing
Sludges. The Agency has re-examined
the need for these subcategories and
believes they are unnecessary for the
establishment of separate treatment
standards. Rather, the Agency has
decided that presentation of the
treatment standards on a waste code
basis (according to the wastewater and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations,
26007
nonwa'slewater forms of the waste)
provides a significant distinction of the
treatability groups.
The treatment standards for all of
these cyanide wastes are based on
testing performed by the Agency or on
testing performed by the commercial
hazardous waste treatment industry.
Additional performance data were
submitted during the comment period.
Analysis of these dates support the
positions of many of the commenters (as
well as the Agency). EPA has
determined that the use of these data to
promulgate revised treatment standards
for many of the, cyanide wastes is
, technically justified. The Agency
provided notice of these additional data
(that provide the basis for many of the
final treatment standards for cyanides)
by sending a letter to all persons •
submitting initial comments on the issue
of cyanide treatability. This letter
included: (1) A copy of the additional
data on the treatment of cyanide that
was received by the Agency; (2) a notice
of the anticipated changes in the ,
appropriate treatment standards; and (3)
a request for additional comments. All
of this information, including the
Agency's response to the additional
comments, have been placed in the
administrative record for today's rule.
The treatment standards for total
cyanides, amenable cyanides, and '
organics (i.e., those in K011, K013, and
K014) were developed based on the
performance of destructive technologies
such as alkaline chlorination,
electrolytic oxidation, wet air oxidation
and/or incineration. The treatment
standards for metals are based on the
performance of technologies such as
hexavalentchromium reduction, lime or
sulfide precipitation, filtration, and
stabilization. Other treatment
technologies that can achieve these
concentration-based treatment
standards are not precluded from use by
this rule (see the detailed discussion on
the use of alternative technologies in
section III.A.l.(c) of today's rule). The
specific regulated constituents and
treatment standards for each waste
code are listed in the tables at the end of
such section according to the '
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of the waste.
1. Comments with general
applicability to cyanide wastes. This
section discusses the Agency's response
to those comments that pertain to all or
many of the cyanide wastes. This
includes comments on the following:
precision of the analytical methods for
amenable and total cyanides;
.establishment of alkaline chlorination
. versus electrolytic oxidation as BDAT;
ihe forcing of pretreatment by BDAT;
effects of iron-cyanide complexes on
cyanide treatability; potential
stabilization of cyanides; and use of the
TCLP for development of alternative
leachable cyanide standards.
i. Precision of analytical methods.
Several commenters had serious
reservations regarding the precision and
accuracy of the analysis for total and
amenable cyanides in nonwastewaters.
They pointed out that the reproducibility
(i.e., precision) of the analytical method
for analyzing total cyanide in
nonwastewaters (using the official test
methods of the Office of Solid Waste
ie., EPA Publication SW-846) exceeded
the proposed standard for amenable
cyanides in nonwastewaters. Analysis
of amenable cyanide involves two
measurements of total cyanides, i.e., one
analysis of total cyanide before and one
after a laboratory alkaline chlorination
step. The Agency has re-examined the
data used to develop the treatment
standards for amenable cyanides.
Although the Agency maintains the
overall validity of these analytical
methods, it agrees, in part, with the
commenters that at certain levels of
total cyanides the reproducibility of the
analytical method may indeed exceed
the standards for amenable cyanide as
originally proposed. Thus, the Agency
has recalculated the standards for
amenable cyanides, and in doing so has
taken into account the reproducibility of
the analytical method for total cyanides.
The standards presented in today's rule
have been developed based on these ,
calculations. Details on the recalculation
of the amenable cyanide standards for
each waste treatability group are
provided in the background document
for cyanide wastes.
ii. Alkaline chlorination versus
electrolytic oxidation. Several
commenters questioned whether an
electrolytic oxidation treatment system,
'typically a batch "process, could be
implemented in a continuous
wastewater treatment process The
commenters explained that most
electroplating job shops that generate
F006.F007, F008, and F009 wastes
employ a continuous alkaline
chlorination process as part of their
wastewater treatment process. The
commenters further stated that they
could not possibly retrofit existing
facilities by June 8,1989, the
promulgation date of this rule.
The commenters' point was addressed
chiefly to F006 wastes. However, the
comment no longer has applicability for
F006 wastes (nor for F007, F008 or F009)
because electrolytic oxidation is no
longer the technology basis for the final; .
cyanide standards for these waste
codes. Rather, for these wastes, "the
promulgated BDAT treatment standards
are based on the performance of
alkaline chlorination, without
electrolytic oxidation.
The Agency has determined that
electrolytic oxidation is applicable
primarily as a pretreatment step,-
particularly when cyanide
concentrations in the raw waste are
quite high (several percent, at least). It is
part of the basis for final treatment
standards only for waste codes F011 and
F012 nonwastewaters and certain
discarded commercial chemical
products (i.e., those cyanide wastes
identified with a "P").
In addition, the Agency reemphasizes
that where BDAT treatment standards
are expressed as concentration limits, it
is not required to use technologies
identified as BDAT. Other treatment
technologies that can achieve these
concentration-based standards are not
precluded from use by this rule. Further
discussion on the restrictions on the use
of technologies identified as BDAT can
be found in section III.A.l.(c.) of this
rule.
iii. Pretreatment standards. According
to 40 CFR 261.31, F008, F012 and F019,
wastes are specifically listed as
wastewater treatment sludges (Note: at
this time the Agency is not promulgating
treatment standards for F019 wastes as
discussed in section HI.A.l.(c.)(4.)).
Many commenters stated that by
establishing treatment standards for
cyanides in these wastes, the Agency is
requiring pretreatment (of the cyanides)
before the listed waste is generated.
They assert that the Agency lacks the
authority to take such action under
RCRA.
EPA rejects the view that the
statutory language of HSWA precludes
the approach adopted today. The statute
requires EPA to establish treatment
standards "which substantially diminish
the. toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
* * *•" (section 3004(m)(l)). Alkaline
chlorination of aqueous cyanide streams
is a standard method of treatment that
destroys cyanides, and thus
substantially diminishes the toxicity of
the wastewater treatment sludge,
thereby satisfying this-statutory
requirement. In addition, Congress
focused specifically on the treatment of
cyanides in promulgating the 1984
amendments and indicated that
"(destruction of total cyanides should
be required as a precondition to land .
disposal." 130 Cong. Rec: S 9179 (daily
ed. July 25,-1984) (Statement of Senator ,
-------
Federal Register /.Vol. 54, ^0.420,/ti Friday.,- June. 23, 4089.-:/ Rules and Regulations
Chttffee explaining the amendment
which became section 3004(mJ).
Cyanides in these wastes are
customarily destroyed by treating
aqueous wastestreams. Given the
evident Congressional purpose of the
land disposal restriction provisions, and
the specific Congressional intention
(quoted above) that cyanides be
destroyed, EPA believes that Congress
was not concerned whether cyanides
were destroyed before or after the listed
waste technically is generated, but
wither was concerned with the cyanide
content in the waste when disposed.
Consequently, it is reasonable for the
Agency to develop a standard which is
achievable by treating cyanides before
the Hated waste is generated. (EPA
emphasizes, however, that cyanide
traiitment does not require any change
to the manufacturing process. It may in
certain cases involve changes in
treatment of wastewaters from the
manufacturing processes.)
Commenters also stated that the
BDAT technology studied by the Agency
was not based on the treatment of
waalewater treatment sludges and that
the technology could not be applied to
F006, F012 orF019 after generation
particularly when the wastewater
treatment processes included a
dcivatcring step. They asserted that
after dewatering, the wastewater
treatment sludges have high solid
content (approximately 40-60%) and as
a result, could not be processed through
the systems EPA determined to be
BDAT. The Agency maintains that the
BDAT technologies can be applied prior
to the dewatering step or can be applied
after dewatering by slurrying the waste
with water. In this case, the dewatering
step would probably only be performed
in order to reduce the volume of these
wastes prior to transportation to a
treatment and disposal facility. Indeed,
one of the commercial facilities that,
treat cyanide wastes informed EPA that
some solid cyanide wastes were being
dissolved and slurried prior to treatment
through the BDAT process (after which
treatment they are able to meet the
cyanide treatment standards). While the
Agency does not believe that slurrying
these wastes is necessarily the most
cost-effective way to perform alkaline
chlorinaUon (or other cyanide
treatment), this treatment option
remains available. In addition,
generators of these sludges need not
dewater them but .rather may send the
high water content sludges to alkaline
chlorinaUon. In either of these
situations, cyanide treatment would be
performed on the listed waste itself.
- '•-'-• :-. a t-rr •"- Ml III |
The Agency also points out that this
"pretreatment" argument appears
academic, in that many of the wastes
and wastewaters entering the
wastewater treatment process that
generate F006, F012 and F019 are
already RCRA hazardous wastes or are
mixed with hazardous wastes (such as
F007, F008, F009, F010, and/or Foil). In
these situations, EPA would be applying
treatment standards to a cyanide-
containing hazardous waste already .
generated, and in most cases, the
cyanide standard would be the same as
for F006.
In conclusion, the commenter's
arguments regarding "pretreatment"
appear artificial, and may have no
practical consequences. The Agency
maintains that these BDAT technologies
are applicable to these wastes and thus
is promulgating the appropriate
treatment standards for cyanides.
iv. Treatment of iron-cyanide
complexes. As stated hi the proposed
rule and the proposed cyanide
background document, the Agency
believed that the F011 and F012 wastes
that were treated by the Agency had
similar chemical characteristics as F006,
F007, F008, F009, and F019 wastes, and
therefore believed that the performance
of the treatment system of electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination could be transferred to
these wastes. Many commenters stated
that EPA's performance data for
electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination for total and
amenable cyanide constituents hi F011
and F012 nonwastewaters could not be
transferred to F006, F007, F008, F009 and
F019 nonwastewaters because of the
differences in the concentration of iron-
cyanide complexes. They stated that
these complexes are more difficult to
treat by conventional cyanide oxidation
processes.
Based on a re-examination of the
chemical composition and waste
characteristics of these wastes, the
Agency agrees with the commenters that
the F006, F007, F008, F009 and F019
wastes have different waste treatability
characteristics than the F011 and F012
wastes because of the iron-cyanide ,
complexes. The Agency believes that
the source of the high iron concentration
in these wastes may be due to the fact
that these wastes are generated from the
electroplating industry and that the
material being plated is steel. The iron
contained in steel is replaced with the
metal contained within the
electroplating baths (for example zinc hi
zinc cyanide plating baths). The iron
that is thus released is believed to then
react with the cyanide to form
II I III!';'",,, .illil'iH'",1 ;!' ' !'! : lV\' :"!!'ll ' '>,/ ill** '' I* I1!"'"!1' "'
compounds that are referred to as iron-
complex cyanides.
Some iron in these wastes results, not
from the plating process itself, but rather
from other sources that are generated
sporadically. These sources include:
other metal finishing operations such as
acid cleaning, descaling and pickling;
the degradation of process tank linings
or racks; or the intermingling of
electroplating rinse water streams with
other wastes with high iron content.) It
is possible that these sources of iron can
be avoided by implementing Waste
audits and by application of simple
source reduction techniques such as
proper equipment maintenance,
segregation of high iron waste streams,
and substitution of pickling/descaling
acids. Because the principal source of
iron appears to be the steel plating
process itself, however, EPA views this
as an intrinsic characteristic of the
electroplating wastewaters that needs to
be taken into account in assessing the
treatability of F006, F007, F008 and F009
wastes.
The Agency agrees that the high
concentrations of iron in the cyanide
wastes (when present as iron-cyanide
complexes) appear to effect the level of
cyanide destruction that is achievable
(i.e., they appear to be more difficult to
treat). Data also indicate that some
FOOG, F007, F008 and F009 wastes
containing low concentrations of iron (or
no iron) appear to be treatable to lower
cyanide concentrations than those with
high iron. At this time, however, the
Agency has not determined a specific
concentration of iron in these wastes
that would indicate a difference in
treatability for the cyanides (i.e., a
separate treatability group for F006,
F007, F008 and F009 wastes containing
low iron), and thus promulgated a higher
total cyanide treatment standard of 590
mg/kg for all F006, F007, F008 and F009
wastes based on the new data provided
by industry (that included wastes
treatment performance data on wastes
with high iron content).
Where the Agency could determine
that specific cyanide waste codes (i.e.,
F011, F012, P013, P021, P029, P030, P063,
P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121)
normally contain relatively low
concentrations of iron, the Agency.
promulgated the proposed total cyanide
treatment standard of 110 mg/kg.
Other commenters further stated that
not only are the F006, F007, F008, and
F009 wastes and F011 and F012 wastes
" different in waste characteristics (such
as iron content) but also in the type of
metal finishing processes that generate
these wastes. The F006, F007, F008, and
F009 wastes are generated from the
-------
7 Fndaytijune: 23.: jgsr/.Rules arid^Reaulatfonl -•.'..--:.%&&§
electroplating process and the F011 and
F012 wastes are generated from a heat
. treating process. The commenters stated
that electroplaters have pretreatment
' requirements for NPDES permits for
total and amenable cyanides and that
heat treaters are not subject to the same
requirements. Since alkaline
chlorination is also the technology basis
for most of the cyanide treatment
standards in today's rule, there is no
inconsistency in the approach between
the Clean Water Act limitations and
standards and the treatment standards
adopted in today's rule. (As noted
elsewhere, existing data show that the
great majority of generators are meeting
the F006 treatment standards for
cyanides with their existing wastewater
treatment technology.)
Clean Water Act effluent limitations
and standards could technically be
achieved by adding reagents such as
ferrous sulfate to the wastewaters. EPA,
however, did not base the NPDES and
pretreatment standards on precipitation
with ferrous sulfate but rather on
alkaline chlorination to destroy
cyanides and hydroxide precipitation to
remove metals. If a company chooses to
precipitate with ferrous sulfate, there is
an increase in concentration of the iron-
cyanide complexes that results in an
increase of the measured total cyanide
concentration in the sludge (i.e.,
nonwastewaters) generated from the
wastewater treatment. The Agency
maintains that, in most cases, this type
of addition of ferrous ions can be
eliminated through proper design and
operation of the existing onsite cyanide
destruction technologies without
significantly impacting the achievement
of the NPDES effluent limitations on
cyanides.
By reducing the concentration of iron-
cyanide complexes that end up in the
wastewater treatment sludges, the .
potential for release of toxic cyanides
from land disposal units is reduced. This
is entirely consistent with the
Congressional intent with respect to the
destruction of cyanide. (See further
discussion in section HLA.3.(a.)(l.)(vi.)
of today's rule.)
v. Stabilization of cyanides. Several
commenters stated that the Agency
should consider stabilization as ah
effective technology for the treatment of
cyanides. Commenters also stated that
the Agency did not provide any
stabilization data in the background
document or the administrative record.
At the time of proposal, the Agency had
not reviewed any performance data for
stabilization that meet the QA/QC
requirements for determining BDAT.
During the comment period, the Agency
had an opportunity to review some
stabilization data that was generated by
both the Agency and industry. (This
data appears hi the final background
document for cyanide wastes and has
been placed in the administrative
record.) ,
The Agency does not agree with
commenters that stabilization is an
applicable technology for the treatment
of the majority of cyanide wastes. While
some data may indicate that
stabilization processes appear to reduce •
the leachabiljty of some forms of
cyanide, the Agency contends that
destruction of cyanide is clearly a
. preferred treatment method (as further
discusaed in section III.A.3.a,l.vi. of
today's rule). The Agency believes that
the majority of commercially available
conventional stabilization technologies
are primarily designed to stabilize
cationic species (such as many of the
BDAT list metals) and are not
specifically designed for anionic species
(such as cyanide). The Agency believes
that the presence of certain metal
complex cyanides may appear to give
the effect of "stabilization" due to the :
low solubility of these cyanide
complexes. The Agency believes that
the extrapolation of stabilization data
on wastes containing complexed
cyanides could lead to erroneous
assumptions on the ability of cyanides
that are somewhat more soluble to be
"stabilized". In addition, solitary use of
treatment processes that convert the
soluble cjranides present in the wastes
to a less soluble state (i.e.1, complexed
cyanides) for purposes of stabilization
does not provide an overall reduction in
toxicity. (See following discussion of
leachable cyanides.)
vi. Use of the TCLP for leachable
cyanide. Many commenters stated that
the Agency should develop treatment
standards for cyanides based on a
leachable level of cyanide as opposed to
a total cyanide level. The Agency has
reviewed the data submitted by
commenters on the level of leachable
cyanides and the analysis of the data
appears in the background document for
cyanide wastes and hi the
administrative record for today's rule.
The Agency strongly disagrees with the
commenters that the cyanide treatment
standards should be based on leachable
levels. The Agency believes that the
legislative history to RCRA section
3004(m) indicates that Congress
intended that the "destruction of total
cyanides would be required as a
precondition to land disposal" (130
Congressional Record S9179, July 25,
1984, statement of Senator Chafes).
The treatment standards for cyanides
are based on a total waste analysis for
two reasons. First, the Agency believes
that by only regulating the leachable
cyanide concentration, the complex-
metal cyanides that are present in the
wastes would not be regulated. Second,
based'on the review of the available
treatment data, the Agency believes that
the conventional cyanide treatment
technologies provide substantial "'
treatment of both the amenable and
total cyanide concentration as measured
by the Cyanide Amenable to
Chlorination test in Method 9010 (EPA
Publication SW-848). '
Finally, the Agency believes that there
is a real potential for the complexed
cyanides that are present in .these
wastes to at least partially degrade into
the more toxic form of cyanides known
as "freg^_cyanides. This process is
anticipated to result from exposure to
ultraviolet light (from sunlight) when the
wastes are placed into certain land
disposal units such as a surface
impoundment. This is consistent with
ft6 Agency's approach to establishing
effluent guideline limitations for total
cyanides in wastewater discharges from.,
these same metal finishing industries.
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating a total cyanide standard
for F0067F007, F008, and F009
nonwastewaters as 590 mg/kg. This
standard is higher than the proposed
standard of 110 mg/kg and thereby
allows for an overall higher
condensation of iron cyanide complexes
to be present in the nonwastewaters. At
the same time, based on the same
performance data, the total cyanide
standard lor wastewaters has been
reduced from 12 ing/1 to 1.9 mg/1 and the
ame|abJe cyanide standard for
waste-waters has been reduced from 1.3
mg/1 to O.IQ mg/1. Since the complexed
cyanides present in wastewaters are
morilikely to be subject to
photodegtadation to "free" cyanide than
those in the nonwastewaters, the
Agency believes that these revised total
and amenable cyanide standards
prom\4^ated in today's rule provide a
signific
-------
266JO Federal Register / Vol. 54,, No. 120,/Friday,. June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
aluminum plating on carbon steel; and
(6) chemical etching and milling of
aluminum.
F007—Spent cyanide plating bath
solutions from electroplating
operations.
F008—Plating bath sludges from the
bottom of plating baths from the
electroplating operations where
cyanides are used hi the process.
F009—Spent stripping and cleaning bath
solutions from electroplating
operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for amenable and total
cyanides in F006 nonwastewaters, and
for amenable cyanides, total cyanides,
and metal constituents in F007, F008,
and F009 nonwastewaters and
wastewaters. BDAT treatment
standards for the nonwastewaters are
based on the performance of alkaline
chlotination for the amenable and total
cyanides and stabilization for the metal
constituents. BDAT treatment standards
for the wastewaters are based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
the amenable and total cyanides and
chemical precipitation followed by
settling and filtration for the metals.
i, Nonwastewaters. In the January 11,
1989 proposed rule (54 FR1066-1071),
the Agency proposed nonwastewater
treatment standards based on the
performance of electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination for
amenable and total cyanides. The
Agency received comments that
questioned whether the performance of
electrolytic oxidation is considered
demonstrated because of the limited
number of data points. The Agency
maintains that the use of a small number
of data points from a single facility can
be representative of the treatment
achieved by any particular treatment
system (such as those data from
electrolytic oxidation). However, the
Agency has received a significant
amount of new data on alkaline
chlorination that form the basis for the
cyanide treatment standards for F006,
FtX37, F008 and F009 wastes promulgated
in today's rule.
The Agency also received extensive
comments that questioned the
devisabilfty of the proposed standards.
In particular, many commenters stated
that performance data for Foil and F012
wastes (based on electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination)
should not be transferred to F006, F007,
F008, F009 wastes because of the
differences in concentration of iron-
cyanide complexes in these wastes. (See
section IiLA.3.(a.)(l.)(iv.) for a more
complete discussion of the Agency's
, • - ,: ; j .,, , r -I, vum-l; i BIS; "f *
position on the treatment of iron-
cyanide complexes). The Agency agrees
with the commenters that a sufficient
number of F006, F007, F008 and F009
electroplating wastes have different
treatablity characteristics (i.e., high iron
concentration) than Foil and F012
wastes, and that the proposed transfer
of the treatment standards is no longer
warranted. Therefore, the Agency is
promulgating revised cyanide treatment
standards based on the new alkaline
chlorination performance data received
by the Agency during the comment
period. (This data appeared as part of
the record for the proposed rule and is
also part of the administrative record for
this final rule. See further discussion of
how the Agency noticed this data and
solicited additional comment in the
introduction to section IH.A.3.(a.) of
today's preamble.)
In supplemental comments on this
new data, certain commenters
questioned the devisability of the
revised treatment standard of 590 mg/kg
for total cyanide in nonwastewaters.
(The proposed standard was 110 mg/kg.)
They reiterated their previous argument
that this standard was only
representative of the treatment of .
wastewaters and not representative of
the treatment of F006 as generated. In
addition, they stated that the revised
standard was based on insufficient
operating data. Some commenters also
indicated that some of their F006 wastes
(as generated) would not be able to
meet even the revised standard for total
cyanides.
EPA is responding in detail to both the
initial comments to the proposed rule
and these additional comments in the
background document for cyanide
wastes and in the response to comments
background document, and will address
a few of the major points in today's
preamble. First, the treatment standard
is based on one month of operating data
(14 data points) which the Agency has
examined carefully and believes (based
on detailed descriptions of the treatment
process plus descriptions of sampling
and analysis data) represent a well-
designed and well-operated treatment
process and that represent BDAT
treatment for F006, F007, F008 and F009
wastes.
Second, although not all of the data
came from treating F006 wastes (in fact,
treatment was performed during a one
month period on RCRA wastes
identified as F006, F007, F008, F009,
F011, F012, D002, D003, P029, P030 and
P106), the waste mixtures that were
treated should be more, difficult to treat
than segregated FOOB wastes. This is
because the mixtures of these RCRA
wastes contained roughly an order of
magnitude more iron and cyanide and
greater concentrations of the minor
complexing metals, nickel, zinc, and
copper than typical F006 precursor
wastewaters from electroplating (based
on a review of the data used to develop
the effluent guidelines limitations for
cyanides from the metal finishing
industries).
Third, with'respect to the devisability
of the revised standards, the Agency
points out that most of the treatment
and waste characterization data
submitted to the Agency corroborates
that the 590 mg/kg standard for total
cyanide is achievable. Over 90 percent
of the waste characterization data for
F006 sludges reported to the Agency in
comments to the proposed rule
(submitted by both the affected industry
and treatment facilities alike) meet the
promulgated standard for total cyanides
in F006 nonwastewaters. Not only do
these comments confirm the ultimate
standard's devisability, but also imply
generators do not need to make
significant modifications in their current
treatment processes in order to meet the
standard.
In addition, EPA. reviewed treatment
and waste characterization data
contained in over 1500 individual
facility's responses submitted to the
Agency as part of the 1986 Treatment
Storage, Disposal and Recycling Survey
and the 1986 Generator Survey (which
responses were selected by EPA from
generators generating the largest
volumes of F006 wastes). Again, these
responses corroborated the standard's
devisability (plus the lack of need to
modify existing treatment processes).
The responses EPA reviewed showed
that over 90 percent of the F006
wastewater treatment sludges generated
contained less than the 590 mg/kg total
cyanide treatment standard required as
a result of today's rule. That is,
treatment performed with existing
treatment technology before imposition
of treatment standards for cyanides in
wastewater treatment sludge indicate
that over 90 percent of facilities are
already achieving the standard. The
Agency believes that these data show
that most of the industry is capable of v
meeting the total cyanide standard
through proper operation of the
treatment technology that is already in
place at the generators' facilities.
Further, for those few instances where
commenters claimed to be unable to
meet the 590 mg/kg standard, they
provided no information on the
circumstances of treatment or
generation, leaving the Agency no
means of ascertaining why the cyanide.
standards promulgated in today's rule
-------
Federal
were not achievable. In short, EPA
believes there is ample support for
stating that the total cyanide standard .
for F006, F007, F008 arid F009
nonwastewaters promulgated in today's
rule is achievable.
The standards for .amenable cyanides •
in the nonwastewater forms of F006,
F007, F008 and F009 reflect the limits of
precision of the analytical method for
cyanides amenable to chlorination (so
that the amenable cyanide is
approximately 5 percent of the standard
for total cyanides). EPA believes that
properly conducted alkaline chlorination
actually destroys free cyanides to a
greater extent, but that it is difficult to
measure amenable'cyanides in ,
nonwastewaters. No commenter
suggested that a free cyanide standard
of 30 mg/kg was not achievable for
these nonwastewaters.
The Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for the metal constituents in
F007, F008, and F009 nonwastewaters,
based on the transfer of performance
data from the stabilization of F006
wastes. (The metal standards for F006 .
nonwastewaters were promulgated in
the First Third final rule (see 53 FR
31152-31153) and are not being revised
in today's rule.) The Agency received no
comments or data refuting this transfer.
ii. Wastewaters. Today's rule
promulgates revised treatment
standards for amenable and total
cyanides and metal constituents in F007,
F008, and F009 wastewaters. In the
January 11,1989 proposed rule (54 FR
1066-1071), EPA proposed treatment
standards based on performance of wet
air oxidation for cyanides, and chemical
precipitation followed by settling and
filtration for metals.
Many commenters expressed
concerns that the data base used by the
Agency to establish treatment standards
for cyanide were limited. They therefore
questioned whether wet air oxidation is
a demonstrated technology. However,
the issue is essentially moot for these
waste codes because during the
comment period the Agency received
cyanide treatment data for F007, F008,
and FOQ9 wastewaters based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination.
EPA performed a statistical comparison
of wet air oxidation and alkaline
chlorination and found that there is a
statistical difference between the two
technologies for cyanides. The Agency
determined that alkaline chlorination
technology performs better than wet air
oxidation for these particular wastes
based on a comparison of the available
data. Therefore, the Agency is
promulgating revised wastewater
treatment standards for cyanides to
reflect BDAT as alkaline chlorination.
These data (which substantially
expand the treatment data base for
these wastewaters) also indicate that
the standard for these wastewaters
should be decreased from the proposed
level to 1.9 ing/1 total cyanide and 0.10
mig/1 amenable cyanide (from 12 mg/1
and 1.3 mg/1 respectively). These
standards are more similar to the
promulgated effluent guidelines
limitations and standards for the metal
finishing industries. Commenters, in
fact, raised no significant challenges to
EPA's solicitation to lower the
wastewater standard for these wastes.
The Agency is promulgating the
wastewater treatment standards for
metals in F007, F008, and F009 based on
the transfer of the treatment
performance data for chemical
precipitation, settling, filtration and
sludge dewatering for K062 Wastes. The
Agency believes that the K062
wastewaters are more difficult to treat
than F007, F008, and F009 wastewaters
based on the higher concentrations of
dissolved metals in K062 (up to 100,000
nxg/1). ,
The Agency is not promulgating the
treatment standards for total and
amenable cyanide in F006 wastewaters
at this time. Concentration-based
treatment standards for cyanides and
metal constituents in the F008
wastewaters will be promulgated by
May 8,1990. It is likely that the total and
amenable cyanide treatment standard
for the F006 wastewaters will be based
on a data transfer from the performance
of alkaline chlorination for the F007,
F008, and F009 wastewaters. It is likely
that the metal treatment standards will
be based upon information available
from EPA's effluent limitations
guidelines and standards program. Since
no treatment standards are promulgated
in today's,rule for F006 wastewaters,
these wastes continue to be subject to
the "soft hammer" provisions of 40 CFR
268.8. ...'"..
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
INonwastewatersJ
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F007,
F008ANDLF009
tNonwastewaters]
Constituent
Cyanides .(total) „....
Cyanides (amenable).:......
Maximum for any single
grab sample
- Total
composition
(mg/kg)
' ': ' 590
30
TCLP
(mg/i)
0)
.-.; . <')
Constituent
Cyanides (total)
Cyanides (amenable)
Cadmium
Chromium.... „..
Lead
Nickel
Silver™
Maximum for any single
. grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
590
30
o)
(')
('•)
(')
(')
TCLP
(mg/1)
0)
(')
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
1 Not applicable.
'BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F007,
F008 AND F009
CWastewatersJ
Constituent '
Cyanides (total) ;,;„ .„
Cyanides (amenable). _..
Chromium
Lead .;....
Nickel
Maximum for any single
grab sample
: Total
composition
. (mg/D ,
1.9
0.10
0.32
0.04
0.44
TCLP
(mg/l)
C1)
(')
0)
<*>
-'(')
' Not applicable.
\ Not app/fcable. -
3. Wastes from Metal Heat Treating
Operations.
F010—Quenching bath sludge from oil
baths from metal heat treating
'operations where cyanides are used in
the process^ •
Foil—Spenf cyanide solutions from salt
bath pot cleaning from metal heat
treating operations.:
F012—Quenching wastewater treatment
sludges fiiqjft metal heat treating
operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for F010, Foil, and F012 • .
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Treatment sVfidards for total cyanide in
F010 nonwaslewaters are based on the ,
performance of incineration. Treatment
standards for Foil and F012
nonwastewaters are based on the
performancejf electrolytic oxidation
followed &y alkaline chlorination for
amenable an4 total cyanides, and based
on the jfjformance of stabilization'for
the mett constituents. Treatment.
standarSs for amenable and total
cyanide in FOlO, F011 and F012
; wastewa\fpj|re based x>n the
; performance^ alkaline chldrination.
Treatment sflndards for metals in Foil '
and FOlUvastewaters,are based on the
performance of chemical precipitation,
-------
i 1, 26612 Federal Register / Vial. 54, No. izti /Friday? June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
settling, and filtration. Other
technologies that can achieve these
concentration-based treatment
standards are not preclude'd from use by
this rule.
EPA notes that the technology basis
for treating cyanides hi the wastewaters
from F010. Foil and F012 differ from the
technology basis for treatment of the
corresponding nonwastewaters. EPA,
however, expects that the technology
used to treat the cyanides in the
nonwastewaters will achieve the
standards promulgated for the
waatewalers.
Thus, EPA expects that if an F010
waste Is incinerated, then the F010
scrubber water that may be generated
as a residue from incineration will not
need further treatment for cyanides
because they wfll already meet the
promulgated treatment standards. If any
FOIO wastewaters are generated by a
process other than incineration and they
do not meet the treatment standards,
then it would be reasonable to treat
these wastewaters with alkaline
chlorinatlon rather than incineration.
In a similar manner, wastewaters
generated from the treatment of Foil or
F012 nonwastewaters using electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination are not expected to need
further treatment for cyanides because
the Agency believes that these
wastewaters will also already meet the
promulgated standards. However, if any
F011 or F012 wastewaters are generated
by another treatment technology and do
not meet the treatment standards as
generated, it would also be reasonable
to treat these wastewaters with alkaline
chlorination alone rather than
electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination. (Electrolytic
oxidation is applicable primarily as a
pretreatment step, particularly when
cyanide concentrations in the raw waste
are quite high.)
i. Standards for FOIO wastes. In the
January 11,1989 proposed ride, the
Agency proposed a treatment standard
for total cyanide in FOIO
nonwastewaters based on BOAT as
incineration. Also, EPA indicated that
these wastes could contain up to 5
percent oil and grease content and can
exist as a bi-layered waste, i.e. organic
and aqueous layer. Based on
conversations with the treaters of this
waste, the Agency believes that the FOIO
wastes can be separated into an organic
layer and an aqueous layer. This FOIO
organic layer is what is typically
incinerated, while the FOIO aqueous
layer can be treated by conventional
cyanide treatment rather than
incineration. At the time of the proposal,
the Agency had not examined the
efficiency of this separation process,
and so proposed standards for all FOIO
nonwastewaters based on the
incineration of the wastes.
Also, hi the proposal, the Agency did
not clarify what the treatment standards
Would be for FOIO nonwastewaters that
could be generated from the alkaline
chlorination treatment of the separated
aqueous layer (an FOIO wastewater).
During the comment period, the Agency
received no comments, (or data)
indicating the efficiency of the
separation of the layers or whether the
proposed treatment standard (based on
incineration) could be met.
In this rule, the Agency is clarifying its
position on the treatment standards for
the FOIO nonwastewaters that might be
generated from treating a separated
FOIO aqueous layer or other FOIO
wastewaters. As a point of clarification,
the Agency first notes that treatment
residues from treating FOIO wastewaters
are listed under the F012 waste code
{wastewater treatment sludge from
metal heat treating operation) and
would therefore be subject to the
cyanide standards for F012
nonwastewaters. Such sludges would
therefore not be subject to the standards
based on performance of incineration.
With respect to FOIO wastewaters, the
Agency believes that aqueous FOIO
wastewaters have similar waste
characteristics to Foil and F012
wastewaters. The Agency is therefore
transferring the performance of the
treatment system of alkaline
chlorination for the cyanide constituents
(based on the new data obtained on
alkaline chlorination during the
comment period). See the following
discussion of treatment standards for
Foil arid F012 wastewaters. Therefore,
the treatment standards for amenable
cyanides and total cyanides hi FOIO
wastewaters are 0.10 mg/1 and 1.9 mg/1
respectively. The promulgated treatment
standard for residues from the
incineration of the FOIO organic layer
(i.e., FOIO nonwastewaters high in
organics) is 1.5 mg/kg, the same
standard that EPA proposed. The
Agency notes that if a generator or
treater of a FOIO wastes does not
separate the waste into the two layers,
that facility would have to meet the 1.5
mg/kg treatment standard for total
cyanides in the nonwastewater
residuals (based on incineration).
The Agency did not propose treatment
standards for any metals contained n
FOIO wastewaters or nonwastewaters.
At the tune, the Agency had no waste
characterization data that indicated the
presence of hazardous metals in the
untreated wastes. In addition, the
Agency received no comments or data
indicating that metals were present hi
these wastes. As a result, the Agency is
promulgating only the treatment
. standards for cyanides contained in
FOIO wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
This does not preclude the Agency from
proposing the regulation of metals hi
these wastes if any FOIO waste
characterization data or treatment
performance data become available.
ii. Standards for Foil and F012
wastes. The treatment standards
proposed on January 11,1989, for Foil
and F012 nonwastewaters were based
on the performance of electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination for the cyanides (both total
and amenable) and stabilization for the
metal constituents. The Agency is not
basing treatment standards for these
wastes on the new alkaline chlorination
data used to establish standards for
F006, F007, F008 and F009 wastes. The
treatment standards for F011 and F012
wastes are thus substantially lower than
those for the other waste codes. The
Agency believes that this is appropiate
not only because of the existing
performance data supporting the lower
standard, but because these wastes do
not have the treatability characteristics
(i.e., high iron concentrations) that
justify the higher standards for F006,
• F007, F008, and F009 nonwastewaters.
The Agency is promulgating a total
cyanide standard of 100 mg/kg and an
amenable cyanide standard of 9.1 mg/kg
for F011 and F012 nonwastewaters. The
amenable cyanide standard is based on
measured concentrations of amenable
cyanides in Foil and F012 treatment
residuals rather than based only on the
reproducibility of the analytic method
for total cyanides.
(Note.—The Agency used the
reproducibility of the analysis for total
cyanides to establish the amenable cyanide
standards for F008, F007, F008 and F009
nonwastewaters because the data indicated '
that the amenable cyanides could be reduced
to below the reproducibility of the analysis
for total cyanides. The treatment data
indicated that this was not the case for F011
and F012 wastes.)
Two commenters believed that the
calculation of the variability factor for
the total cyanide treatment standard
(100 mg/kg) for these wastes was
incorrect. The Agency disagrees with
the commenters. The calculation of a
variability factor for two data points is
based on the standard deviation and the
mean. EPA uses the two data points as
the limits on lognormal distribution.
Based on this information, the
calculated variability factor is 1.58.
Thus, the variability factor multiplied by
the mean of the two data points
-------
.23,/1989^/:Rules, and Regulations
represents the treatment standard. The
calculation of these standards is further
clarified and presented in the final
background document for cyanide
wastes and the administrative record for
this rule.
The Agency received extensive
comments on its use of only two data
points to establish the treatment
standards for cyanides based on the
performance of electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination. As
discussed previously in section
ffl.A.l.(f.) of today's rule and in the
August 17,1989 final rule for First Third
wastes, the Agency believes that the use
of a small number of data sets from a
single facility can be representative of
the treatment achieved by the particular
treatment system. EPA has a mandatory
duty to issue standards on a very tight
timetable, and automatic consequences
'occur should the Agency fail to act.
Under these circumstances, EPA must
base standards on the best data
available to it, even, if the data is
limited. If better sources of data were
made available, EPA would make every
effort to use them (as has occurred with
a number of wastes in this rulemaking,
such as in the development of standards
for the organophosphorus waste .
treatability group as discussed in
section III.A.3.(h.} of today's preamble).
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
the final standard based on the
information available.
For F012 nonwastewaters (as with
FG06), many commenters stated that the
Agency is requiring a pretreatment for
the cyanides before the hazardous
waste (as listed) is actually generated.
The Agency has responded to this, issue
.on pretreatment in detail in section
!H.A.3.(a.)(l.)(a)(iii.) of today's preamble.
The proposed treatment standards for
Foil and F012 wastewaters were based
on the performances of wet air
oxidation for the cyanides and chemical ,
precipitation, settling, and filtration for
the metal constituents. During the
comment period the Agency received
performance data for the treatment of
cyanides in wastewaters by alkaline
chlorination. EPA performed a statistical
comparison of the data from wet air
oxidation and the new data from
alkaline chlorination ai|d found that
alkaline chlorination performed better.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating revised
treatment standards for toJal and
amenable cyanides for F011 and F012 '•
waste waters .based on these new data
arid is transferring these standards to
FplO wastewaters as previously
discussed. ~- •
The Agency is promulgating the metal
standards for F011 and F01.2
nonwastewaters based on the transfer
of the treatment performance/data for
chemical precipitation, settling, filtration
and sludge dewatering for K062 wastes.
The Agency believes that the K062
wastes are more difficult to treat than
the residues from treatment of Foil and
F012 based,on the higher concentrations
of dissolved metals in K062 (up to
100,000 mg/1). .
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F010
INonwastewaters]
' Constitulent
Cyanides (total)
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
1.5
TCLP
(mg/l)
(')
1 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F010
WastewatersJ
Constituted
Cyanides (total) ,.„.
Cyanides (amenable)
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
1.9
6.10
TCLP
(mg/l)
('),
f1)
t Not applicable. **
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F011
'."' ANDF012
tNonwastewaters]
Constituted
Cyanides (total)
Cyanides (amenable)
Cadmium-. „ ;
Chromium.
Lead
Nickel .-.
Silver.......
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
110
8.1
f1)
f1) '
(')
(')
«
TCLP
(mg/l)
f1)
(')
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
3 Not applicable.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F011
ANDF012
[Nonwastewaters]
Constrtutent
Cyanides (total)
Cyanides (amenable)
Chromium .
Lead- -. „.. .
Nicks! ;.,.... L
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
.1.9
0.10
0.32
0.04
0.44
TCLP
(mg/l)
(')
I1)
0)
0)
(')
1 Not applicable.
4. F019 wastes.
F019—Wastewater treatment sludges
from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum.
Today's rule does not promulgate
treatment standards for the wastewater
or nonwastewater forms of F019. This
waste was originally scheduled for
regulation in the First Third, with the
statutory deadline of August 8,1988.
Since the Agency did not promulgate
standards for the wastewater or
nonwastewater forms of F019, land
disposal of these wastes shall continue
to be regulated by the "soft hammer"
provisions in 40 GFR 268.8. EPA intends
to promulgate concentration-based
treatment standards for cyanides and
metals constituents in F019 wastes by
May 8,1990.
The Agency believes that F019 wastes
are in a different treatability group than
F008, F007, F008, and F009 electroplating
wastes or F010, Foil, and F012 heat
treating wastes due to the very high
concentration of iron-cyanide complexes
in both the wastewaters and
nonwa.stewaters_. These iron levels are
significantly higher than those found in
F008 wastewater precursors, and higher
than, any of the wastes used to establish
BDATfor the electroplating wastes. The
Agency believes that the source of the
iron-cyanide complexes is the soluble
ferrocyanide compounds (such as
potassium ferrocyanide) that are used as
constituents in aluminum conversion
coating compounds or baths. Therefore, •
the cyanides present in these conversion
coating baths would be the iron-cyanide
compjexes which are used as a
component of the coating. The Agency
believes that F019 nonwastewaters or
the wastewater treated to generate this
waste have substantial concentrations
of iron-cyanide complexes. The Agency
believes that the source of iron for the
F019 waste is a legitimate source of iron
and that F019 wastes represent a
separate treatability group of cyanide
wastes.
The Agency is investigating
ultraviolet/ozonation, wet air oxidation,
hyjlrolysis and incineration as potential
candidates for BDAT. Recovery or reuse
of ^wastes containing iron-cyanide
comp\ex|s is also being considered. In
the interim, the "soft hammer"
prow'sions continue to apply to the land
disposal of F019 wastes,
5. Wastes from Acrylonitrile Production.
KOll-^Bottom stream from the
wa|fewafer stripper in the production of
acrylonitrile.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
K013—Bottom stream from the
acelonitrile column in the production of
acrylonilrile.
K014—Bottoms from the acetonitrile
purification column in the production of
acrylonilrile.
Wastes identified as K011, K013, and
K014 are generated primarily in the
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry, specifically those engaged in
the production of acrylonitrile. Detailed
technical descriptions of the specific
production processes generating these
wastes can be found in the final
background document for these wastes.
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for K011, K013, and K014
nonwastewaters based on the
performance of incineration. Other
treatment technologies that can achieve
these concentration-based standards,
such as wet air oxidation, are not
precluded from use by this rule. EPA is
promulgating treatment standards for
four organic constituents and for total
cyanide. At this time the Agency is not
promulgating any standards for K011,
K013, or K014 wastewaters. The specific
regulated constituents and treatment
standards for these wastes are listed in
tables at the end of this section.
L Nonwastewaters. In the January 11,
1980 proposed rule (54 FR1006-1071),
the Agency proposed treatment
standards fpr npnwastewaters based on
the performance of incineration for total
cyanide and organics and stabilization
for the metal constituents, specifically
nickel.
Several commenters argued against
developing a treatment standard for
nickel because, based on waste
characterization data, nickel was not
present in significant concentrations in
the raw waste. Commenters also stated
that the presence of certain constituents
(e.g., sulfutes and ammonia) would
make the removal of nickel from
wastewaters, and the stabilization of
nickel in the sludge and ash, much more
difficult than the Agency has estimated,
thereby making the BOAT treatment
standards unachievable.
The Agency has concluded, based on
extensive review of existing data, that
nickel is not present in concentrations
that would merit regulation as part of
the K011, K013, and K014 treatment
standards, and therefore is removing
nickel from the list of regulated
constituents for K011, K013, and K014
nonwastewaters. If additional treatment
performance data for nickel becomes
available, the Agency is not precluded
from regulating nickel as a
nonwastewater treatment standard for
K011, K013, and K014 wastes. As a result
of this determination, the Agency is
revising its BDAT treatment standards
for K011, K013, and K014
nonwastewaters to be based solely on '
the performance of incineration.
ii. Wastewaters. In the January 11,
1989 proposed rule (54 FR 1066-1071),
the Agency proposed wastewater
treatment standards based on the
performance of wet air oxidation
followed by biological treatment for
amenable cyanides, total cyanides, and
organic constituents, and chemical
precipitation, settling, and filtration for
metal constituents. The Agency received
many comments concerned with EPA's
rationale for transferring performance
data for the cyanide constituents from
wet air oxidation of F007 wastes, and
for organic constituents from the effluent
limitations for facilities in the Organic
Chemical Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) industry for biological
treatment. Because of these comments
and the additional treatment data that
are being compiled by the Ad Hoc
Acrylonitrile Producers UIC Group, the
Agency believes that additional data
collection and analysis is necessary
prior to promulgation of these treatment
standards.
Therefore, today's rule does not
promulgate treatment standards for the
wastewater forms of K011, K013 and
K014. These wastes were originally
scheduled for regulation in the First
Third, with a statutory deadline of
August 8,1988. Since the Agency still
has not promulgated standards for the
wastewater forms of K011, K013 and
K014, land disposal of these
wastewaters shall continue to be
regulated by the "soft hammer"
provisions in 40 CFR 268.8. EPA intends
to promulgate concentration-based
treatment standards for cyanides,
organics, and metals constituents for
these wastes prior to May 8,1990.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K011.K013, ANDK014
tNonwastewaters]
Constituent
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Cyanides (Total)
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
1.8
1.4
23.
0.03
57.
TCLP
(mg/l)
)
)
)
)
)
1 Not applicable.
6. Cyanide wastes designated with a
"P" waste code.
P013-—Barium cyanide
P021—Calcium cyanide
P029—Copper cyanide
P030—Soluble cyanides salts (NOS) '
P063—Hydrogen cyanide
P074—Nickel cyanide
P098—Potassium cyanide
P099—Potassium silver cyanide
P104—Silver cyanide
P106—Sodium cyanide
P121—Zinc cyanide
Wastes identified as P013, P021, P029,
P030, P063, P074, P098, P099, P104, P106,
and P121 are usually discarded, out-of-
date, or off-specification chemicals.
Facilities in industries such as
electroplating, heat treating, chemical
conversion coating of aluminum, and
acrylonitrile production typically
generate these wastes.
P013, P021, P099, and P121 and Third
Third wastes that were originally
scheduled to be regulated no later than
May 8,1990. Several commenters
opposed accelerating the schedule for
these wastes. However, the statute does
not preclude EPA from prohibiting the
land disposal of a given waste ahead of
schedule (and the schedule in §§ 268.10
through 268.12 itself says that wastes
will be evaluated by a given date,
indicating that the specified date is the
latest time by which EPA must act). The
Agency believes that this is a
particularly prudent approach for P013,
P021, P099, and P121 because these
wastes are not only generated, but are
similar to Foil and F012 wastes from the
heat treating industry.
Today's rule promulgates
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of these wastes.
BDAT for. the .nonwastewater forms of
these wastes is based on the
performance of electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination for the
cyanide constituents, and stabilization
for the metal constituents. BDAT for the
wastewater forms of these wastes is
based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination for the cyanide constituents
and chemical precipitation, settling, and
filtration for the metal constituents
(where regulated). Treatment standards
for these wastes were transferred from
the performance of the BDAT for the
Foil and F012 waste codes generated
from heat treating operations. These
discarded commercial chemical
products do not contain high
concentrations of iron and therefore the
Agency believes that the treatment
standards need not reflect the
difficulties of treating complex cyanides.
-------
The Agency is thus promulgating these
concentration-based treatment
standards in this section due to the
similarity of these "P" wastes to the
listed metal heat treating wastes. .
Treatment standards for nickel in
P07;l and silver in. P099 and P104
nonwastewaters are based on the
performance of stabilization of F006
nonwastewaters. Treatment standards
for nickel in P074 wastewaters are
based on the performance of chemical
precipitation atid filtration of K062
wastewaters. The Agency believes that
these wastes are more difficult to treat
than the corresponding P wastes based
on the higher concentrations of metals
and dissolved solids anticipated to be
present in F006 and K062 as compared
to the P wastes (i.e., up to 100,000 ppm).
The Agency is not promulgating
treatment standards for barium in any
P013 wastes or'for silver in P099 and
P104 wastewaters due to the current
lack of treatment data for these metals
in their respective waste types. The
Agency is not precluded from
.developing standards for barium or
silver in these particular wastes if
treatment data becomes available.
One commenter argued that the
Agency should not regulate copper or
zinc, as EPA proposed to do, because
they are not hazardous constituents
specifically listed in Appendix VIII of 40
CFR Part 261. The Agency does not
totally agree, in that both zinc and
copper are components of zinc cyanide
and copper cyanide. EPA has
determined that both zinc and copper
exhibit aquatic toxicity, and has
considered adding these constituents to
Appendix VIII for that reason. However,
EPA has decided to reserve that
determination for a-later rulemaking,
and is only regulating cyanides in these
wastes (P029 and P121).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P013,
P021, P029. P030, P063, P074, P098,
P099, P104, P106, AND P121
tNonwastewaters]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P013,
P021, P029, P030, P063, PQ74, P098,
P099, P104, P106, AND P121
[Wastewatsrs]
Constituent
Cyanides (total) — „..
Cyanides (amenable)
Nickel (P074 only).....
Silver (P099 and P104
only). ; . .
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
110
9.1 ;
o
O . ..-
• ., v;
TCLP,
(mg/l)
O
O
0.32
0.072
Constituent
Cyanides (total)
Cyanides (amenable)
Nickel (P074 only)
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
1.9 ..
0.10
0.44.
TCLP
(mg/|)
-------
26616" Fcderaf -Register' / ^ol! 54," No. 120 '(_ Friday! June" 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
QA/QC data did not affirm their
presence in F024; and (4) a quantitation
level below 10 ppb is difficult to achieve
and standards should not be set any
lower than the PQLs demonstrated in
F024 incinerator ash.
In response to the first issue, the
Agency points out the hazardous
constituents for which a waste is listed
are considered by the Agency in
selection of constituents for regulation.
However, these constituents only
provide a minimum basis for listing a
waste as hazardous. The Agency
believes that it is not restricted to
regulation of these constituents. Indeed,
to do so would (at least hi some cases]
fail to substantially reduce toxicity or
mobility of hazardous constituents in
the waste, as required by section
3004(m). Moreover, the language of
3004(mj applies to all "hazardous
constituents", not just those for which
the waste is listed. The Agency uses
waste characterization data and
treatment performance data collected
under the BDAT program to determine
the constituents that should be
regulated. A more detailed explanation
of the selection of regulated constituents
in F024 is provided in the BDAT
background document for this waste
code. --.
With respect to the second issue, the
commenters were incorrect in stating
that PCDD and PCDF levels measured in.
the F024 wastes were below the PQLs.
In fact, these constituents were detected
in untreated F024 at levels of 0.3 to 50
ppb (parts per billion), which were well
above the PQLs (0.2 to 30 ppt (parts per
trillion)) for these constituents. Section
lI!.A.l.(b.) of today's preamble provides
a further discussion of the applicability
of Appendix VII and the relationship of
PQLs to BDAT treatment standards.
The commenters were also incorrect
with respect to the third issue on the
QA/QC, As evidenced in the
background document for this waste, the
available QA/QC data does confirm the
presence of dioxins and furans in F024.
The Agency also disagrees with the
commenters' fourth issue. A quantitation
level below 10 ppb is not difficult to
achieve. The Agency does not anticipate
any difficulties in achieving detection at
the treatment standard of 1 ppb for
either the nonwastewater or
wastewater. The treatment standards
for all of the PCDDs and PCDFs
regulated in F024 are greater than the
PQLs demonstrated on F024 incinerator
ash (30 to 80 ppt). Finally, the Agency
believes that these treatment standards
are analytically achievable on a routine
basis and points out that quantitation
levels for these PCDDs and PCDFs have
been achieved by commercial
laboratory facilities at low ppt levels in
nonwastewaters and low ppq (parts per
quadrillion) levels in wastewaters.
The treatment standards set for bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-n-octyl
phthalate were opposed by one
commenter who argued that setting
treatment standards for these
constituents was unnecessary because
they were not detected in the F024 feed
streams at levels above their PQLs. This
commenter further stated that since the
treatment standards for these two
constituents are below their PQLs, the
treatment standards are invalid and
unreasonable. The commenter suggested
that the low levels of these phthalates
could be a result of cross-contamination
and thus, recommended that the Agency
either set a method of treatment as the
treatment standard instead of
establishing a concentration-based
treatment standard or reserve the
standards for these two phthalate
constituents until more complete
information is available.
The premise to the commenter's
argument is incorrect in that both of
these phthalate constituents were
quantified above,their respective PQLs
in the F024 feed streams. The treatment
performance data for bis(2-ethylhexyl)
.phthalate in F024 demonstrate that
substantial treatment was achieved by
rotary kiln incineration. Because bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate was not found in
either the laboratory blanks or the
treatment residuals, the commenter's
claim that this constituent could be
present as a result of cross-
contamination does not appear to be
supportable. Thus, the Agency has no
reason to believe that the presence of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in F024
sampled by the Agency was due to
cross-contamination. (See also the
Agency's response to comments on
cross-contamination of phthalates in
section III.A.3.(e.) of today's preamble.)
The Agency's data indicated,
however, that di-n-octyl phthalate was
identified in only a few characterization
samples at treatable concentrations.
Further, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was ,
also found at treatable concentrations in
each of these samples. These two
phthalate constituents have similarities
in chemical properties and structure
such that the Agency believes that they
can be treated to similar concentrations
by incineration. Due to the similarity in
treatability of these constituents, any di-
n-octyl phthalate present in F024 will be
effectively controlled by regulating the
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (using
incineration as BDAT). Accordingly, the
Agency is promulgating the treatment
standards for bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, but is not promulgating the /
treatment standards for di-n-octyl
phthalate.
Several commenters stated that the
concentration-based treatment
standards for F024 nonwastewaters
should be identical with treatment
standards previously promulgated for
the same constituents in other.waste
codes. The Agency disagrees with these
commenters. BDAT treatment standards
for a particular waste are developed
based on treatment performance data
for that waste or for a waste judged to
be similar. Constituents may be treated
to different levels depending on the
waste matrices in which they are
present. Accordingly, treatment
standards for a constituent may vary
' among the waste codes in which the
constituent is regulated.
Another commenter suggested that the
. nonwastewater treatment standards be
raised by two orders of magnitude
because they believed the proposed
treatment standards could not be
analytically achieved on a routine basis.
However, based on routine analysis
performed by contract laboratories
supporting the Agency's various
programs, the Agency does not
anticipate any analytical difficulties in
achieving the F024 treatment standards
on a routine basis.
One commenter suggested that the
Agency consider the composition of
F024 wastewater when it is comingled
with wastewater from other treated
listed wastes. However, the Agency
cannot take into account all of the
possible mixes of waste residuals. (See
also the previous discussion of mixing in
section IH.A.l.(c.) in today's preamble.)
For these cases, the regulated
community must consider the treatment
standards for each regulated waste
stream and comply with the strictest
standards for each of the regulated
constituents (or if mixing is part of a
legitimate treatment process, seek a
treatability variance).
One commenter felt that stabilization
of incinerator ash should not be required
unless leachable metal levels were
higher than characteristic hazardous
waste levels. The Agency reminds the
commenter that F024 treated waste
residuals are also considered to be
listed hazardous wastes under the
"derived-from" rule, regardless of
whether or not the waste exhibits a
characteristic. The metal constituents
originally proposed for regulation
(chromium and nickel) were found in
F024 at treatable levels. Because
incineration does not provide treatment
for metals, the Agency chose to stabilize
the incinerator ash to immobilize these
and other metal constituents.
-------
Federal Register/
/ -fil day. ^ June 23,
Rules' and; ReguIatJQiny;
26617s
One commenter felt that .treatment of
chromium and nickel was not
demonstrated by the stabilization
testing performed on K048 and K051
wastes, thereby invalidating the transfer
of the treatment standards for chromium
and nickel from these waste codes to
F024. This commenter suggested
transferring treatment performance data
from F006 instead.
The Agency has recently completed
an analysis of TCLP extracts obtained
from the stabilization of F024 incinerator
. ash residues. The results of this analysis
show substantial reduction of metals in
TCLP extracts after stabilization.
However, since this data was not
available fo'T.public notice and
comment, and since the .resultant
treatment standards are significantly
different from the proposed standards',
the Agency has decided not to
promulgate treatment standards for
metals in F024 nonwastewaters in
today's rule. The Agency is reserving
treatment standards for metals in JF024
nonwastewaters in order to provide
notice that revised standards will be
proposed for restrictions in a future
rulemaking. No specific comments or
data were received disputing the
validity of the proposed standards for
the metals in F024 wastewaters and thus
the Agency is promulgating these '
standards as proposed.
The Agency discsyered an error hi its
calculation of the proposed treatment •
standards for 2-chloro-l,3-butadiene and
3-chloropropene for F024
nonwastewater (i.e., 0.014 mg/kg for
each constituents). Because the data
used to calculate these standards were
correct and in the public record, the
.Agency is promulgating the recalculated
standards in today's rule (i.e., 0.28 mg/
kg for each constituent).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR F024
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent ,
2-Chloro-1,3-
bufadiene.
3-Chloropropene
1 ,1-Dichloroettiane ;
1 ,2-Dkshloroethane'.
1 ,2-Dichloropropane...,....;
• cis-1,3-Dichloropropene..:
trans-1,3-,
Dichloropropene.
Bis(2-
ethylhexyljphthalate.
Hexachloroethane
* Hexachlorodibenzofur-
- „ ans. * -
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.28
0.28....
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014 '...„....
0.014....
1 8
1 8 „„
•0.001 ..'...,
TCLP
(mg/l)
Not
applica-
ble
' "
if\~
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR
F024—Continued
CNonwastewaters]
Constituent
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins.
Pentachlorodibanzofur-
ans.
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins.
Tetraohloradibenzofur-
ans.
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001 ..............
'Not
applicable.
TCLP
(mg/D
Reserved
Reserved
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR F024
tWastewaters]
Constituent
2-Chloro-1,3-
butadiene.
3-Cfilorpprcpene ......
1,'l-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane ....
cisi-1 ,3-Dich!oropropene ...
trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene.
Bis(2-
*thylhexyl)prrthalate.
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorodibenzofur-
ans.
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins. •
Pentachlorodibenzofur-
ans.
Pentachlorodifaenzo-p-
dioxins.
Tetrachlorodibenzofur-
ans.
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.28..
0.28
0.014.........
0.014
0.014...............
0.014
0.014.. .
0.036
0.036
0.001
0.001
0.001 ....
0.001.....
0.001
0.35.......:....
0.47
(mg/l)
NoJ
applica-
ble
c. Wastes from pigment production.
K002—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of chrome yellow
and orange pigments.
KQ03—Wastewater treatment sludge '
from the production of molybdate
orange pigments.
K004—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of zinc yellow
pigments. ' .
K005-—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of chrome green
pigments.
KCI08—Wastewater treatment, sludge
• from the production of chrome .oxide
green ^igments-fanhydrdus and. -' , •
- hydrated). - - "-
K007—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of iron blue
pigments. . -.,-"••'
K008—Oven residues from the
production of chrome oxide green
pigments.
Wastes identified as K002, K003, K004
K005, K006, K007 and K008 are
generated primarily by facilities in the
inorganic chemicals manufacturing
industry, specifically those engaged in
. the production of pigments. Detailed
technical .descriptions of the specific
production processes generating these '
wastes can be found in the background
document for the listing of these wastes.
1. Nonwastewaters. Today's rule
promulgates a "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation" treatment standard
for K005 and K007 nonwastewaters as
proposed—applicable only to wastes
generated from the process described in
the listing description and disposed after
June 8,1989. Many commenters opposed
any standard that specifies "No Land
Disposal" for a particular waste. The
Agency maintains that for certain
wastes, this standard is appropriate.
The Agency believes that the following
clarification of the applicability of this
standard to K005 and K007 wastes may
remove the majority of the commenters'
concerns.
". . Based on conversations with
representatives of manufacturers of
inorganic pigments and responses to
EPA's RCRA section 3007
questionnaires, the Agency believes that
the last companyj producing chrome-
green and iron blue pigments (from
which K005 and K007 wastes are
down production in
roposed "No Land
[rd is appropriate for
jh one important
caveat. This standard applies only to
wastes generate^ from the process
described in the listing description for
these wastes (in 40 CFR 261.32) that are
disposed after June 8,1989 (the effective
date of this standard). The Agency
recently modified, existing regulatory
standards for mokt of the "No Land
Disposal" treatment standards
- promulgated_with; the First Third wastes
to adopt this distinction. See 53 FR 31174
, (August 17,1988) [promulgating these
standards, and the subsequent revision
in 54 FR 18836 (May 2,1989). The
Agency adopts this explanation in the
May 2,1989 noticfc for its action here
with respect to thb waste from pigment
production that are no longer being
generated (i.e., K005 and K007).
K005 and K007 kre Third Third
Wastes thgt were! originally scheduled
to be promulgated! by May"8/1990! s
~iC.n»-»-A««) «__-^.-_._li-,., ^Ji t>_ -f "*» ./I
TS (O
generated), shut {
1987. Thus, the p|
Disposal" standaj
these wastes, wit]
-------
26610 Federal. Register / VoIT fe^No. iffi-fegridftft JliAe fe, 1J8&7 JJules and Regulations
proposed accelerated schedule for Ihese
wastes as well as other wastes.
However, the statute does not preclude
EPA from prohibiting the land disposal
of a given waste ahead of schedule {and
the schedule in 40 CFR 268.10-268,12
Itself *nj*s that wastes wfH be evaluated
by a given date, indicating that the
specified date Is the latest time by
which EPA must act), and in fact
compel* the Agency to prohibit the land
disposal of hazardous wastes as soon as
possible. The Agency believes that this
Is a prtrticular'y prudent approach for
K005 and K007 nonwastewaters, since
the bmsls of the treatment standard for
these wastes Is that they are not being
generated and since no comments were
received disputing this premise
spedftedJy for KOOS and K007.
In the January 11,1989, proposed rule
for Second Third Wastes {54 FR1072-
74f, EPA proposed a treatment standard
of "No Land Disposal Based on
Recycling" for K002, K003 and KOOB
nonwastewaters and proposed to revise
the promulgated treatment standard [S3
FR 31174) For K004 and KOOS
nonwastewaters from "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation**, to
"No Land Disposal Based on Recycling".
EPA received comments, however,
suggesting that there may be wastes
generated as part of the recycling
process that could remain subject to the
land disposal prohibitions, and which
otherwise called into question the
circumstances of recycling. Although
EPA does not necessarily endorse these
comments, the Agency believes that
those issues warrant further study and,
therefore, has decided thalKOG2, KOOS
and KOOB wastes will remain in the
Third Third of the schedule. Thus, the
Agency is not promulgating the
treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on Recycling" forKOOZ,
K003, and KOOB nonwaslewaters.
The methods of recycling, which EPA
has determined require further
evaluation, also apply to K004 and K008
wastes; therefore, since EPA's initial
premise of no generation has not proven
correct, EPA has decided to revoke the
promulgated treatment standard of "No
Land Disposal Based on No Generation"
for K004 and K008 nonwastewaters, and
to reschedule the development of
treatment standards for the
nonwastewater forms of KOp* and K008
wastes to ihe Third Third of the
schedule. "Hie Agency will study these
wastes along with KOQ2, K003 and KD08
nonwastewaters.
2. Waslewaters. In today's rule, flie
Agency is not promulgating treatment
standards for the wastewater forms of
K002, K003, KOQ4, KOOS, K008, K007 or
KOOS. Since K004 and K008'were First
Third wastes; land disposal.of these
wastewaters continues to be subject to
the "soft hammer" provisions in 40 CFR
2683. Because K002, KD03, K005, K006 or
K007 wastes were originally, scheduled
for development of BDAT treatment
standards with &e Third Third Wastes,
land disposal -of Jhese wastewaters is
not subject to the ''soft-hammer"
restrictions.
The Agency may develop
concentration-based treatment
standards for aH of these wastewaters
prior to May 8,1990, if tthere is an
identified need for such standards [i.e. if
wastewater forms of the listed waste
are proven to he generated).
Wastewaier forms of ihese wastes are
expected to be generated from only a
few sources. The Agency is currently
evaluating the possibility of transferring
treatment performance data from
wastes having similar physical and
chemical characteristics. The Agency
has identified several sources of
chromium reduction, cyanide
destruction, and metals precipitation/
stabilization performance data which
may be applicable.
As a point of clarification,
nonwastewater residuals generated
from treatment of KOOS or K007
wastewaters are also considered to be
the listed wastes Jbassd on the deriyed-
from rule) and would be required to
meet the treatment standards for
nonwastewaters when EPA develops
them. However, as noled above, the "No
Land Disposal Based on No Generation™
standard does not apply to these
wastes. It only applies io the waste as
originally generated, according to the
description of the waste in the listing £as
listed hi 40 CFR 261.32].
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR KOOS
ANDK007
[Nonwastewater forms of these wastes generated
by the process described in the waste listing
description and disposed after June 8, 19S9, and
not generated in the course of treating wastewater
toimt of these miastes3 •
No Land Disposal Based on No Generation
d. Wastes from aaetaldehyde
production.
K009—Distillation bottoms from the
production of acetaldehyde from
ethylene.
K010—Distillation side cute from the
production of acetaldehyde from
ethylene. , . • ,
Wastes identified .as K009 and K01Q
are generated primarily by facilities in
the organic chemicals manufacturing
industry,, specifically those engaged in
the production of acetaldehyde. Detailed
technical descriptions of the specific
production processes gen.exa.ting these
wastes can be found in the background
document for the listing of these wastes.
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for organic constituents in
nonwastewater and wastewater forms
of wastes identified as KOOS and K010.
Standards applicable to
nonwastewaters are based on the.
performance achieved by rotary Mln
incineration and the concentration of
organics measured in ash residuals.
Standards applicable to wastewaters
are based on the performance achieved
by steam stripping followed by
biological treatment and the
concentration of organics measured in
the resultant effluent wastewaters.
Other treatment technologies that can
achieve these concentration-based
treatment standards are not precluded
from use by this rule. The regulated
constituents and treatment standards for
these wastes are listed hi the tables at
the end of this section.
In comments to the proposed rule, one
of the two .generators of K009 and K010
wastes indicated to the Agency that
some of the organic constituents
proposed for regulation were extraneous
to the manufacturing process of
acetaldehyde and that another of the
proposed constituents could be
effectively controlled by flie proposed
regulation of chloroform. After
reviewing the commenter's rationale
and the available data on the
manufacturing of acelaldehyde, 4he
Agency has determined that the
proposed standards for 1,1-
dichloroethane, acrolein, methylene
chloride, and/or ethyl methacrylate in
wastewaters are unnecessary and is
therefore not promulgating the proposed
standards for these constituents.
However, the Agency is promulgating
treatment standards for chloroform in
both nonwastewater and wastewater
forms of K009 and KONJ.
The same commenter questioned
EPA's legal authority to regulate
constituents that were not explicitly
identified by the Agency as toxic
constituents of concern when K009 and
K010 were listed as hazardous wastes
under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The Agency strongly disagrees with
the commenter's interpretation of
section 3004[m) arid its'interpretation Oi
toxicity. RCRA section 3b04{m3
mandates EPA to promulgate treatment
standards that sustantially reduce the
, jilffHIIIillllli !' I
i" iiui "•|liii:!.!iii.':i"i|=:"
i",1;::: I.,:!1,,/:!!1,', : ", Ji,::;
; ,i,/ j , I, ii.;:,'!,*:, ,:,-; I,,,': „;,:; '-fits ^ «!>,'', i! fiSt,, rtf..,. .a-
'I,"*1!!:'!!,, liillllll'l* lll|B"«ll!|!i rfii'Tlli',!^
-------
federal .Register •/•Vol. 54. NO. 120 .
June 23. QL989./; Rules) and Regulations
26619
toxicity of the waste or that
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the wastes. Section. 3004(m) applies
to all hazardous constituents and does
not limit the concern to those
constituents for which the waste is
listed. The Agency^has thus interpreted
the intent of the statutory language to
measure reduction of toxicity in terms of
the amount and types of constituents
that define the chemical composition of
the waste. Thus, the Agency believes
that in the development of treatment
standards, the Agency can regulate any
of the Appendix VII and VIII (40 CFR
Part 261] constituents.
Further, the Agency has interpreted
this statutory mandate as authorizing
the Agency to develop treatment
standards for constituents that serve as
indicators of performance, thereby
accounting for the reduction in-either the
amount or mobility of Appendix VII and
VIII constituents contained in the
wastes. The Agency believes that the
use of surrogate or indicator
constituents fully responds to the intent
of section 3004(m) because, there could
be instances that available analytical
methods cannot satisfactorily analyze
for Appendix VII and VIII constituents
in complex waste matrices and thus, the
Agency would be unable to develop
concentration-based treatment ._
standards for the waste.
In addition, Appendix VII constituents
supporting the listing of K009 and K010
were intended to support the
Administrative Record of EPA in
.assessing the need to regulateK009 and
K010 as hazardous Wastes under RCRA.
These constituents were by no means,an
exhaustive list of hazardous ^
constituents contained in the waste, but
; merely provided "a minimum basis for ;
listing a waste as hazardous^Therefore,
the Agency believes that it is not
restricted to regulation of only these
constituents. See further clarification of
the use of Appendix VII constituents in
Section III.A.l.(b.) of today's preamble. '
As noted in the proposal, performance
data supporting the development of
treatment standards were not generated
from the direct treatment ofJKO§and.
K010 wastes. Instead, these performance
data are from the treatment of •vjastes •
either judged to be as difficult t|treat as
the wastes of concern.or contajning -
treatable concentrations of the.
constituents that are candidates for
regulation in the wastes of concern.
For wastewaters, these performance ;
data were originally develo^d" ;
specifically to support the effluent
guidelines limitations for facilities in the
Organic Chemical Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) industry and represent
the performance of Best Practical . ~.
Technologies and Best Available
Technologies for treatment of ,
wastewaters. The Agency has.
determined that it is technically feasible
to transfer the OCPSFperformance data
to K009 and K010, and thus is
promulgating treatment standards
developed from these data. Further
details of the Agency's evaluation of
performance data and determinations of
BDAT are found in the BDAT
background document for K009 and
K010 wastes.
Also, this commenter pointed out that
the data used by the Agency in
supporting the wastewater standards
may not have been adjusted for
analytical spiked recoveries. The
adjustment that the commenter is
referring to is known as a "correction
factor", which may be obtained by
injecting a known quantity of a pollutant
into water and determining the percent
of known amount measured. During
preliminary stages of the OCPSF
rulemaking, EPA in fact used this
adjustment technique for a variety of
data, including the chloroform data
discussed by-the commenter in the
present rulemaking. However, the
Chemical Manufacturers Association
submitted comments in the OCPSF
rulemaking arguing mat the,use of
correction factors for these'data are
technically unsound. EPA agreed that
these data are "better represented as
unadjusted for recovery", and decided '
to present the data in unadjusted form
(48 FR11856, March 21,1983).
• For purposes of the current ," :
rulemaking under RCRA section
3Q04(m), however, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to apply a correction factor
to the chloroform data to ensure
-consistency with the BDAT, Generic -
Quality Assiu-ance Project Plan (EPA/
530-SW-87-011, March 1987). This Plan
presents data and uses it to establish
• standards in a conservative majiner that
assures that variability in calculating
correction factors is accounted for.
Thus, EPA has recalculated the
wastewater standard for chloroform. At
proposal, the chloroform standard for
wastewaters was 0.09 mg/1. Today's rule
promulgates a revised chloroform
standard of 0.1Q mg/1. Although this
revision is minimal, the Agency believes
this recalculation, of the chloroform '
standard was necessary and fully
complies "with Agency methodology for •
developing treatment standards. > . •
Detailed information of the Agency's
revisions to this standard are provided "•"
in the BDAT background document for
KG09 and KplO wastes. -
.- The proposed treatment standards for
wastewaters were originally presented •=
as based on analysis of grab samples.
The Agency received comments that'
.pointed out that the data used to '
determine, the treatment standards
represented analysis of composite rather
than grab samples. At the time of
proposal, the Agency believed that since
the standards were for volatile organic
constituents, analysis of grab samples
had been performed due to potential
losses of volatile? during a composite
sampling. However, the Agency has
since determined that while grab
samples are indeed used during
sampling, the analysis of the samples is
performed by careful compositing of the
grab samples in the analytical
laboratory immediately prior to
analysis. Therefore, the treatment
standard for methylene chloride in K009
and K010 wastewaters promulgated in
today's rule are corrected and expressed
as based on a composite sample. See
further discussion of issues concerning
grab versus composite sampling in
section HI.A.l.(f.) of today's preamble.
The Agency also solicited comments
on the need for regulating other
chlorinated organic constituents that are
not on the BDAT list but were found at
treatable concentrations. The only
commenter supported the Agency's
approach that no regulation is
necessary, indicating that available data
appear to indicate that these
constituents are unlikely to interfere.
with the treatment of .the regulated
'constituents. As a result, EPA is not
promulgating, at this time, additional
requirements for these other organic "
constituents present inKOOS I and K010
wastetoaters. -. /'-.-''•'•-. — •' -\> --•-
BDAT Treatment Standards for K009 and.
'"
. [NonwastewatersJ
*..-- -i^;^- .-V '. ,
, Constituent
Maximum for any single
•grab sample , ,,
'.. total
composition
(mg/kg)
' 6.0
TCLP
(mg/D
0)
•'Not applicable^
BDAT Treatment Standards "for K009 and
'._ ,'.,•. :::_7-. -K01Q :•• ,,-'.. \--:. ...,•
" ' ' --' ;™?." 'Wastewaters]. :•'-•• . -,•'•'--
. •. Corfue'" '.. ;
Chloroforin .,...,.,..,„«.,.'«.......
Maximum for any
composite sample
'Total
. Composition
.:.. (mg/0
'6,10
TCLP
(mg/0
>F :.'!
1 Not arable.:
.. .. ; (f «iil
-------
26620
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120, / Friday, June 23, 1989 ./Rules and Regulations
e, Phthalates and phthalic anhydride
production wastes.
KQZ3— Distillation light ends from the
production of pnthalie anhydride from
naphthalene.
K093— Distiiatioa light ends from the
production of phthalks anhydride from
Grtho-xylene.
K094— OIstiHatlon bottoms from tie
production of pfa&alk: anhydride from
ortho-xylene,
U009— Di-a-btityi phfealate
U068— Dtethyl phthalate
U102— iDfmethyl phthalate
U107— pi-n-octji pfathalate
U190— Phtbalic anhydride
Wastes Identified »» K023, KD93, and
K094 are wastes generated primarily by
facilities in the organic chemicals
manufacturing industry, specifically
fboM engaged In the prodnction of
phthalic anhydride. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these three wastes
can be found in the background
document for the listing of these wastes.
Phthalic anhydride, when discarded,
out-of-date, off-specification, or spilled
often becomes the waste Identified as
U190, In contact with water, phthalic
anhydride reacts readfly to become
phthalic acid. Phthalic anhydride and
pbtlmlic acid can be reacted with, other
simple compounds to form a class of
chemicals known as phthalic acid
esters. Generally, these esters are
simply referred to as phthalates. The
chemicals for which wastes identified as
U028, U009, 0068, U102, and O107 are
listed are sll phthalates.
AH of these compounds are very
similar in chemical composition and
Structure (i.e., they contain one aromatic
ring and are comprised of only carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen), Eor ihe purposes
of determining BDAT, all of these
wastes have been grouped together into
one treatabQity group identified as
"phihalntes and phthalic anhydride
production wastes" or "phthalates" (for
short).
Treatment standards for the majority
of these wastes were originally
scheduled to be promulgated as part of
the Third Third wastes [i.e.,
promulgation by May 8, 1890). Only
U02B and U107 wastes were originally
scheduled for promulgation with the
Second Third wastes. However, in the
January 11, 1889, proposed rule for
Second Third wastes, the Agency
proposed standards for all nine of these
phthalate and phthalic anhydride
production wastes based on a transfer
of treatment standards from similar
Wastes identified as K024 {distillation
bottoms from the production of phthalic
anhdride from naphthalene). Standards
for K024 wasiewatEis and
nonwastewaters were promulgated With
the First Third wastes on August 8,1988,
based on Ihe performance of
incineration of JCQ24 nonwastewaters in
a rotary kiln as measured by the
concentrations erf hazardous
constituents found ia the ash and
scrubber water residuals.
.Several commenters opposed the
accelerated schedule Jar these wastes.
However, the statute :(Le., HSWA) does
not preclude EPA from prohibiting the
land .disposal of a. ghnen waste ahead of
schedule (and the schedule in i § 268.10
throagh 268.12 itself says that wastes
will be evaluated fay a given date,
indicating that flie .specified date is the
latest time by which HPA must act). The
Agency believes that setting the
treatment standards .and restrictions as
early as possible is consistent with
Congressional intent to move away from
land disposal and towards treatment.
Moreover, Congress created the
capacity variance in section 30Q4(h) to
address the concerns of providing
additional time'{where necessary) to
develop protective treatment or disposal
capacity* Thus, in today's rule, the
Agency is promulgating treatment
standards as proposed for K023, K093,
K094, U028, U069, OQ88, U102, U107, and
U190 based on the direct transfer of
s t andards for K024.
While the treatment standards are
based on the performance of
incineration of K024 ia a rotary kiln,
other treatment technologies such as
fluidized bed incineration, fuel
substitution, biodegradation, and
solvent extraction, that can achieve
these standards are not precluded from
use by this rule. The treatment
standards in today's rule for all of these
wastes are listed in the tables at the end
of this section.
1. K023, KG93 and KM94 wastes. The
Agency has data that indicate .that there
are relatively few generators of K023,
K093 and K094. Information also
suggests that many of these wastes, as
generated, are not typically land
disposed. The Agency considered
promulgating a treatment standard of
"No Land Disposal Based on Mo
Generation" for the nonwastewater
forms of K023, K093 and KQ94. However,
several commeriters provided
information that these wastes are.
indeed being generated. Since the
premise of no generation is not valid, the
Agency decided to promulgate the
proposed concentration-based
standards.
The Agency determined that the
treatment standards for K024 may be
transferred to fCOZ3, K093 and K094
wastes because: {1} All of these wastes
are generated "from the production of
phthalic anhydride; (23 distillation
residues generated from production
processes using naphthalene
(corresponding to KQ23 and K024
wastes') are expected to contain higher
concentrations of less volatile
constituents man distillation residues
generated from production processes
using ortho-xylene (corresponding to
K093 and K094 "wastes). Since these
constituents inK023 andK024 harre
lower volatility, they are more difficult
to vaporize and subsequently be
destroyed in a rotary kiln. K023 and
K024 are thus more difficult to treat than
K093 andK094; and {3) distillation
bottoms (K024) are expected to contain
lower concentrations of volatile
constituents than the distillation light
ends (K023) and thus would be more
difficult to treat than K023, Based on this
analysis, the Agency has determined
that K024 represents the most difficult to
treat of the four wastes generated Irom
the production of phthalic anhydride, m
addition, since K023, K024, K093 and
K094 are all wastes from the production
of phthalic anhydride, they are expected
to contain a greater concentration of
interfering constituents than off-spec or
discarded phthalic anhydride flJlQD) and
thus would be more difficult to treat
than U190. Therefore, the Agency is
directly transferring the concentration-.
based standards for pMhalic anhydride
(as measured by the analysis for
phthalic acid) in K024 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters to K023, JC093, K094
and U190 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters respectively.
One commenter questioned why ihe
-Agency did not simply .establish
treatment standards for K023. JK024,
K093, K094 and U190 measuring for
phthalic anhydride rather lham phthalic
acid. Tie commenter reasoned that: (1)
Analytical methods for the direct
measurement of phthalic anhydride
exist and are available; {21 measurement
should be .for phthalic anhydride
because it Jbas a significantly higher
toxicity than phthalic acid; and (3)
treatment standaisis for phthalic
anhydride would allow treatment by
hydrolysis and hydrolysis .significantly
reduces ihe toxicity of the waste.
The Agency's response to these issues
is twofold: (I) Although methods for the
measurement of phthalie anhydride
exist, the measurement of pMialie acid
as a surrogate provides a more effective
means of measuring treatment, due to
the instability of phthalic anhydride in
water {i.e., hydrolysis of the anhydride
in me wastes prior to analysis of
treatment residuals co-old result in faW
I'll
-------
. Z^.?ffl.Register / Vb-' 54. NO. *2Q / Friday, June 23, 1989 /Rules and-Regulations .26821
positive measurements of treatment
efficiency if analysis were performed
only for the anhydride); and (2)
destruction of phthalic anhydride by
incineration provides a more complete
reduction in total toxicity than simple
hydrolysis (i.e., incineration completely
destroys both the phthalic anhydride
and the phthalic acid to carbon dioxide
and water, while hydrolysis does not
provide any significant destruction of
the organics, but rather enlarges the
phthalic anhydride molecule to the acid
form).
Several commenters pointed, out that,
as initially generated, K023, K024, JC093,
K094 and U190 nonwastewaters are
comprised primarily of phthalic
anhydride and would contain practically
no phthalic acid. Thus, the wastes
would probably meet the treatment
standard based on analysis for phthalic
acid withoutany treatment.
Commenters suggested that the
treatment standard should include a
hydrolysis step prior to analysis for
phthalic acid.
The Agency never intended, by
establishing the standard only for
phthalic acid, that these wastes should
avoid treatment. In the proposed rule (54
FR 1088 (January 11,1989)), the
standards for U190 were correctly
expressed as "phthalic anhydride (U190).
reported as phthalic acid". The Agency
thus clearly intended that the phthalic
anhydride be converted to phthalic acid
prior to analysis. The Agency recognizes
that the standards for K023, K093 and
K094 were expressed in the proposed
rule (54 FR 1078 (January 11,1989)) only
as "phthalic acid". However, today's
rule corrects this inconsistency by
expressing all of the wastewater and .
nonwastewater standards Tor K023,
K093, and K094 and U190 as "phthalic
anhydride * * * (measured as phthalic
acid)". Thus, the Agency is specifically
requiring analysis for phthalic acid after
hydrolysis of K023, K093, K094 and U190
nonwastewaters.
For the same reason, EPA is also
making this same clarifying change as a.
technical Correction to the standards for
K024 wastewaters and nonwastewaters
that were adopted hi the First Third rule
Thus, these standards are now
• expressed as "phthalic anhydride * * * ,
(measured as phthalic acid)". (EPA is
not altering the numerical standards for
these K024 wastes..)
For the wastewater forms of these
wastes, the Agency is not requiring an
additional hydrolysis step provided that
complete hydrolysis of the anhydride
can be reasonably assumed to have
occurred (such as in cases where the
phthalic anhydride in the waste has
been in prolonged contact with water in
the waste, been sufficiently mixed with
the water, or suspected to have been
present in low concentrations in the
water).
2. Standards for U028, U069, U088,
U102, and U107. EPA proposed
concentration-based treatment
standards for U028, U069, U088, U102,
and U107 based on the transfer of data
on the performance of rotary kiln
incineration for K024 nonwastewaters.
Standards for these wastes are derived
from a direct transfer of the numerical
yalues for phthalic acid to each of the
individual phthalate esters (i.e., 28 mg/
kg for all nonwastewaters and 0.54 mg/1
for all wastewaters as measured by
each phthalate).
One commenter argued that the
Agency has not adequately
demonstrated the transferability of the
treatment standards for K024 wastes to
these phthalate esters. The commenter
stated that it had fo.und no support for
EPA's statement that all of these
compounds are anticipated to be easier
to burn than phthalic acid. At the same
tune, the commenter claimed the
following information as support to their
position: (1) The K024 phthalic
anhydride residue is a solid and the
phthalates are typically liquids; and (2)
the autoignition temperature (a measure
of the ease of ignition) for phthalic
anhydride is 1083°F; 1032°F for dimethyl
phthalate; 950°F for phthalic acid; and
735°F for bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
The Agency recognizes that there are
many factors that affect how easily a
compound can be burned, such as
boiling point, activation energy, bond
dissociation energy, heat of combustion,
heat of formation, and general structural
class. However, the information
provided by the commenter appears to
support the Agency's position rather
than the commenter's. In general, solids
should be more difficult to burn than
liquids. In addition, phthalic anhydride
with the highest autoignition
temperature appears to be more difficult
to burn than the phthalic acid or the
other identified phthalates.
• : Moreover,.these data.support that
these phthalates pose relatively the
same difficulty in burning because their
autoignition temperatures are within tne
same order of magnitude. More
important, the Agency maintains that
the performance data available to the
Agency support that the treatment
standards for the incineration of K024
are not only transferable to these
wastes but also achievable on a routine
basis.
Incineration data for K024 mdiate that
untreated K024 wastes contained from- - •;
1.3 to 22% phthalic anhydride, ;
approximately 10% ash, aridmp to 83%; ...
polymeric materials. Analysis of the
incinerator residues for phthalic acid,
the surrogate for phthalic anhydride (see
previous discussion for K023, K093 and
K094 wastes above), indicated
destruction to detection limits of 8.2 mg/
kg in the ash and 0.16 mg/1 in the
scrubber water. Thus, if phthalic
anhydride is, as the qommenters' data
indicates, one of the more difficult
phthalates to bum, then the other
phthalates and phthalic acid should be
able to be destroyed to these levels. The
Agency points out that the ash and the
polymeric materials present in the
untreated K024 waters also contribute to
the difficulty in incineration of this
waste. Thus, the Agency concluded that
the K024 wastes are the most difficult to
treat of these wastes.
The commenters expressed concern
about several other issues that led'them
to believe that the standards could not
be achieved. These include the potential
for false positives due to cross-
contamination from: (1) The co-
incineration of nonhazardous materials
containing phthalates; (2) plastic
materials used during sampling and
analysis; (3) nonhazardous materials co
disposed with treatment residuals; (4)
liners and covers used in a roll-off
containers used to transport ash
(containing 35 mg/kg of phthalates); ana
(5) plastic materials used in the scrubbe,
water systems. They also argued that ,.,
household garbage (containing 22 mg/k6
of phthalates) and landfill liners would
exceed the treatment standards. Thus,
they concluded that the treatment
standards were not meaningful nor
could they possibly be met. Several
commenters further concluded that since
the treatment standards could not be
met, the Agency should simply establish
incineration as a technology, rather than
set concentration-based standards.
Finally, one commenter also stated tha*
the Agency has an insufficient number
of data points on which to base the
standards.
In response to the majority of these
comments, the Agency points to the data
on phihalate concentrations in the
residuals from the test burns of four
different waste types that support the
Agency's key positions. The wastes
include: (1) K019 (heavy ends from the
distillation of ethylene dichloride in
ethylene dichloride production); (2) K037
(wastewater treatment sludges from the
production of Disulfoton); (3) F024
(various wastes from the production of
chlorinated aliphatics such distillation
residues, heavy ends, tars, and reactor
clean-out wastes); and (4) K101/K102 '
. (distillation'tar residues from the • - .
• distiilatiori:6£afeilirie§based c°om^ounds
-------
2S622
Federal Register / Vol. 54, Mo, 120 / Friday ,- June- 2J, ^1989 "^ Rules and Regulations
«nd residue from activated carbon in the
production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals). These wastes
rcprcient a myriad of different
hazardous waste types and these data
are from more than one different
Incineration facility.
EPA analyzed for various phthalates
In the incineration residues from these
test bums as follows; [1) Six data sets
for di-n-but}*l and bis-{2-ethylhexyy
phthaiatc in K019 ash residues and six
data sets for di-n-octyi, di-n-butyl, and
bls-12-ethylhexylJ phthakte in K019
icrubber waters; (2] six data sets for bis-
(2.fi%Uiexyl) phthalate in K037 ask and
scrubber waters; (3) six data sets for
diethyl and bis-{2-ethylliexyi) phthalate
in FQ24 ash and scrubber waters; and (4)
six; data sets for bis-{2-etfaylhexylJ
phtluilate in KlOl and K102 ash and
scrubber waters.
In general the majority of the
measured values for phthalates were
approximately at the detection limit for
the majority ofphthalates that were
analyzed. In kiln ash the measured
values or detection limits ranged from
<0.42 to <2.0 mg/kg. This is consistent
with the estimated PQLs For these
nhth«lates In ash residues {as calculated
by multiplying the detection limits for
the Individual phthalates as measured
by SW-848 Method 8250 by the
correction factor of B70 for low-level
contaminated soil] ranging from 1,6 mg/
kg for dimethyl phthalate to a maximum
of 2,5 mg/kg for dl-n-bntyl, di-n-octyl,
and t>is-(2-efhyIhexyy phthalate. Hie
data from these four test burns also
Indicated that in the scrubber waters the
measured values for these phthalates (or
their detection limits) ranged from
<0,D021o or as a
method of treatment (technology-based),
the Agency maintains that where
treatment performance .data are
available concentration-based treatment
standards -should be estaMsned rather
than specifying a method of treatment.
Concentration-based standards allow
industry the flexibility to use any
treatment technology or combination of
technologies to treaithe wastes as long
as land disposed residuals produced,
have concentrations of the regulated
constituents less than or equal to the
treatment standards;
Moreover, none -of the comnrenters
supported their claims (that tte
treatment standards could mot be
achieved) 'with data on the measurement
of phthalates in treatment residuals.
Because acceptable treatment
performance data were available for
treatment of K024 and since the data
support that CTass-contamnration is not
anticipated to affect'the achievability of
the standards, the Agency .is
promulgating the concentration-based
treatment standards for 11029, TJOB9,
U088, U102, and U107.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
KQ23, K024, KQ93, K094, AND U190
.[Nonwastewators]
I
Constituent
Phthalio arihydrida
. . , {measured as i
Rhihalioaoid). ;
.Maximum lor any single grab
SStnpre
Total
.composition
(mg/kg) i
as'
TCLP Hmg/l)
Not
applicable
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K023, K024, K093, K094, AND UJ9D
.'. CWaStowaters]
Constituent .
Phthalic anhydride
. . . (measured ss •
Phthalic acidj.
Maximum for any single grab
sample
Total '
cornposition
'(mg/kd)
<0,54'
TCLP ,(mg/l)
•Not
applicable
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 /Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
28623
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PHTHALATES U028, 0069,0088, 0102, AND 0107
[NonwastewatersJ
Waste code
U028
U069
U088
U102
U107
Regulated constituent
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.... ...
Di-n-butyl phthalate :
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate '. '
Maximum for any single grab sample
Total composition
(mg/kg)
28
28
28
28
28
TCLP (mg/l)
Not Applicable
u _ .
u
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PHTHALATES 0028, 0069, 0088,0102, AND 0107 [WASTEWATERS]
Waste code
U00.28
U069
U088
U102
U107
Regulated constituent
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.: - ' •
Di-n-butyl phtriatate ., ."_..„-.
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate ;
Maximum for any single grab sample
Total composition
(mg/kg)
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
TCLP (mg/l)
Not Applicable
* #
f. Wastes from the production of
dinitrotoluene, toluene diamine and
'toluene diisocyanate.
K027—Centrifuge and distillation
residues from toluene diisocyanate
production.
Kill—Product washwasters from the
production of dinitrotoluene via
.nitration of toluene.
K112—Reaction by-product water from
the drying cohmurin the production of
toluenediamine via hydrogenation of
dinitrotoluene.
K113—Condensed liquid light ends from
the production of toluenediamine via
hydrogenation of dinitrotoluene.
K114—Vicinals from the purification of
toluenediamine in the production of
toluenediamine via hydrogenation of
dinitrotoluene.
K115—Heavy ends from the purification
of toluenediamine in the production of
toluenediamine via hydrogenation of
dinitrotoluene.
K116—Organic condensate from the
solvent recovery column in the
production of toluene diisocyanate via
phosgenation of toluenediamine.
U221^-Toluenediamine (TDA).
TJ223—Toluene diisocyanate (TDI).
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for nonwastewater and
wasterwater forms of K027, K113, K114,
K115, K116, U221, and U223 wastes.
Detailed technical descriptions of the
specific production processes generating
these wastes can be found in the
background document for the listing of
these wastes. The treatment standards
for the organic hazardous constituents
are expressed as specific methods of
treatment. For the nonwastewater forms
, of these wastes, the treatment methods
are either incineration or fuel
substitution. For the wastewater forms
of these wastes, the methods are either
carbon adsorption followed by
'incineration or fuel substitution of the
spent carbon, or direct incineration of
the wastewaters. In addition, for K115
wastes, the Agency is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for nickel. The Agency did not
propose treatment standards for Kill
and K112 wastes, and therefore is not
promulgating treatment standards in
today's rule. At this tme, Kill and K112
wastes are not prohibited from land
disposal. *
The Agency determined that the
analytical methods available during the
development of today's rule could not
satisfactorily measure the principal
hazardous organic constituents
contained in K027, K113-K116, U221,
and U223 wastes and treatment
residuals. One commenter identified a
preliminary method of analysis for at
least one constituent, and urged the
Agency to establish concentration-
based standards based on the use of this
method. However, since the Agency has
not finalized this or any other analytical
method for the major constituents in
these wastes, performance data could
not be obtained using this method that
would allow the Agency to develop
concentration-based treatment
standards for today's rule. The Agency
has also been unable to identify any
surrogate constituents or gross
parameters that could be used to assure
reduction, of the hazardous organic
constituents of concern. Thus, the
Agency i& Unable to promulgate
concentration-based treatment
standards for organics in these wastes. ,
EPA prefers concentration-based
treatment standards due to the greater
flexibility in choice of technology used
to achieve the standard, and to the
greater control afforded in ensuring
efficient design and operation of the
chosen technology. However, in the
absence of analytical methods the •• .
Agency believes that the only logical
alternative to a concentration-based
standard is to" establish a method of
treatment as the BDAT treatment
standard.
It should be noted that promulgating
standards expressed as specified ,
methods of treatment does not preclude
the Agency from establishing
concentration-based standards in the
future, should an analytical method be
developed with sufficient QA/QC that
will measure the hazardous
constituents, or should an adequate
surrogate or-indicator constituent be
identified.
The majority of commenters
addressing this issue supported this
approach. Further, EPA believes that
this approach is consistent with the
BDAT methodology and with RCRA
section 3004(m) which authorizes the
Agency to establish either levels or
methods of treatment. Therefore, today's
rule promulgates treatment standards
expressed as required methods for these
wastes.
The Agency also points out that when
treatment standards are expressed as a
specific technology rather than as.
concentration-based standards, it is"
possible for a generator or treater to .
-------
......... j;'1. » ...... f •:,'•!>:
, ..... Ifj,;
1.^ I ' 'R 3 ! . ' ' I
''
" • j ' I f "!' ' f ! ' '' ,",•,,!"',! J !-:!V'i< i"' IT'"' * I '"ijlf'"*,' '•#• ••- ''•:'".• l'. rfff-
26624, Federal Register / Vd. 54, Ho., 120 / Jiiday, June 23, 1®89 / Rules and Regulatians
demonstrate that an altepiatiyg," ' " .
technology can achieve an equivalent
level of performance as that specified
treatment method {40 CFR 268,42(b)).
Tills demonstration could be based on:
(1) A newly developed analytical
taethod for the primary hazardous
constituent; (2) a concentration-based
standard utilizing a surrogate or
Indicator compound; or (3) other
demonstrations of Equivalence for an
alternative method of treatment, The
resultant treatment standard, as well as
any analytical methodology used in the
demonstration, could then be proposed
by the Agency to be applicable to all
. wastes Ira this group,
HPA's full rationale for finalizing the
treatment standards promulgated today
is contained in the BDAT background
document for ftese wastes. The
treatment standards promulgated today
for nonwastewaters and wastewater
forms of K027, K113-K116, U221, and
UE28 are summarized in the set of tables
at the end of this section.
1. Nonwastewaters, The Agency
believes that incineration and fuel
substitution represents BDAT for the
organlcs In aonwastewater forms of
these wastes. The Agency Is
promulgating a treatment standard of
* "Incineration or Fuel Substitution as a
Method of Treatment" for the
nonwaslewater forms of K027, K113-
K116,11221. and U223. Incinerators must
comply wMh the requirements of 40 CER
Part 254 Subaprt Q, or Part 285 Subpart
O. Similarly, fuel substitution units must
comply with flie requiremeats of 40 t2FR
Part 266, Subpart D.
The majority of commenters
addressing the nonwastewater
treatment standards agreed with the
Agency's rationale for reqtiiring fliat
thesa hazardous wastes be burned in
Incinerators regulated under 40 CFR Part
264 Subpart O or Part 265 Subpart O, or
In fuel substitution units burning for
energy recovery under requirements set
out in 40 CFR Part 206 Subpart D [see 54
FR 1078-1060).
There were a number of comments
concerning the regulatory states of
residues resulting after burning these
wastes, la the January 11,1389 proposal
Uic Agency limited its discussion of
residues From Incineration/fuel
substitution to those that are routinely
generated during the burning :of the
restricted wastes (e^., asiies,
Inclncratipn/fuel substitution scrubber
Waters, spent filters and/or sludges from
the treatment of scrubber waters). When
EPA specifies a treatment method as the
treatment standard, residues resulting
from the required treatment method are
no longer prohibited from land disposal
(unless EPA should otherwise specify
other requirements,, as it is doing in this
proceeding for nickel in K115 wastes
and for organlcs concentrated hi the
spent carbon from the treatment of TC027,
K113-K116, U221, or U223 wastewaters}.
However, some commenters asked the
Agency to clarify the .regulatory status
of wastes that are generated
sporadically le.g., aging equipment
which have been exposed to the treated
wastes)- In response to the .commenters
who pointed out that wastes resulting
from maintenance operations "(e.g.,
replacing of aging materials in the
combustion chambers, descaling of
boiler soot, or debris equipment) as well
as post treatment residues {e-g., filter
cakes from water discharges of
incineration scrubber waters and
washes from the rinsing of incineration
equipment) were not addressed by the
Agency in the proposed rule, EPA notes
that none of these sporadically
generated residues -are prohibited from
land disposal BO long as they originate
from the treatment method specified in
this rule. See further discussion .
clarifying the applicability of the
treatment standards to incinerator
equipment and .other treatment residues
where the treatment standards are
promulgated as a 'specific method xjr
method,{s} of treatment in section
ni.A.3,(h.)(2.J of today'js preamble.
For K115, the concentration-abased
standard ior nickel is based on the
performance achieved by stabilization
of EQQB sludges as measured by analysis
of the TCLP extract The Agency lias
determined that it is technically feasible
to transfer the F.OD6 performance data to
the K1I5 incinerator residues because
these residues are believed to show
similar treatability •characteristics to
F006 wastes {high concentrations of
nickbl), and none of the constituents in
K115 residuals are likely to interfere
with the treatability of nickel. K115
wastes and its incineration/fuel
substitution treatment Tesiduals must
comply with the'concentraSon-based
treatment standards promulgated for'
nickel.
2. Wastewaters. For organics in the
wastewater forms ri{2| direct
incineration of wastewaters as a method
of treatment For KUS wastewaleis, the
Agency is also promulgating
concentration-based treatment
* ' .'1 ' - „ ' i , ' .,,;,, , ' iih :r'n , "
standards for nickel. The total
concentration level for nickel is based
on the transfer of performance data that
EPATias for metal bearing wastewaters
containing nickel. K115 must comply
with both the organic and metal
standards.
Most of the commenters supported
EPA's proposal specifying carbon
adsorption followed by incineration of
the spent earban :as the method of
treatment for K027, K113-K116, U221,
andIJ223 wastewaters. The commenters1
agreed that this treatment train
substantially .reduces the amount of
soluble organics in wastewaters by
concentrating the soluble organics in the
activated carbon. The spent carbon is
generated by a nondestructive treatment
process and thus, the spent carbon must
undergo further treatment in-order to
destroy the amount of trrganics
concentrated in "the spent carbon. As a
result, spent carbon treatment residues
must comply with the nonwastewater
treatment standards being promulgated
in today's rule for the organics in the
nonwastewater form of these wastes
(i.e., incineration or fuel substitution).
Carbon adsorption is often "used at the
end -of a treatment train, after the
constituent concentrations are'reduced
by technologies such, as chemical
oxidation, hydrolysis or biodegradation.
It should Demoted that 1lie use of such
other treatment technologies prior to
carbon adsorptionis not prohibited by
this rule provided that the activated
carbon is utilized at a point prior to
placing the treated wastewaters in -a
surface impoundment and that the other
forms jof treatment do not involve land
disposal. ipEreatmeni in ari .impoundment
that meets the requirements of RCRA
section 3005(])(11) (implemented by 40
CFR 261,4) is also not prohibited). For
example, biological treatment in a tank
followed by activated carbon treatment,
followed by discharge of treated
wastewaters to a .surface impoundment
is not precluded.
Any monwastEwater residues from
treatment technologies prior to caifeon
adsorption must meet the same
treatment standards applicable to the
spent carbon (Le,, they would .have to be
incinerated in order to meet BDAT}. The
wastewater effluent from carbon
adsorption is considered 'to meet the
treatment standard. See further
discussion on the applicability of the
land disposal restrictions on the
residues from carbon sadsorption in
section III.A.3x(h.)(2.3 of today's
preamble.
EPA is farther specifying that, to
avoid Ineffective treatment, effluent
wastewaters must 'be toeated by weH-
; I
-------
26625
designed and well-operated activated
carbon unit. This is a unit that is
designed and operated in a manner
where operating parameters are
consistent with .the range of operational
parameters lor which the unite were
designed..
For instance, wastewates
contaminated with K027 generate
insoluble organics (polymers) lhat may
upset the operation of the carbon-
adsorption unit and thus,, .these insoluble
organics (typically measured as total
suspended solids, TSS] must he
removed from fhe wastewaters prior to
carbon adsorption. Preteeatment of
wastewaters will minimize operating
problems such as plugging of the carbon
bed by keeping fflie TSS of inEueni
• wastewaters to the carbon adsorption
unit at levels that allow the unit to
operate properly. Carbon adsorption
units flms must be operated such that
brea"kfhroug"h of TDI and TDA does not
occur. Selection of an indicator gross
parameter or indicator constituent that
can account for the performance of ibis
technology should be made on a case-
by-case basis {'for example, as part of a
facility's waste analysis plan). {See also
the discussion of waste analysis plans in
section m.A.3L{£J of today's preamble.]
The BDAT background document for
K027, Kill-Kim U221, and TJ223
wastes provides additional information
of these and other parameters fliat are
typically monitored and considered for
the design and operation of carbon
adsorption-units.
EPA emphasizes fhat the specified
method of treatment includes
incineration or fuel substitution of the
spent carbon and any other
nonwaslewater forms of the wastes fhat
are generated up-stream from the
effluent discharge of the carbon
adsorption column [e.g., spent filters or
biotreatment .sludges). The spent carbon
and other nonwaslewaters generated
prior to carbon adsorption could
presumably be burned for energy
recovery in a boiler or industrial
furnace. Such additional treatment is
necessary to thermally destroy the
organic constituents left behind in the
spent carbon or nonwastewaters.
Without ihese treatment steps, the
hazardous constituents would be merely
transferred from one environmental
.media (water}, to another {the carbon or
other solid waste).
Commenters also urged the Agency to
consider (direct incineration of these
wastewaters either as the BDAT or as"
an alternative BDAT method of
treatment. The Agency believes that
incineration of these restricted
wastewaters is a -treatment equivalent
to carbon adsorption followed by
incineration of spent carbon because the
amount of organics concentrated in the
spent carbon undergo farther treatment
by incineraKon prior to land disposal
[i.e., incineration or fuel substitution of
spent carbon and spent filters). Further,
incineration/fuel substitution alone is
capable of substantially reducing the
orgaiiics in these restricted
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is
promulgating incineration or fuel
substitution as an equivalent BDAT .
method for these wastewaters,.
Treatment residues from incineration or
fuel substitution of these wastewaters
are not prohibited from land disposal.
One commenter indicated that it
. thermally regenerates fee spent carbon
used to treat wastewaters contaminated
with TDI wastes.Thermal regeneration
of the spent carbon is not prohibited
providing that the nonwastewater
residues resulting from thermal
regeneration of the spent carbon
undergo incineration or fuel substitution
(i.e., meet the K027, K113-K116, U221,
and U223 nonwastewater standards
promulgated today). The regenerated
carbon is no longer a solid waste
provided that it is further reused or
marketed {See 40 CFR2BL3[c](2]p]J.
Several commenters urged the Agency
to consider currently available
treatment methods that deactivate the
reactivity of wastewaters containing
TDI -consfituents {KG27 and/or U223).
The methods of treatment consist of
adding large amounts of water with or
without chemical .reagents, in order to
polymerize most of the free TDI to ureas
andf or polyurethanes. Commenters
argued that these deactivated TDI
wastewaters could he land disposed
without causing any harm to ihe human
health and the environment
The Agency disagrees with the
Commenters because deacthration
methods alone cannot be deemed BDAT.
F6r instance, the addition of large
amounts of water may successfully
remove the reactivity of TDI. This
technology, however, leaves behind
residues of aromatic organic rings
containing nitrogen constituents such as
TDA. Since this mefliod of treatment,
alone,, neither removes the long term
toxicity of the organic constituents in,
the waste nor reduces the potential for
migration, of organics, the Agency has
ruled out this method of treatment as a
potential candidate for BDAT.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS fon
KO27, KH13-K116,11221 AND O223
Wlonwastewatersl
Incineration or tfuel substitution * as a method of
treatment
1 Jncinera'tors must, comply with 40 OFR 264 SUb-
part O or 265 Subpart O. Fuel substitution units
must be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 256 Sub-
part D.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS ron
K027, K113-K116, U22i AND U223 .
tWastewaters]
Carbon adsorption 2 or incineration ' as a method of
treatment
1 incinerators must comply with 40 GFR 264 Sub-
part O or 265 Subpart O. .Fuel substitution units
must be In compliance with 40 CPR Part 266 Sub-
part O.
2 Spent carbon, and any other .nonwastewater .re-
siduals generated upstream from a carbon adsorp-
tion unit must meet ccur. Selec-
tion of a surrogate 'or indicator compound as a
measure of breakthrough should be considered on a
case-by^case -sttuafion.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS IFOR KJ15
. ENonwastewatecsJ
• Constituent
Nickel „ . _J
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total i
composition
.Xmg/rkg)
O ' i
: :
TCLP
!(mgZ|}
«;32
1 Not applicable. •
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K115
X Wastewaters]
Constituent . . ;
NickeU , ;
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total :
•composition
-------
2G826 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
trichloroethane. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these wastes can
t» found in the background document
for the listing of these wastes. Today's
rule promulgates treatment standards
for tjonwastewater forms of K028, K029,
K085 andK096 and wastewater forms of
K028, The regulated constituents and
treatment standards for these wastes
«re Hated In the tables at the end of this
section.
1. Revision of the "No Land Disposal"
standards. At the time of the proposed
rule, information available to (he
Agency indicated that K029 wastes were
no longer being generated and that K095
and K096 wastes were being completely
recycled, According to available waste
characterization data, all three of ih,ese
wastes would be classified as
nonwastewaters for the purposes of
BOAT. Therefore, the Agency proposed
i treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" for
K029 nonwastewaters and "No Land
Disposal Based on Recycling" for K095
and K090 nonwastewaters. The Agency
simultaneously proposed that
concentration-based standards for the
nonwastewatera could be transferred
from treatment performance data for
incineration of either K019 or F024
nonwastewaters. This data transfer
would be possible because these two
wastes were more difficult to treat than
K029, KQ95 and K096.
Many commenters opposed any
standard that specified "No Land
Disposal" for a particular waste because
of complications arising from EPA's
application of the "derived-from" and
"mixture" rules. The commenters were
concerned that during the process of
recycling their K095 and K096 wastes,
an accidental spill may occur thus
creating a nonrecyclable K095 or K096
nonwastewater based on either the
"derlved-from" or the "mixture" rule.
The commenters also pointed out that
potential fluctuations in the generation
processes, or modifications to the
generation process may result in the
generation of a waste that could no
longer bo recycled. They indicated that
these wastes, if generated, would
probably require incineration and may
produce an ash that would most likely
require land disposal. Thus, a genuine
need for a concentration-based
treatment standard would arise.
The Agency maintains that for certain
wastes, the "No Land Disposal"
standard is appropriate. The Agency
believes that the clarification of the
applicability of this standard may
remove the majority of the commenters'
concerns. Such a standard is
-. f.'"'.'v:. :;!"|T'fvi; -iii'1!'!": ;''; H".;T:O '•"l
appropriate, provided that it applies to
wastes generated from the process
described in the listing description for
this waste that appears in 40 CFR Part
261, and is disposed after the date of the
applicable land disposal prohibition for
that waste. A final rule published on
May 2,1989 provides a complete
explanation of the basis for limiting the
"No Land Disposal Based on No
Generation" standard in this way (54 FR
18838).
However, most commqnters supported
the Agency's proposed alternative (i.e.,
the transfer of concentration-based
treatment standards for K019 wastes to
K029, K095.aiid K098). Thus, the Agency
is not promulgating the "No Land
Disposal Il-ised on No Generation"
standard for K029 nonwa^texvaters nor \
is it promulgating the "No Land Disposal
Based on Recycling" standard for K095.
and K098 nonwastewaters.
2. Standards for organic constituents.
Commenters pointed out that K019
wastes were more similar to K028, K029,
K095 and K098 nonwastewaters than
F024 wastes. The Agency reexamined
the data and agrees with the
commenters. Waste characterization
data on KQ19 nonwastewaters indicate
that the K019 wastes do contain higher
concentrations of chlorinated organic
compounds than the F024 wastes and
are more difficult to treat than K028,
K029, K095 and K096 nonwastewaters.
The Agency is therefore promulgating
treatment standards for the organic
constituents present in these
nonwastewaters based on the transfer
of performance data from rotary kiln
incineration in K019 wastes rather than
F024 wastes.
Because characterization data on
K029, K095,-and K096 show the presence
of treatable concentrations of several
organic constituents that the Agency
had not found present in K028, the
Agency developed standards for these
other organic constituents based on a .
transfer of performance data and
existing concentration-based standards
for K019 wastes. Details on the rationale
for the transfer of performance, data and-
the development of treatment standards
for these organic constituents can be
found in the BOAT background
document for these wastes.
One commenter stated that the
proposed organic constituent treatment
standards fa.ll below PQLs achievable in
the commenter's analytical laboratories.
However, the background documents for
K019 and for F024 demonstrate that
detection levels in ash and scrubber
water residuals can be achieved in
laboratories. In fact, the limits achieved
by the laboratories used in the BOAT
I! iltllli 'INN.il !i, f"jiiin,'1 "I iin"nr< "';n'" l' i'"I Ilij!'ill' iiIIX'''^!?!"! 'ii.' ' I ill |T1 V,'„!i,,Jl! ii'. ,!!!" "' ',,'"! "."","."l"i ' ijirn,
studies are well below the proposed or
final standards for all regulated organic
constituents. The Agency believes this
evidence verifies that analytical
laboratories that are in compliance with
EPA's QA/Q'C requirements can
quantify these regulated constituents at
the treatment standard levels. See also a
more complete discussion of the
relationship of PQLs to BOAT treatment
standards in section III.A.l.fb.) of
today's preamble.
Several commenters stated that the
treatment standards for the organic
constituents should be consistent with
treatment standards previously
promulgated for the same constituents in
other waste codes. The Agency
disagrees with these commenters.
Treatment standards for a particular
waste are developed based on BOAT
performance data for that waste or for a
waste judged to be similar. Treatment
standards for particular constituents
may vary for different wastes due to
differences in the waste matrices which
may alter the constituent treatability.
The Agency also believes that these
commenters concerns may be moot by
the Agency's decision to transfer
treatment standards from K019 wastes
to K028, K029, K095 and K096
nonwastewaters.
3. Standards for metal constituents. In
today's rule, only the proposed
treatment standards for cadmium,
chromium, lead and nickel in K028
wastewaters are being promulgated.
These wastewater standards are being
transferred based on the reanalysis of
the performance data from the lime and
sulfide precipitation treatment of metals
from K062 wastewaters. The Agency has
determined that these metals present in
K062 wastewaters are more difficult to
treat than when present in K028
wastewaters. K062 wastewaters
typically contain much higher levels of
these metals as well as other metals
(such as iron) and much higher levels of
dissolved solids (such as sulfates or
chlorides). These higher concentration
of metals and dissolved solids interfere
with the effectiveness of the
precipitation reactions which are
intended to remove the metals of
interest. Thus, the K062 wastewaters are
more difficult to treat than K028
wastewaters. A more detailed
explanation of the transfer of these data
for metal constituents in K028 is
provided in the BOAT background
document for these wastes. The Agency
did not receive any comments opposing
the transfer of these K062 treatment
performance data specifically to K028
wastewaters nor were any comments or
data received indicating that these
-------
$*$$ &il& ^fi^ \ *££»$jst&*rW^ 'L
-•-^A!- i ^ WU>\*A e^wit ^.-tjiAw ^ « ^JVJAJ-I, a •& ^ >w«3r.«. eUri s™W -*4w * \ Jl3S5SSJ-g***-Ji hfr^A^M'sjt » . uSfc^WVwl
. •:. ,';. •-,,-•- --' .', ' --. ••-\:^\^rJ:w"^-ii!^virc:"-r:"^;,:!is^e7.r'>-rr^^T^
Federal Register / ¥ol. 5arMa/120 / Efiday,|tine 2S. 1989 f Rdtes and '• Regulations' ' ' ' 26g27
standards could not be achieved..
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
these standards as proposed.
Standards for nickel and chromiumin
K028 nonwasie waters were originally
proposed based on performance data for
these metal constituents from the '
stabilization of K048 andKOSl
incinerator ash. One commenter felt that
these data were not demonstrated by
the stabilization testing performed,
thereby invalidating the transfer of the
treatment standaids. This commenter
suggested transferring treatment
performance date from FOQ6 instead.
Meanwhile, flie Agency has recently
completed an analysis of TCLP extracts
obtained from the stabilization ,of F024
incinerator ash cesidues. The results ;of
this analysis show ..substantial reduction
of metals in TCLP extracts after
stabilization. At the same time, the
Agency reexamined the data for the
stabilization of FOOB, K048, andKOSl
nonwaste waters and concluded that-
these new stabilization data for FD24
wastes may better represent the levels
of treatment obtainable for the metals
expected to be contained in K028 ash
residues [as well as those for KD29,
K095, and K096J. However, since these
data were not available for public notice
and comment, and since the resultant
treatment standards are significantly
different from the proposed .standards,
the Agency has decided not to
promulgate treatment standards for
these metals in K028 nonwastewaters in
today's rule. The Agency Is reserving
standards for nickel and chromium in
K028 nonwastewaters in order to
provide notice that these constituents
will be jproposed for restrictions in a
future nilemaking.
Another commenter challenged
transferring stabilization data in order
to regulate inorganic constituents in
treatment residues from KQ28 wastes
because the commenter believed that i-f
the concentrations for metals fall below
the levels which define a characteristic
waste [40 CFR Part 261 SubpartC), no
treatment should be required. The
Agency reminds the commenter that the
treatment residuals are also considered
to be listed hazardous wastes under the
"derived-from" wile, r-egardless of
whether or not the waste 'exhibits a
characteristic. See further discussion of
the relationship of BDAT to the
"derived-frorn" rule in section Ifl.A.i.{d.)
of today's preamble.
In a similar manner, one commenter
questioned the need to regulate metals
constituents in residues derived feom a
predominantly organic waste. Because
incineration is designed specifically to
destroy organics and because it does not
provide treatment for metals (which end
up in the ashj, the Agency believes that
'stabilization of the ash to immobilize
metai"constituents is a technically valid
approach. .
Other commenters stated that these
metals should not be regulated because
these wastes are not listed for these
constituents. The hazardous
constituents for which a waste is listed
are considered by the Agency is
selection of constituents for regulation.
However, these constituents are by no
means an exhaustive list, but merely
provide a minimum basis for listing a
waste as hazardous. As discussed In
section III-A.l.(bJ of today's preamble,
the Agency therefore believes that it is
not restricted to regulation of only these
constituents. The Agency uses waste
characterization and treatment
performance data collected under the
BOAT program to determine the
constituents that should be regulated.
At the time of proposal, there was
apparently no need for metals standards
in K029, K095 and RD96
nonwastewaters, because K095 and
K096 nonwastewaters were being totally
recycled and because K029
nonwastewaters were identified as no
longer being generated. The Agency
intends to develop standards for metals
in nonwastewaters forms of K029, K095,
and K096 and propose them with the
Third Third wastes prior to
promulgation by May 8,1990.
4. Standards forK029., K095 and K098
wastewaters. The Agency also did not
propose treatment standards for the
wastewater forms of K029, K095 and
K096. The Agency stated that it believed
that there was no need for their
development because it was unlikely
that these wastewaters were being
generated nor could be generated.
- Commenters indicated that they believe
that the likelihood for generation of
these wastewaters is reasonably good,
and fiius a need exists for standards. In
particular, wastewaters may be
generated during the recycling of K095
and K096 [e.g., wash waters,
contaminated cooling water, and spill
rinsings]. {However, if K095 and/or K096
wastes are used as intermediates and
thus not discarded, these materials
would not be solid wastes, and any
residues from their use would therefore
not be deemed to be derived from
management of a listed hazardous
waste.)
The Agency agrees with these *
commenters that wastewater forms of
K029, K095 and KB96 may be generated
and thus treatment standards are
needed. However, today's rule cannot
promulgate any treatment standards
because no standards were previously
proposed. The Agency intends to
develop standards for wastewater forms
of K029, K095, and K096 and propose
them with the Third Third wastes prior
to promulgation by May B, 1990.
K029, K095, and K096 are all
considered Second Third wastes for
which treatment standards were to be
established by the statutory deadline of
June 8,1989. Since the Agency is not
promulgating standards for the
wastewater forms of K029, K095 and
K096 by their statutory deadline, land
disposal of these wastewaters shall be '
regulated by the "soft hammer"
provisions in 40 CFR Part 268.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K028
fNonwaslewaters]
Constituent
1,1-Dichloroethane j
trans-1 ,2-DichlDroethene.....
Hexachlorobutadiene..; t
Hexachloroethane
PentachloroGthane
1 ,1,3 va-TetracTiloroefhane....... >
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroeihane.. :
1,1 1 -Trichioroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane _„..„
Tetraehloroethjflene
Chromium .(Total)
Nickel •
Maximum for any
single grab sample
Total i
compo-
sition ;
(mg/kg) i
6.0 i
«.0!
'5.6 '
28. •
5.6
5:6 !
5.6
6.0
6.0'
6.0
(l) ,
f1) '
TCLP
itng/D
n
I1).
.(1)
r)
0
Reserved.
Reserved.
'Notapplicable.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K028
• IWastewaters}
Constituent •
1 ,1 -Dichloroethane
trans-1, 2- :
Dichloroethene.
Hexachlorobutadiene _....,
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane J
1,1,1,2- -i
Tetrachloroethane.
1.1,2,2- \
Tetrachloroethane.
Tetradiloroethylene .„
1,1,1-Tnchlproelriane .:
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane !
Cadmium .„.
Chromium (Total) ,
Lead....: __.
Nickel............. .._...
!
Maximum for any single
grab 'sample
Total
composition i
'S[mg/,0 ,
0.007
OJD33.: ;
0,007
t).033
43.033
OiODT : i
fl.007 j
'
13.007 ;
fl.007 •
DJOO? i
6A.. _
0.35 i
0.037 j
0.47 ;..._J
TCLP
(mfl/J) •
.
"
•
flr
-
"
"
'•
'
* ' ' '
•"
" •
, "
-------
2W328
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989./ Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K029
tNonwutewators]
Constituent
CWocolorm , ,„„„„._...,
1,2-Dichtorotthftrw ,
1,143tcftk)f0fthi1
T»to«er*xoeiharte.
TairacMoronthy'ana .
1,2,4«Triehtorobonzeq»....
TrteMoratthytww^.^.....
1,1,2-TfIcfilOfO«IJMn« .......
Maximum for any single
grab sampia
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
5.6m ,.,„,.
5.6™. .„
5.6..™, ,.
5.8.,..
6,0.., ,„
19.._ ™,..,™
5,6...™™™......
6.0.™.....™.....
TCLP
(mg/l)
m
m
»
*
tf
»
*
h. Orgonophosphorus pesticide
wastes,
K03&—Still bottoms from toluene
reclamation distillation in the
production of Disulfoton.
K038—Wastewater from the washing
and stripping of Phorate production.
K039—Filter cake from the filtration of
dicthyl phosphorodithioic acid in the
production of Phorate.
K040—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of Phorate,
P039—Disulfoton
P040—Diethyl 2-pyrazinyl
phosphorothloate
P041 —Dlelhyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate
P043—Diisopropylfluorophosphate
P044—Dimethoate
P062—Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
P071—Methyl parathion
P085—Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
P089—Parathion
P094—Phorate
P097—Famphur
P109—Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
Pill—Tetraethyl pyrophosphate
U058—Cyclophosphamide
U087—0,0-Diethyl S-methyl
dithiophosphate
TJ235—tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl)
phosphate
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for wastewater and
honwastewater forms of K038, K039,
K040, P039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062,
P071, P085, P089, P094, P097, P109, Pill,
U058, U087 and U235. It also
promulgates standards for wastewater
forms of K036. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these wastes can
be found in the background document
for the listing of these wastes.
The principal constituents of concern
in each of these wastes are members of
a group of organic compounds known as
organophosphorus compounds. The
majority of these constituents also"
contain sulfui; and are "often referred tfl
as phosphorothioates; All of these
coinpounds are somewhat similar in
structure and elemental content. Most.
are typically manufactured for use as
pesticides. Therefore, the Agency has
classified all of these compounds as one
treatability group identified as the
organophosphorus pesticides.
In the January 11,1989 proposed rule
for Second Third wastes, the Agency
proposed a direct transfer of the
concentration-based standards from the
incineration of K037 wastes (wastewater
treatment sludge from the production.of.
Disulfoton) to some of these
organophosphorus pesticide wastes (i.e.,
those that have analytical methods) and
proposed incineration as a method of
treatment for the others. The basis of all
of these standards is the similarities in
structure and elemental composition of
all of the organophosphorus pesticides
to each other and to Disulfoton, the
principal hazardous constituent of
concern in K037 wastes. (EPA
promulgated concentration-based
treatment standards for K037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters with
the First Third wastes on August 8,
1988.) In addition, the Agency believes
that Disulfoton is one of the most
difficult chemicals in this group of
organophosphorus pesticides to
incinerate. Given that Disulfoton can be
effectively treated by incineration and
that the chemicals in this group are
structurally similar, the Agency believes
that all the other organophosphorus
pesticides in this section can be
effectively treated by incineration, and
that the concentration-based standard
forteach representative regulated
organophosphorus pesticide can be
identical to that achieved by
incineration of Disulfoton in K037
wastes. Therefore, the Agency believes
that the performance achievable by
incineration represents BOAT for all of
the organophosphorus pesticide
chemicals and is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for the wastewaters and
nonwastewater forms of K038, K040,
P039, P071, P089, P094, P097 and U235 as
well as wastewater forms of K036 based
pn this transfer.
EPA is establishing incineration as a
method of treatment for the
nonwastewater forms of K039, P040,
P041, P043, P044, P062, P085, P109, Pill,
U058 and U087. Standards for the
wastewater forms of these
organophosphorus pesticides have been
developed based on the performance of
biological degradation, incineration and
carbon adsorption. These are discussed
in detail in the following sections.
1, Wastes ,wMh cQneexitra.tipn-bassd
BDA T standards. The Agency has
determined that, currently, there are
analytical methods (most of which
comply with the EPA, Office of Solid
Waste, Publication: SW-846 (generally
referred to as SW-846)) that allow the
measurement of the principal hazardous
constituent (organophosphorus
pesticide) contained in wastes and.
treatment residuals for wastes identified
as K036, K038, K040, P039, P071, P089,
P094, P097 and U235. Thus, the Agency
is able to promulgate concentration-
.based treatment standards for:
Disulfoton in K036 wastewaters;
Disulfoton in P039 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; Phorate in K038, K040
and P094 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; and Methyl parathion,
Parathion, Famphur, and tris-(2, 3-
Dibrompropyl) phosphate in P071, P089,
P097 and U235 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, respectively.
Standards applicable to
nonwastewaters are based on the
performance achieved by rotary kiln
incineration and the concentration of
organophosphorus pesticide measured
in the ash residuals. Standards
applicable to wastewaters are based on
the performance achieved by biological
treatment.and the concentration of
brganophosphorus pesticide measured
-"to the resultant effluent wastewaters.
Where the treatment standards are
111 Hill
-------
Federal Register J Vo|. ,54, .No.. IgO../ Erjdaff. June.23J,.19g9 /,Rules,
expressed as concentration-based,
standards, other treatment technologies
that Earn achieve these eoncenlraiion-
based treatment standards are not
precluded fisom use by this rale. The
regulated constituents and treatment
standards for these wastes are listed in
the tables at the end of this section.
The proposed treatment standards for
the wastewater forms of these
organophosphoras pesticides were
based on the -concentrations of
Disulfoton as measured in grab samples
of scrubber water from the incineration
of K037 nonwasiewaters, EPA has
decided to change these standards in ihe
final mle based on additional
performance data for a biological
wastewaters treatment system
submitted during the (comment period.
These data were from the treatment of
industrial wastewatejs (containing low
concentrations •of Parathion. Although,
these data {based an analysis of .grab
samples for influent wastes and
composite samples for effluent] were dot
generated specifieally for this
rulemakingand do not result from the
direct treatment of the RGRA waste
identified as Pfl89 {ParainionJ, the
Agency believes that these wastewatera
have concentrations «of Parathion Ihat
are similar to those wastewaters
identified specifically as KBS8, JKQ38,
K040, POSE P071, Pa89, PQ94, P§97 or
U23S. The Agency has also determined
that these data are valid and represent
the level of performance that appears to
be achievable for this type «f biological
wastewater treatment system. :
The Agency points out that the
promulgated coneenira!ti0n-,based
treatment standards for wastewaters for
these organophosphorus wastes are
based on Ihe analysis of composite
samples rather than grab samples,
because Shis new performance data
received during the comment period
were based on the analysis ®f composite
effluent isamples. See further discussion
of when EPAmses composite samples to
establish treatment standards in 'section
III A.l.(f.) of today's preamble.
EPA believes these data to be a
preferable measure of treatment
performance because where the Agency
has performance data {that conform
with BD AT methodology] on
wastewater treatment processes and
data on incineration {constituent
concentrations in scrubber water), Hie
Agency prefers to establish treatment
standards based onAe wastewater
treatment processes. {Note.—This does
not preclude the Agency from
establishing treatment standards for
other wastes based on constituent
concentrations in incinerator scrubber
waters.)
EPA also believes that these data lor
biological treatment of Parathion can be
validly transferred to the wastewaters
forms of the other organophosphorus
pesticide waste icodes. This is due to the
structural similarity between Paraihion
and the other organophosphorus wastes.
Thus, today's rule promulgates revised
concentration-based standards for the
wastewater forms of K036, KO38, KQ4Q,
P039, EQ73, P089, BQ94 P097 and U235
based on analysis .of composite samples
from wastewater treatment. {EPA also
, intends to investigate if these
. wastewater standards are appropriate
for K037 wastewaters—a First Third
waste—as part of the Third Third
rulemaking,]
The Agency received one comment
disagreeing with the proposed
concentration-based standards for P089,
P097, and U235, because of a perceived
lack of analytical methods to detect
Parafhion {P089J, Famphur {P097) and
tris-(2,3-dihromopropyl) phosphate. The
Agency disagrees with this comment,
and believes fhaiall three chemicals can
be analyzed. Famphur and Parathion
can be analyzed by Method 8270 of SW-
846, and have been proposed in the
January 23,1989 update to the third
edition of SW-fi46. Tris-{2,3-
dibromopiopyl) phosphate can be
analyzed by MeSiod 6350 of SW-MB,
and will be included in file second
update to the third edition of SW-am
due to be proposed as an official method
, in early 1990. All fcree chemicals have
been previously included on .the BDAT
List for that reason.
One commenter questioned why, Jn
the January 11,1989 proposal, standards
were proposed forJC036 wastewatexs,
but not for K036 nonwaslewaiers. The
Agency promulgated a BDAT standard
of "No Land Disposal based onNo x
Generation" for ED36 nonwastewaters
with fee First Third wastes on August ,8,
1988. {See 53 ER 31174], EPA amended
this standard on May 2,1989, to apply to
wastes generated from the process
described in the listing description and
disposed after August 17,1988 {54 ER
18836). In the forthcoming proposed rule
for Third .Third wastes, the Agency
intends to propose a standard for other
forms of 1C036 nonwaste waters, such as
K036 spill residues or solid'residues
from the treatment of K03B leachate,
One commenter stated thatKDSB and
P039 may be harder to destroy by
incineration thanK037,, because the
concentration of Disulfoton inK036 and
P03fl may be many times liigher than 'the
concentration in K037. The Agency .
disagrees with this comment. While it
recognizes that higher concentrations of
Disulfoton may occur in IC036 and P039
wastes, die Agency believes thai the
concentrations would not be
significantly different from that
measured in ihe untreated JK937 wastes.
The data in the background document
for K037 show Disulfoton concentrations
of 10.4% to 24.6.% for the untreated
wastes. The Agency believes that these
concentration levels would be within the
same order of magnitude of those
anticipated to be in K036 and P039. The
Agency successfully incinerated this
high level of Disulfoton such that ihe
concentrations in the residuals were at
or near the detection limit in the
residuals- Further, the K037 waste tested
also contained approximately 75% solids
{filter paper and diatomaceoiis earth
filter aid) which the Agency believes
could interfere with the destruction of
Disulfoton and thus make K037 more
difficult to destroy than K036 and P039
wastes that may have slightly higher
concentrations of the chemical, but a
lesser amount of interferences.
2, Wastes with treatment methods as
BDAT. The Agency determined -that the
analytical methods available during ihe
development of today's jRale could not
satisfactorily measure the principal
hazardous organic constituents
(organophosphorus pesticidej contained
in wastes and treatment residuals for
wastes identified as K039, P040, P041,
P043, P044, P062, P085, P1G9, Pill, U058 ,
and Ufl87. Thus,, the Agency is unable to
promulgate concentration-based
treatment standards for these wastes
and is promulgating methods of
treatment. Alfhough EPA prefers a J
concentration-based standard -{due to ,
both the greater flexibiliiy"ui choice of.
technology used to achieve the standard
and in the greater control afforded lo:
ensure efficient design and operation of
the chosen technology), in the absence
of analytical methods (that would
measure anil assure compliance), the
Agency believes that establishing a
method of treatment is the only logical
alternative for BDAT. In general, the
majority of commenters on this issue
supported this approach. Further, EPA
believes Shat this is consistent with the
promulgated BDAT methodology and
with RCRA Section 3004{m) which
authorizes flie Agency lo establish
either levels or methods of treatment.
Therefore, today's rule promulgates
methods of treatment for these wastes.
As discussed previously, the Agency
believes that incineration represents
BDAT for the nokwastewater forms of
these wastes. Besides fhe fact that EPA
does not currently have an analytical
method for this group iof -'_ '. .'• .-.
-------
26630
Federal Register / Voli 54,'No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
organpphosphorus pesticides, EPA has
currently not identified any organic
constituents in these wastes that could
be used as a surrogate or as an indicator
compound in order to develop
alternative concentration-based
standards for these wastes. It should be
noted that promulgating BDAT
standards expressed as specific
methods of treatment does not preclude
the Agency from establishing
concentration-based standards in the
future, should an analytical method be
developed with sufficient QA/QC that
will measure the hazardous constituents
or should an adequate surrogate or
indicator constituent be identified.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
BDAT treatment standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for lh« nonwastewater forms of K039,
PCKQ, P041, P043, P044, P082, P085, P109,
Pill, U0S8 and U087. Incinerators must
comply with 40 CFR 264 Subpart O or
28S Subpart O.
For the wastewater forms of these
organophosphorus wastes, the Agency
proposed carbon adsorption as the
BDAT treatment method In 54 FR1088
(January 11,1089). The residual from this
type of nondestructive treatment (i.e.,
the spent carbon) is still considered to
bo the same waste code as before
treatment, and must be managed as
such. It therefore, must be incinerated
prior to land disposal.
It should be noted that the use of
other treatment technologies prior to
carbon adsorption is not prohibited by
this rule, Carbon adsorption is often
«sed at tho end of a treatment train,
after the constituent concentrations are
reduced by technologies such as
chemical oxidation, hydrolysis or
biodegradation. Any nonwastewater
residues from these treatment
technologies prior to and including
carbon adsorption would have to be
incinerated in order to meet the
treatment standard. The wastewater
effluent from carbon adsorption would
ba considered to meet the treatment
standard. See section III.A.3.(j.) of
today's preamble for a similar
discussion on carbon adsorption for
wastewaters associated with K027
wastes. , '" ' " .
Several commenters suggested that
there are cases where it may be
preferable to incinerate the wastewater,
rather than have the waste adsorbed by
carbon. Two examples of these
situations ocjcur when: (1) The waste
appears as a result of the "mixture-rule"
will* other waste codes for which the
BDAT treatment method requires
incineration; and (2) the waste is
generated such that it contains a
relatively high level of TOG but just
under the 1% TOG cut-off and maintains
its classification (for purposes of BDAT)
as a wastewater. In either case, the
Agency agrees with the commenter that
incineration would then be the preferred
or required (as hi the case of the first
example) method of treatment. In fact,
the Agency did consider incineration as
an alternative destructive technology to
carbon adsorption. However, it seemed
impractical to require all wastewater
streams to be incinerated. (Some data
indicated that the majority of hazardous
wastewaters contain significantly less
than 1% TOG. j
For those wastewaters that do contain
just under the 1% TOG level,
Incineration may be more desirable and
possibly more effective than carbon
adsorption. This might lead one to
believe that for these "high" TOG
wastewaters, the Agency should
therefore dictate incineration over
carbon adsorption. However, at this
time the lack of a method to analyze for
the constituents of concern makes it
difficult (but not impossible) to correlate
the performance efficiency of the two
treatment methods for the constituents
of concern to performance efficiency of
a surrogate or indicator compound. One
possible surrogate to measure treatment
efficiency is total organic carbon (TOG);
however, the Agency is currently
unaware of the level of TOG for which
carbon adsorption would be more
efficient than incineration.
Thus, the Agency is promulgating
"Incineration or Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment" as BDAT for the
wastewater forms of wastes identified
as K039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062,
P085, P109, Pill, U058 and U087. Spent
carbon and any other nonwastewater
residuals generated up-stream from a
carbon adsorption unit must meet the
nonwastewater standards applicable to
these wastes prior to land disposal, and
so must be incinerated. Carbon
adsorption units must be operated such
that breakthrough of organophosphorus
compounds does not occur. (See section
DI.A.3.(f.) of today's preamble for a
discussion on the need for specifying
some level of proper operating
conditions for carbon adsorption
technology.) Selection of a surrogate or
indicator compound of this breakthrough
should be made on a case-by-case basis
(for example, as part of a facility's
waste analysis plan). See also the
discussion of waste analysis plans in
section III.A.l.(f.) of today's preamble.
Commenters asked the Agency to
specifically clarify the applicability of
the "treatment as a method" BDAT
standards to treatment residuals. They
suggested that the Agency could clarify
the standards by stating that they do not
apply to "derived-from" wastes. While
the Agency agrees that clarification is
necessary, it does not agree that the
standards should be identified as
suggested for several reasons: (1) all
wastes identified as "derived-from" are
not necessarily treatment residues (e.g.,
leachate); (2) all nonwastewater
treatment residues (such as spent
carbon, residues from recycling, and
residues from wastewater treatment
processes prior to carbon adsorption)
may contain leachable hazardous
organics; (3) some wastewaters (such as
scrubber waters from steam stripping
operations "or recovery process waters)
may contain significant amounts of
untreated constituents.
However, the Agency believes that
the previous discussions in this section
assist in clarifying the applicability to
these residues. As a summary, the
Agency points out the following: (1)
Scrubber water? from incinerators in
compliance with 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart O of Part 265 Subpart O are '
considered to meet BDAT for these
wastes and can be land disposed; (2) the
scrubber waters from incinerators in
compliance with 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart O or Part 265 Subpart O
therefore are not required to undergo
"Carbon Adsorption as a Method of
Treatment"; (3) incinerator ashes and
residues from the treatment of scrubber
waters from incinerators in compliance
with 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O of Part
265 Subpart O are considered to meet
BDAT for these wastes and can be land'..
disposed; (4) incinerator equipment
(such as fire brick) that are derived from
sections' of the incinerator that have
been directly subjected to the high
temperatures of the incinerator (that
was operated in compliance with 40
CFR Part 264 Subpart O of Part 285
Subpart O) or are downstream from the
high temperature zones are considered
to meet BDAT for these wastes and can
be land disposed. The, Agency believes
that the hazardous constituents
contained in these wastes are destroyed
in the high temperature zones of the
incinerator and would not be expected
to be present in the high temperature
zones or in the equipment down stream
of these zones; (5) wastewater effluent
(and the,ir subsequent nonwastewater
treatment residues) from the carbon
adsorption units treating wastewater
forms of these waters are considered to
meet BDAT for these wastes and can be
land disposed; and (6) spent carbon (and
nonwastewater residues from the
pretreatment of these wastes prior to
carbon adsorption) from the treatment
-------
Federal Register /,-yok
>/tUFri^r;fune:23,
.Bples\
of wastewater forms of these wastes are
not considered to meet BDAT lor these
wastes and must meet &e BDAT
treataieat standards for nonwastewalers
prior to land disposal. •
As noted earlier, when treafjiient
standards are expressed as a specific
technology rather than conceniraiion-
based standards, it is possible for a
generator or trealer, to demonstrate that
an alternative technology can achieve.
an equivalent level qf performance as
that specific treatment method {40 CHI"
26a42(bH, This demonstration could be
based on: |1J A newly developed
analytical method for-the primary
hazardous constituent; {2) a - -
concentration-based standard utilizing a
surrogate .or indicator compound; tor (3]
other demonstrations -of equivance for
an alternative method of treatment. The
resultant treatment standard as well as
any analytical methodology used in the
demonstration could then be proposed
by the Agency to be applicable to all
wastes in this group.
BDAt TREATMENT .STANDARDS FOR ORGANOPHOSPHORUS WASTES K038, K040, P039, PD71, PDB9, PD94, P097 AND U235
Waste ]
code
K0381
K040'
P039
P07J ;
P089
P094
P097,
U235!
Regulated constituent
Phorate... . . ..~ ' j
Phorate „..._ „ ....,.„. .. . . ,.„
0isulfoion u . -"
Methyl parkthion . t
Parathlon - -.~. ............ «. «« .. ..~ ... . - ..... ° •
Phorate .„ „ .'. _ „. ., .„_ ]
Famptiur „.* . „ -
lris-;(2,3-DibrairippropyJ) phosphate™...™.......: ~ ™ „ ; „
Maximum Tor any single
graft sample
Total
composition,
O.D25 ,
0.025 !
0.025 '
i
TGCP
tmg/0
{')
O
I1)
«
'It
tt1)
I1)
«
:1 Not ^applicable.
BPAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR OR-
GANDPHOSPMORUS 'WASTES K039,
P040, P041, P043, P044, P062. P085,
P109, Plli, W58 ANDU087
INonwasfewatersil
- . .; 'Incineration as a method :ot treatment
1 Inoineratqrs must .comply wJJh 40 GFR 2S4 Sub-
part C or 265 Subpart 0.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR QR-
GANOPHOSPHDRUS WASTES K039,
P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P085,
P109, P111, U05S AND O087
IWastewalers] . .
Carbon adsorption
or Incineration"1 as a mettiod ot
treatment
"Incinerators must comply with 40 CFR 254 Sub-
part O
-------
26632-
I ,',!,„ ' .A ',,""' " ,' ' ',','. ..... ' ' P,
Federal' Register / Vol. .^y^l^O..'/^-^!^^'^^^'^, 1989 | .Rules and Regulations
promulgating treatment standards for
thirteen organic constituents including
tctrachlorocthene, six chlorinated
phenols and six polychlorinated
dibenzo p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
(PCDDs and PCDFa, respectively). The
specific regulated constituents and
treatment standards for these wastes
are listed In the tables at the end of this
section.
The promulgated treatment standards
for the regulated chlorinated phenols in
waste waters are based on new data
received by the Agency from the sole
generator/treater of K043 during the
comment period, The original data for
wastewaters consisted of two data
points. The new data provided six
additional wastewatcr data points. The
Agency believes these new data are
more representative of treatment that
can be achieved for K043.
In general, the comments submitted
on the proposed rule for K043 related to
four general issues: (1) The
establishment of treatment standards for
PCDDs and PCDFs; (2) specifying a
treatment technology as the treatment
standards for K043 rather than
establishing concentration-based
standards; (3) the validity of the
performance data upon which the
treatment standards are based; and (4)
the regulation of tetrachloroethene in
K043,
Gommenters were concerned with the
treatment standards established for the
six regulated PCDDs and PCDFs. Some
commenters thought that the PCDDs and
PCDFs should not be regulated because
K043 is not listed for these constituents.
This is not a sufficient reason for not
establishing a treatment standard, for
the reasons given a number of times
earlier In this preamble. (See further
discussion of the use of Appendix VII in
establishing BOAT in section HI.A.l.(b.)
of today's preamble and the discussion
of the analysis for analysis of PCDDs
and PCDFs in F024 wastes in section
I!I.A.3.£b.) of today's preamble.) The
Agency thus uses waste
characterization and treatment
performance data to determine the
constituents that should be regulated for
a waste. A more detailed explanation of
the selection of regulated constituents in
K043 is provided in the background
document for this waste code.
Another commenter felt that the
tetraehlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDDs)
and tGlrachJqrpdibenzqfurans (TCDFs)
should not be regulated because the
incineration data (submitted by the
' cqmmenter) did npt indicate the ..............................
presence1 of these consUtuents m Kola .......
wa,s|ei, In response, the Agency points
.
iwNttincm daW for a given constituent in
a particular waste, is not a requirement
for the selection of that constituent for
regulation. This is particularly true when
EPA has sufficient additional waste
characterization data that indicate the
presence of that constituent in treatable
levels in wastes other than what was
specifically treated. While the Agency
did not have specific treatment data for
TCDDs and TCDFs in the submitted
K043 incineration data, it did not waste
characterization data indicating the
presence of several of these constituents
in other untreated K043 wastes at
concentrations that the Agency
determined were treatable by
incineration.
This same commenter expressed
concern that the BOAT treatment
standards for these constituents in K043
were transferred from treatment
standards for K099. According to the
commenter, the wastes are not
sufficiently similar to justify transferring
standards. As stated in the proposed
rule (54 FR1083), the Agency also has
data on six PCDDs and PCDFs in
untreated and treated K099 wastes.
Since K099 is generated at the same site
as K043 (in the next step of the 2,4-D
production process) and since they
contain similar types and concentrations
of hazardous constituents as contained
in untreated K043 wastes, the Agency
believes that K099 wastes are
sufficiently similar in order to justify
transferring standards for these
constituents to K043 wastes.
In addition, the Agency feels that
incineration of K043 waste will treat the
PCDDs and PCDFs to levels that are
comparable to those achieved by
chlorination of the KQ99 waste. Further,
the Agency points out that standards for
PCDDs and PCDFs are the same as
those promulgated for F024 wastes
(which are also based on incineration).
The Agency believes that the F024
wastes tested by the Agency are more
difficult to incinerate than K043, based
on available characterization data, and
that the resultant F024 incinerator ash is
as difficult or more difficult to analyze
than the respective K043 nonwastewater
residuals. While the Agency maintains
that the transfer of standards from K099
is supportable, the Agency believes that
the data from F024 also lends support to
establishment of these standards for
K043. See section III.A.l.fe.) of today's
preamble for a more detailed discussion
related to the transfer of treatment
standards.
Several commenters expressed
general concerns about the ability to
comply with the treatment standards for
PCDDs and PCDFs because they are too
low (i.e., near the practical quantitation
limits (PQLs) for these constituents).
They claim that the 1 ppb detection limit
is not routinely achievable/that only a
handful of laboratories can perform the
analysis to this level, and that analysis
and reporting of these constituents
typically takes three to eight months.
The Agency disagrees that these
treatment standards are too low and
does not anticipate any difficulties in
achieving detection at the treatment
standard of 1 ppb for either the
nonwastewaters or wastewaters. Whils
the Agency has no data for PCDDs and
PCDFs in treated K043 residuals, data
do exist for these constituents in
treatment residues of other wastes
indicating that detection limits of less
than 1 ppb can routinely be achieved.
For example, performance data from
incineration of F024 show detection
limits of less than 10 parts per trillion
(ppt) in residual wastewater and less
than 100 ppt in residual ash. The Agency
believes that these treatment standards
are analytically achievable on a routine
basis and points out that quantitation
levels for these PCDDs and PCDFs have
been achieved by commercial '
laboratory facilities at low ppt levels in
nonwastewaters and low parts per
quadrillion (ppq) levels in wastewaters.
The Agency also contends that there are
a sufficient number of laboratories
capable of performing the analysis of
PCDDs and PCDFs to the 1 ppb level
and that the analysis can be performed
in a timely manner, as was the case for
F024 sample analyses. Furthermore,
because there currently is just one
generator of K04.3, the Agency does not
believe that the regulation of PCDDs
and PCDFs in K043 will adversely affect
laboratory capacity to perform such
analyses. See also further discussion of
PQLs in section III.A.l.(b.) of today's
preamble.
One commenter suggested that the
Agency set technology-based treatment
standards for K043 instead of
concentration-based standards. This
commenter felt that setting technology-
based standards would be equivalent to
establishing concentration-based levels
because the concentrations were based
on performance data from the sole
generator of K043 whose treatment
facility is well designed and operated.
Though section 3004(m) specifies that
BOAT treatment standards may be
expressed as either concentration-based
levels or as a method of treatment
(technology-based), the Agency
maintains that where treatment
performance data are available,
concentration-based treatment
standards should be established rather
ihan specifying a method of treatment.
Concentration-based standards allow
-------
Federal Register / Vol. f4i;Np.J2C).r/uFriday^une-23, :1989,/ Ruled and ^Regulations
26633?
industry the flexibility to use any
treatment technology or combination of
technologies to treat K043 as long as the
treatment residuals produced (that are
destined for land disposal) have
concentrations of the regulated
constituents less than or equal to the
treatment standards, In addition, other
facilities in the future may generate '
K043 wastes and the Agency has no
guarantee that such facilities will have
treatment systems that are as well-
designed and well-operated as that of
the current sole generator/treater.
Because acceptable treatment
performance data were available for
treatment of K043, the Agency
established concentration-based
treatment standards for this waste.
One cpmmenter claimed that the
wastewater performance data supplied
to EPA were insufficient to establish
statistically valid concentration-based
treatment standards because the
background levels of chlorinated
phenols were no different than levels in
the scrubber water collected during the
test burn. EPA does not concur with the
claim that the supplied data are not
useful in establishing statistically valid
treatment standards for wastewaters.
The sole generator provided the Agency
with results from the analysis of eight
scrubber water samples collected during
incineration treatment tests. The
concentrations of the regulated
constituents in these samples are
substantially lower than those in the
• untreated waste. Thus, incineration has
been demonstrated to provide
substantial treatment of these
constituents. The Agency's own
statistical analysis confirms the fact that
the levels of regulated constituents
found in thei scrubber water sampled
showed statistically significant
reduction from the levels identified in
the raw waste. The fact that background
samples of scrubber water and the
scrubber water collected during the
treatment test were simJJar in their
concentrations of regulated constituents
indicates simply that the incineration of
K043 completely destroys these
constituents in the waste. ^
A concern of the sole generator/
treater was that concentration-based
treatment standards would force the
facility to incinerate dilute K043
wastewaters or seeka treatment
standard variance becssgaof difficulties
arising from the "derived-from" and
"mixture" rules. The Agency does riot
believe the generator/treater would be
forced to incinerate or sge'k a treatment
variance for dilute "derived-from" or
"mixed" K043 wastew^rs. First, the
K043 wastewater treatment standards
'• '-
would apply only if the wastewaters
were placed in land disposal units.
Second, if such wastewaters are being
placed in land disposal units, the facility
has the option of delisting the scrubber
waters following the incineration of
K043 waste such that the "derived-from"
and "mixture" rules would no longer
apply. Third, the treated K043
wastewaters could be isolated in a land
disposal unit such that other plant
wastewaters would not become subject
to the BDAT treatment standards set for
K043 under the "mixture" rule.
Finally, it is clear that the type of
problem referred to by the commenter
would arise only if the other wastes at
the facility also contain treatable levels
of the regulated hazardous constituents
in K043, in which case it furthers
RCRA's goals to have effective
treatment of those constituents before
land disposal of the combined waste.
For example, if waste A has a treatment
standard of 10 mg/1 for hazardous
constituent X and is treated to meet the
standard but then is combined with
other waste streams and the combined
waste s tream now contains greater than
10 mg/1 of -X,.the" other wastes must
contain X in treatable concentrations.
Further treatment to minimize threats to
human health and the environment thus
would be appropriate before land
disposal (See also RCRA section
3004(m)).
One commenter believes that
tetrachloroethene should not be a
regulated constituent in K043 because it
is used as a cleaning solvent for K043 „
process equipment and is not present in
the waste as a result of the production
process that generates K043. Further, the
commenter states that this constituent is
already being regulated under the
Solvents and Dioxins Rule (under F002
waste) for this use.
In this case, the waste stream in
question is a process waste that has
become contaminated with small
amounts of solvent; it is not a mixture of
spent solvent and K043. Furthermore,
the K043 waste does not contain a spent
solvent since the tetrachloroethene that
contaminated the K043 had not been
generated as a waste when the
contamination took place. Data
provided to EPA indicated that
tetrachloroethene was present in the
untreated K043 as a treatable level and
showed substantial treatment by
incineration in K043 treatment residuals.
The solvent cleaning step is part of the
production process and any
contamination present in the waste
before treatment becomes part of that .
waste and, thus,-can be made subject to
BDAT treatment'standards'.-Therefore,
. --.•..:•».:,... iv,-; :.-•••»-•••••- ... ...• ; ,, :..-..
the Agency chose to regulate
tetrachloroethene in K043 at a total
constituent concentration of 0.006 mg/1
in wastewaters and 1.7 mg/kg hi
nonwastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K043
£Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Tetrachlorophenols (Total)..
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethene.. :
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
- dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo-furans ..
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins...
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans .
Tetrachlorodibenzp-p-
dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans ..
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composi-
tion (mg/
kg)
0.38
0.34
8.2
7.6
0.68
1.9
'•• 1.7
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
,0.001
TCLP
(mg/l)
, ')
')
')
')
')
0)
(')
(')
(')
O
(')
(')
1 Not applicable..
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K043
tWastewaters]
Constituent
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol..... „..
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Tetrachlorophenols (Total)..
Pentachlorophenol .".
Tetrachloroethene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo-furans ..
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans .
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans ..
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composi-
tion (mg/1)
0.049
, 0.013
0.016
0.039
0.018
0.22
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
TCLP
' (mg/l)
H
(')
0)
(')
C)
0)
0)
'(')
(')
(')
0
<>)
(')
1 Not applicable.
B. "Soft Hammer" Applicable Treatment
Standards
(Note: EPA is not reinterpreting any of the
principles relating to the RCRA "soft
hammer" provision (RCRA section 3004fg)(6)}
contained in the First Third rule and
preamble. See 53 FR 31179-31185. The .
Agency is adding the following discussion,
which repeats those principles, solely for
purposes of providing information.)
The Agency has hot promulgated
treatment standards for the First Third
and Second-third wastes inrTables B,(a)
-------
gfiB%&..... .. ./Si!gyA.SBB|8|B?../-y9U
, June~23, 1989 ,/ Rules and Regulations
and B.(b). If EPA fails to set treatment
standards for any hazardous waste
Included la 40 CFR 288.10 or 268,11 fay
(he August 8,1988 or June 8,1989
statutory deadlines, such waste is
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions.
Under the "soft hammer" provisions,
these wastes may be land disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if
ths generator makes certain
certifications, and only if the unit meets
the RCRA 3004(o) minimum
technological requirements. Among
other things, the "soft hammer"
provisions require that prior to disposal
In a landfill or surface impoundment
unit meeting the minimum technological
requirements, a generator must
demonstrate his good faith effort to treat
his waste by the best practically
available treatment technologyjjes). The
Agency has interpreted this to mean
practically available treatment that
provides the greatest environmental
benefit (40 CFR 268.8{a)(l)). Where no
treatment !s practically available, the
generator may so demonstrate. The
required demonstration and certification
must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator. "Soft hammer" wastes
become subject to the statutory hard
hammer as of May 8,1990.
The Agency is amending § 288.12 to
include wastewater residues derived
from the treatment of "soft hammer"
wastes by certain processes {shifting
such wastewater residues to the Third
Third], This action will allow these
waslewater residues to be disposed in
units not meeting minimum
technological requirements and such
residues will not be subject to the
certification requirements of § 268.8.
This action is being taken because a
number of companies use BDAT-type
treatment to treat "soft hammer"
wastes, and then further treat the
resulting treatment residues in
Impoundments that do not satisfy
minimum technological requirements,
but meet thtt requirements of section
RCRA section 300503(3) or 3005(j)(13).
The Agency believes that 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 (i.e., 3005(j)(3j) or advanced
biological treatment (i.e., 3005(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 not
believe that these types of treatment
residuals are the types of contaminated
wastes deserving of prioritization in the
second third of the schedule.
The Agency has identified several
treatment technologies that are
generally considered appropriate for the
nonwastewater forms of "soft hammer"
wastes (see 53 FR 31175). These
technologies include: metal recovery, .
leaching/oxidation, metals stabilization,
ash stabilization, chemical oxidation,
biodegradation, incineration, and PCS
incineration. Treatment technologies
generally considered appropriate for the
wastewater forms of "soft hammer"
wastes include: aqueous metal recovery,
chromium reduction, metals
precipitation, steam stripping, carbon
adsorption, oxidation/reduction,
chemical oxidation, biodegradation,
incineration, and PCB incineration.
The technologies are listed as general
categories of technologies that EPA
believes have a reasonable probability
of application to the waste codes listed.
These categories do not specify any
particular type of technology (e.g.,
incineration can represent liquid
incinerators, rotary kiln, or fluidized bed
incinerators). The actual choice of a
particular technology or even tram of
technologies depends on the physical
and chemical characteristics of the
specific waste. Specific selection of one
technology depends on its functional
design.
The Agency notes that many of these
wastes, when existing as untreated
wastes, are already prohibited from land
disposal because they are California list
wastes. However, as was discussed in
the August 17,1988 final rule, treatment
to comply with the California list
prohibitions (including the codified
statutory .prohibition levels) does not
necessarily satisfy the "soft hammer"
requirements of 40 CFR 268.8 and, hi
fact, the California list prohibitions
represent the minimum treatment
required for such "soft hammer" wastes
prior to land disposal (53 FR 31187). In
the case of an overlap between a "soft
hammer" waste and a California list
statutory prohibition, the "soft hammer"
provisions still apply because they are
potentially more protective. However, in
no case may a waste be disposed of in
excess of the California list prohibition
levels.
Where EPA has promulgated a
California list treatment standard,
however, the soft hammer does not
apply. Id. Thus, the "soft hammer" does
not apply to California list HOCs for
which EPA has established a treatment
standard. Id.
. The following tables are presented as
an aid to generators seeking appropriate
technologies to treat "soft hammer" F-
and K-listed wastes. 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 and that more than one treatment
technology may be required (if
practically available) to treat the
different constituents of concern in the
waste.
The Agency emphasizes that these
tables are not to be considered as strict
treatment requirements. In general,
however, EPA will use these tables in
evaluating the demonstrations and
certifications 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.
TABLE B.a.—APPROPRSATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD AND SECOND THIRD "NONWASTEWATERS"
RCRA Wtstt Cod*
F019 ....................n..^.....
KQQ4
K00«~™___
K041 „,„,
K097
K098
KCM2
K10S,,,.,- „.„. ,„, ,„
KOI 7 —
Potential California List Applicability
Cyanide ,.....»«..»«.„..»
Ctwoffliufn
PCBs/HaJogon Organ
Hatooenatod Oraarucs —••-••-
Primary Applicable Treatment
Technologies
Alkaline Chlorln.
UV Ozonation IncineraBon
Ash Stabil.
Incineration.
"I it il.
I Il
Jill
-------
.Federal Register /
TABLE B.a.— APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD AND SECOND THIRD /'NONWASTEWATERS" — Continued
RCRA Waste Code
Potential California List Applicability
Primary Applicable Treatment
Technologies
K073..
K031 ..
K084 .-. ;
K101; K102/high Ar....
K046/explosive
Arsenic
LeadZIZ!
K069/CaSO4
K085 „.. „
Lead,.
Halogenatedprganics & PCB's....
K035
K083
K086solv. sludges
caust water.
K10S.,..
Organics and/or Metals..
Mercury..
Biodegradation
Ash Stabilization.
Metals Recovery.
Leaching/Oxidation.
Metals Stabil.
Open Detonate/Burn Oxida-
tion.
Incineration
Metals Stabil.
Leaching/Oxidation
Metals Stabil.
PCB Incineration
Biodegradation
Ash Stabilization.
Incineration.
Wet Air Oxidation.
Biodegradation
Ash Stabilization.
Metals Recovery
Metals Stabil.
TABLE B.b.—APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FIRST THIRD AND SECOND THIRD "WASTEWATERS'
RCRA Waste Code
Potential California List Applicability
Primary Applicable Treatment
Technologies
R>06 Cyanide .'.. '. Alka. Chlorination.
K011 Cyanide . Wet Air Oxidation
K013
K014
K025 Halogenated Organics Carbon Adsorption.
K029 Halogenated Organics '. ;. Chemical Oxidation.
K095 - ••• f - - :. Carbon Adsorption.
K041 Halogenated Organics..... „. ;. Steam Stripping.
K°97- y~. - • •• ••-•••• .. Carbon Adsorption.
K098-.- • • •• „.. Biodegradation.
K042— -— Halogenated Organics... .. : , Steam Stripping.
• . .. , . • , Carbon Adsorption.
• Biodegradation.
K1°5- PCBs/Halog. Organics ...„ ., Carbon Adsorption.
- Biodegradation.
K004 Chromium , Chromium Reduction.
K008 • —• -— Metals Precip.
K061 ' v
K017 Halogenated Organics , ; Steam Stripping.
K021 .~ Carbon Adsorption.
K073 . „ Biodegradation
K022 Unlikely to be applicable „ Steam Stripping.
K035 „.„.„ , „ ' Carbon Adsorption '
J5060 • • • • ZZZZZZZZ""." Chemical Oxidation.
K083 „..;. .....; ., „.„ „ „ Biodegradation
''•'•• : I Metals Precip.
K031 • Arsenic, lead or mercury _.„„.„. Oxidation/Reduction
K046/nonexpl . Metals Prpcin
K069/all "" ' " ; F' .
K084 . '
K106 , •'--..
K046/expl Lead . ..„ Oxidation.
, • . Metals Precip.
K085 Halogenated Organics & PCB's.. , „ .:. Biodegradation.
' -• Carbon Adsorption.
Halogenated Organics ..„ ...,:.:.........,.......„...;....-.......:. Biddegradatfon.
solv, sludges., Metals ,. :... _..; carbon Adsorption.
caust water _. „......„ ; ______ Chromium Reduction
•, . . Metals Precip.
-------
rl ill ill i
26636
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday^ June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
C. Capacity Determinations
1. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Effective Dates for, Surface Land-
Disposed Wastes for Which Treatment
Standards Are Promulgated
m. Total Quantity of Land-Disposed
Wastes, The capacity analyses for
wastes for which EPA is today finalizing
treatment standards were performed
using the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR
Survey), EPA conducted the TSDR
Survey during 1887 and early 1988 to
obtain comprehensive data on the
nation's capacity for managing
hazardous waste and on the volumes of
hazardous waste being disposed of in or
on the land (i.e., land disposal]. Survey
data are part of the record for this final
rule. , , '
In addition, EPA recently conducted
the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators (the Generator
Survey). The Generator Survey was
designed to gather data on waste
generators and exempt hazardous waste
treatment capacity, along with detailed
waste characterization data. Although
the majority of these data are not yet
available, EPA used a subset of the data
to corroborate conclusions as to the
amount of treatment capacity required
for the electroplating wastes (F006-
F012), These data are available as part
of the administrative record.
The various land disposal methods
used and the quantities of waste
handled are presented in Table IILC.l.a.
Sines publication of the proposed rule,
EPA has received additional data from
late-reporting TSDR facilities. Although
the new data do not affect any of the
national capacity variance decisions for
surface disposed wastes, they have been
included in this discussion for
completeness. Some methods of land
disposal, including use of salt domes,
salt bed formations, and underground
oaves and mine's, are not addressed in
the capacity analyses because of
Insufficient data on the types and
volumes of wastes disposed of by these
methods.
The TSDR Survey indicated that
about 023 million gallons of wastes for
which standards are finalized today
were disposed in or on the land in 1988.
This includes approximately 3 million
gallons of wastes that were stored in
surface impoundments, and 1 million
that were stored in waste piles. These
stored wastes will eventually be treated,
recycled, or permanently disposed in
other units. To avoid double counting,
the volumes of wastes reported as being
stored in surface impoundments or
waste piles have not been included in
the volume of wastes requiring
alternative treatment capacity.
Furthermore, this final rule prohibits the
placement of wastes affected by this
rule hi waste piles or surface
impoundments for storage.
The TSDR Survey indicated that less
than 50,000 gallons of the wastes
addressed today were treated annually
in surface impoundments that do not
meet EPA's minimum technology
requirements. However, this amount is
actually a treatment residual from an
impoundment that was replaced with a
tank. Because the Agency assumes that
this waste is now being sent off-site for
treatment, this amount is included as
treatment capacity required in today's
rule.
In addition, 5 million gallons are
treated in waste piles, less than 1
million gallons were disposed in surface
impoundments, 10 million gallons were
disposed in land treatment units or
landfills, and 604 million gallons are
injected underground. All of these
wastes will require alternative
treatment capacity.
b. Required Alternative Capacity for
Surface Land Disposed Wastes, EPA
assessed the requirements resulting
from today's final rule for alternative
treatment capacity for surface land
disposed wastes. EPA first
characterized the volumes of wastes for
which treatment standards are being
established, 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, EPA placed the wastes into
treatability groups identifying applicable
treatment technologies. The waste
volumes were then summed by
treatability group to determine the
amount and type of alternative
treatment capacity that would be
required when owners or operators
comply with the land disposal
restrictions being promulgated today.
Based on this analysis, the EPA
estimates that today's rule could affect
about 623 million gallons of wastes that
are land disposed annually. This total
includes wastes that were stored only;
consequently, only about 619 million
gallons wilt require alternative
treatment capacity. Of this total, 15
million gallons were surface disposed
(i.e., excluding underground injection),
and the remaining 604 million gallons
were underground injected. (See section
ni.C.3. for determinations of alternative
capacity and effective dates for wastes
injected underground.)
The volumes of surface land disposed
wastes that require alternative
commercial treatment/recycling
capacity are presented in Table HLC.l.b.
This table does not include wastes that
can be treated on site by the generator.
As explained in preamble section
IH.A.1., with limited exceptions, EPA is
finalizing treatment standards
expressed as concentration limits based
on the performance of the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT), rather than requiring treatment
using BOAT. Where the treatment
standard is a specific level of
performance to be met, then any
treatment method may be used to
achieve the concentration level
specified by the standard. However,
BDATs (and technologies that the
Agency finds perform comparably) as
discussed in preamble section III.A.,
were used as the basis for determining
available capacity.
The TSDR Survey contains data on
specific treatment processes at facilities.
The data enable EPA to identify specific
BOAT treatment (and treatment the
Agency finds performs comparably) in
its assessment of both off-site and on-
site capacity. Therefore, EPA believes
that the capacity identified as available
for a specific treatment technology will
be capable of meeting the treatment
standards, since a well-designed and
well-operated BDAT treatment process
should be capable of complying with the
promulgated treatment standards.
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates. Table III.C.l.c presents
an estimate of the volume of wastes that
will require alternative treatment before
land disposal to comply with the
standards finalized today. The amount
of capacity that is available at
commercial facilities in each case is also
presented. Available capacity is equal
to the specific treatment system's
maximum capacity less the amount used
in 1986, and was calculated using the
TSDR Survey data. In addition, the
available capacity presented in this
section was adjusted to account for
wastes previously restricted from land
disposal by subtracting the capacity
required for land disposed solvent
wastes, California List Halogenated
Organic Compound (HOC) wastes, and
First Third wastes.
It is important to note that some of the
wastes, because of their actual physical
form, cannot meet treatment standards
simply by using the technology
identified as BDAT. These wastes must
be treated through several steps, called
a "treatment train". EPA assumes that
the resultant residuals will also need to
be,treated using alternative technologies
before land disposal; therefore, the total
volumes reported were assigned to
appropriate technologies.
!•:!'„: ,,t til." --Iv :',
'S.-:'^ ':!;'& I'
-------
• . .r- .,,,.r ,,7,_ - r. , *. R-sHte»'=J; :' •
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 120 /Friday, June 23, 1989 /Rules and. Regulations
' ' .
26637
The following sections discuss the
results of the individual capacity
analyses and effective dates for each
waste code included in today's rule.
Wastes from Electroplating
Operations. For today's final rule, EPA
has revised the proposed cyanide
treatment standards for cyanide-
containing F007, F008, F009 waste from
electroplating operations. The final
waste water and nonwastewater
treatment standards are based on
alkaline chlorination. The treatment
standards for metals in treatment
residuals from alkaline chlorination are
based on chemical precipitation
followed by settling and filtration for
wastewaters, and stabilization for the
•nonwastewaters. EPA estimates that 2.
million gallons of wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. will, require cyanide
treatment before stabilization as a result
of today's treatment standards.
After analyzing the TSDR Survey
data, EPA has determined that sufficient
commercial capacity exists for these
wastes {both wastewaters and
honwastewaters). EPA has therefore
determined that no long term national
capacity variance for these wastes is
warranted. However, in order to be
cautious and allow time [if any is truly
needed) for facilities to adjust existing
cyanide treatment processes to operate
more efficiently, EPA has determined to
grant a 30-day extension for the
electroplating wastes (see also the
discussion in preamble section H.E.). As
shown below, however, EPA believes
that there will be ample treatment
capacity at the end of 30 days (if not
sooner) to accommodate demand for
treatment of these wastes.
In response to public comments, EPA
reevaluated the amount of alternative
treatment capacity necessary to treat
F006 wastes as a result of today's final
rule. The results of this analysis
corroborate the Agency's position that
the majority of F006 wastes containing
cyanides are already being pretreated
on-site to cyanide levels that meet the
'treatment standard, and therefore, only
limited additional commercial capacity
is needed.
EPA evaluated TSDR Survey data and
Generator Survey data from
approximately 1,500 facilities, selected
from those generating the largest
volumes of F006 wastes. The TSDR
Survey contained data on 358 facilities
generating F006 wastes in 1986. Of the
total volume generated, 69 percent is
generated at facilities with on-site
cyanide treatment, and 27 percent was
determined to be non-cyanide bearing
FQ06. Consequently, only 4 percent of
the F006 waste reported as generated in
the TSDR Survey would need
alternative off-site treatment capacity
for cyanides.
EPA also evaluated a subset of
Generator Survey data currently
available. This analysis involved
evaluating data from almost 1,500
facilities. The analysis identified 322
facilities generating F006 waste. Since
the Generator Survey contains waste
concentration data, EPA was able to
identify the volume of wastes with the
following: Cyanide concentrations
above and below the treatment
standards; with unknown cyanide
concentration; and where the presence
of cyanide is unknown. This analysis
showed that only 7 percent of the F006
waste for this data subset was not
analyzed by the generator for the
presence of cyanide, or the cyanide
concentration in the waste was
unknown, or had a cyanide ,
concentration in excess of the treatment
standard. However, less than 0.7 percent
of the volume of the F006 waste had a
cyanide concentration above the
treatment standard or had cyanides
with unknown concentration levels. In
summary, 93 percent of this sample
reported meeting the treatment
standard, approximately 1 percent
reported exceeding the treatment
standard, and 6 percent reporting
unknown cyanide levels'. The percentage
of compliance could be higher since it is
reasonable to assume that most of the
unknown wastes will contain cyanides
in concentrations less than the
treatment standard, otherwise
generators would know and report that
cyanides were present.
Although EPA has only evaluated
data from a subset of F006 generators, it
believes this pattern to be
representative of the total census of
F006 wastes. (As noted in section
ni.A.3.a.2.i., the data on total cyanide
submitted to EPA in the public
comments to the rulemaking also
showed greater than 90 percent
compliance with the final treatment
standard.)
In order to be cautious in assessing •
the need for alternative treatment,
capacity, EPA is assuming that, as a
worst case, 10 percent of F006 waste
may need alternative commercial
treatment capacity. EPA therefore
assumes for this rule that 10 percent of
the 129 million gallons of land disposed
F006 (or about 13 million gallons) may
require alternative commercial
treatment. Sufficient commercial
alkaline chlorination capacity exists to
treat this volume of waste.
Consequently, EPA does not believe that
any extended national capacity
variance is warranted for F006
nonwastewaters. As stated earlier, the
Agency is delaying the effective date of
the cyanide standard for F006
nonwastewaters 30 days in order to give
facilities a short period of time to adjust
equipment performance should this be
necessary. (Technically, the basis for
this 30-day delay is section 3010(b)
rather than section 3004(h)(2), as noted
in preamble section II.E.)
EPA also has determined that no
extended capacity variance is
appropriate for the F007-F009 wastes.
These wastes are generated in
considerably smaller volumes than F006
and are no more difficult to treat. EPA
has determined to delay the effective
date of the new standards for 30 days,
however, for the same reasons as for the
cyanide standard for F006. The basis for
this action is RCRA section 3004(h)(2).
Wastes from Heat Treatment
Operations and Cyanide-Bearing "P"
Wastes. EPA is also promulgating in
today's final rule treatment standards
for Foil andF012 cyanide-containing
wastes from heat treating operations
and P013, P021, P029, P030, P063, P074,
P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121. The
nonwastewater treatment standards for
cyanide in these wastes are
promulgated based on the performance
of electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination. The wastewater
standard Is promulgated based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination.
One cpmmenter on the proposed rule
pointed out than no commercial
facilities offer the specific treatment
trains identified as BOAT for
nonwastewaters (i.e., electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination). EPA agrees that no
commercial facilities with a treatment
train consisting of electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination were
identified in the TSDR Survey. However,
EPA believes that alkaline chlorination
alone will meet the treatment standards
(see the Background Document on
cyanides for the basis of this
conclusion). The Agency received
numerous public comments supporting
this position. Consequently, EPA
included commercially available
alkaline chlorination capacity in its
capacity determinations for these
wastes.
After analyzing the TSDR Survey
data, EPA has determined that adequate
treatment capacity is commercially
available to treat the small volume of
F011, F012, P030, P063, P074, P098, P099,
P104, P106, and P121 wastes (both
wastewaters and nonwastewaters)
surface land disposed. (As noted above,
the nonwastewater form of the wastes
are amenable to wastewater treatment
because they can by hydrated (i.e.,
-------
deil:,Register /.Vol. 54, No. 120 /.Friday; June 23, 1989:/ Rules and Regulations
dissolved easily.)) EPA does not believe
that any extension is warranted for the
discarded commercial chemical product
wastes. They are generated in small
volumes at sporadic intervals and do
hot have to be treated in existing
treatment systems that conceivably
require major adjustments.
The Foil and F012 wastes could be
treated in such existing treatment
systems, however, and EPA has
consequently decided to delay the
prohibition effective date for 30 days for
these wastes as a result. Further, if Foil
nonwastowaters and F012
nonwastewaters are commingled with
electroplating nonwastewaters, the
entire mixture will become subject to
the lowest treatment standard for
common constituents, in this case 110
mg/kg total cyanide. This limit is not
uniformly attainable for the
electroplating wastes due to significant
concentrations (in some streams, at
least) of eomplexed cyanides. Thus, EPA
expects that PQ11 nonwastewaters and
FQ12 nonwastewatera will be segregated
and treated separately—-an appropriate
result since otherwise the electroplating
wastes would interfere with the
treatment of the free" [Lei, non-
complexed) cyanides in the heat-treating
wastes. It will, however, take some time
to adjust processes to segregate these
heat-treating and electroplating wastes.
Accordingly, the Agency is deferring the
effective dale of the 110 mg/kg total
cyanide standard and the 9.1 mg/kg
amenable cyanide standard for the Foil
and F0I2 h
-------
Federal Register / Votf ,5< IP.. 120^
^longer generating or land disposing K005
orK007.
TABLE Hl.C.l.b.—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE
COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING
The Agency is not promulgating the
proposed treatment standard of "no
land disposal" for K002, K003, K004,
K006, and K008 npnwastewaters. Since
KOQ4 and K008 wastes are First Third
wastes, their land disposal will continue
to be restricted by the "soft hammer"
provisions. Treatment standards for
K002, K003, and K006 wasfes will be
established with the remaining Third
Third wastes by May 8, 1990.
Wastes From Chlorinated Aliphatics
Production, From l,l,l:Trichloroethane ,
Production, From 2,4-D Production, and
Phthalates and, Phthalic Anhydride
Production Wastes. Today EPA is
promulgating treatment standards based
on incineration/reuse as fuel for F024,
K023, K028, K043, K093, K094, TJ028,
U069, U088, U102, U107, and U190
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, and
for K029, K095, and K096
ntinwastewaters. The wastewater forms
of K029, K095, and K096 wastes are
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions.
The treatment standards for metals in
treatment residuals for F024 and K028
are based on stabilization.
The Agency estimates that less than 1
million gallons of F024, KQ23, K028,
K029,' K043, K093, K094, K095, K096,
U028, U069, U088, U102, U107, and U190
wastes will require commercial
incineration or reuse as fuel as a result
of today's treatment standards. After
analyzing the TSDR Survey data, the
Agency has determined that enough
incineration capacity is commercially
' available to treat these wastes. EPA is
therefore not granting a capacity
extension for surface land disposed
F024, K023, K028, K029, K043, K093,
K094, K095, K096, U028, U069, U088,
U102, U107, and U190 wastes.
TABLE III.C.1. a. — VOLUME OF WASTES BY
LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR "WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BEING ESTABLISHED
Volume
Land disposal method '; »,
year)
Storage:
Waste piles 1
Surface impoundments 3
Treatment
Waste piles . 5
Surface impoundments...; .'. Steam stripping
followed by
1 biological
treatment
Stabilization
Available
capacity
(mil gal/
year)
282
17
2 33
0
2
44
, , 0
516
Required
surface land
disposed
(mil gal/
year)
9
2
'0
0
£"\
^*. *
0
2
'These wastes have been included with the
wastes requiring alkaline chlorination.
* Available capacity has been adjusted to account
for 13 million gallons of capacity that may be
needed for F006,
2. Extension of the Effective Date for
Contaminated Soil and Debris
The Agency is today granting an
extension of the effective date for
certain First, Second, and Third Third
contaminated soils and debris for which
treatment standards established by
today's rule are based on incineration.
RCRA section 3004(h)(2) allows the
Administrator to grant an extension to .
the effective date which would
otherwise apply on the basis of the
earliest date on which adequate
protective capacity will be available,
not to exceed two years "* * * after the
effective date of the prohibition which
would otherwise apply under subsection
(d), (e), [f), or (g)." For First Third wastes
that have heretofore been subject to the
"soft hammer" provisions but for which
treatment standards are being
promulgated today, the Agency is
interpreting the statutory language
"* * * effective date of the prohibition
thatwould otherwise apply" to be the
date treatment standards are
promulgated for these wastes (i.e., June
8,1989) rather than the date the "soft
hammer" provisions took effect (i.e.,
August 8,1988). The Agency finds this '
the best interpretation for two reasons.
Extensions of the effective date are '
based on the available capacity of the
BDAT technology for the waste, so it is
-------
• • . , ,. :: F'.r '."i.1.1 "' ,-t, 1,1 ,,si.,.iS>i \ «t>f •'•"'" *J*
26g40 Federal Register /Vol. 54, No. 120 , Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
reasonable that such an extension
Initiate from the date treatment
standards based on performance of
BOAT are established. Furthermore, it is
not the intcmt of the Agency to, in effect,
penalize First Third wastes by allowing
less time (i,e., 38 months) for the
development of needed capacity, while
Second and Third Third wastes in the
same treatability group are allowed the
maximum 48 months (assuming capacity
does not become available at an earlier
date). The capacity extension, therefore,
commences for First, Second, and Third
Third wastes on June 8,1989, and
extends (at maximum) until June 8,1991.
For the purpose of determining
whether a contaminated material is
subject to this capacity extension, 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 or sludges. The Agency will
determine on a case-by-case basis
whether all or portions of such mixtures
should be considered soil (52 FR 31197,
November 8,1986).
Analysis of the TSDR survey data
indicated that relatively small volumes
of soil contaminated with Second Third
wastes were land disposed in 1988.
However, the Superfund remediation
program has expanded significantly
since that time. Plans for remediation at
Superfund sites indicate far greater
excavation of soil and debris requiring
treatment, including incineration, and
subsequent land disposal in 1989 than in
1966. Because of the major increase in
the Superfund remediation program, the
Agency believes that capacity is still
inadequate for incineration of Second
Third contaminated soil and debris.
Therefore, a two year extension of the
effective date is granted to Second Third
contaminated soU and debris for which
BOAT is incineration or fuel
substitution.
EPA is not promulgating a national
capacity variance for soil and debris
that are contaminated with any of the
prohibited cyanide wastes. The
treatment technology on which the
Agency based treatment standards is
alkaline chlorination (preceded by
electrolytic oxidation in certain cases
involving heavily contaminated wastes).
The record for this rulemaking
documents that there is ample
commercial cyanide treatment capacity
providing alkaline chlorination. It is true
that this is a wastewater treatment
technology, and that contaminated soils
and debris are not liquids. However.
contaminated soils could be slurried into
liquid form and so be treatable by this
technology. The Agency consequently
does not believe that a national capacity
variance is warranted.
3. Capacity Determinations for
Underground Injected Wastes
The Agency received comments from
8 different parties concerning the
establishment of effective dates for
underground injected wastes. The
Agency is talcing this opportunity to
discuss its position on the two
comments which it feels are most crucial
to this rule and to the regulated
community. A response to all comments
made on the January 11,1989, proposed
rule can be found in the Response to
Comments Background Document in the
RCRA docket.
A number of commenters indicated
that treatment capacity variances
should commence not from the statutory
deadline of RCRA section 3004(g), but
rather from May 8,1990 or from an
earlier date which EPA may establish by
regulation after promulgating a BDAT
treatment standard (and after making a
decision on the availability of national
protective treatment or disposal
capacity). EPA first addressed this issue
in the June 7,1989, promulgation of
effective dates for the ban on
underground injection of certain First
Third wastes published in the Federal
Register on June 14,1989 (54 FR 25416).
EPA adopted the commenters' approach
for the wastes addressed in that rule,
and is likewise adopting the same
approach for today's rule. Briefly, RCRA
section 3004(g) sets no statutory
prohibitions for disposal of hazardous
wastes into UIC wells until May 8,1990.
Any earlier prohibition date is set by
regulation. Thus, any extension of the
effective date would commence from
that regulatory prohibition date, and be
based on anaylsis of available adequate
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity existing as of the
regulatory prohibition date (see RCRA
section 3004(h)(2)). For a further
discussion of this issue, see 54 FR 25416,
June 14,1989. This decision changes the
effective dates for F007 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters, andKOll and
K013 nonwastewaters from August 8,
1990 to June 8,1991, as indicated in the
January 11,1989 proposed rule.
Commenters also requested that the
Agency defer setting any section 3004(g)
prohibitions for UIC wastes until May 8,
1990. As previously articulated in the
Federal Register on June 14,1989 (54 FR
25416), the Agency disagrees with this
position. EPA believes that it is the
intent of Congress to ban the disposal of
section 3004(g) wastes as expeditiously
as possible upon the establishment of
treatment standards and determination
of alternative treatment capacity. If
capacity exists, then consistent with
section 3004(g)(5), the .Agency will ban
the underground disposal of such waste.
Facilities that are able to make a
demonstration of "no migration" in
compliance with the requirements of 40
CFR148 a'nd 40 CFR 268.6 or meet the
treatment standards in Part 268 may
continue to inject hazardous wastes
beyond the specified effective dates.
In previous rules, the Agency used a •
hierarchical approach in making
decisions to allocate limited protective
treatment or disposal capacity when
evaluating national capacity variances
(52 FR 32450, August 27,1987; and 53 FR
30912, August 16,1988). Briefly,
available treatment capacity was first
apportioned to demand from waste
originally destined for surface disposal
units, then to wastes from CERCLA
remedial actions and RCRA section
3004(u) corrective actions, and finally to
wastes disposed in injection wells. For
the reasons discussed in the recent Final
Rule for a group of First Third Wastes
effective June 7,1989 and published in
the Federal Register on June 14,1989 (54
FR 25416). This hierarchy has no effect
on the Agency's decisions today. The
UIC wastes being prohibited are
relatively low volume. Prohibiting these
small volumes of wastes will not result
in capacity becoming unavailable for
either wastes that are surface disposed,
or for CERCLA/RCRA cleanup wastes.
a. Effective date determinations for
Second Third scheduled wastes for
which EPA has not set treatment
standards. The Agency has not set
treatment standards for the Second
Third wastes listed in Table ni.C.S.a.
These wastes are not prohibited from
land disposal by underground injection
until the Agency sets treatment
standards and effective dates, or until
May 8,1990, if EPA takes no action.
On January 11,1989, die Agency
proposed, in part, to set treatment
standards and UIC effective dates for
the following First Third wastes: F019,
KQ11, K013, and K014. In today's rule,
EPA is not finalizing the treatment
standards or effective dates for F019
wastes, and K011 wastewaters, K013
wastewaters, or K014 wastewaters.
These wastes, consequently, remain
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions
of 40 CFR 268.8. Similarly, the Agency
proposed to set treatment standards and
UIC'effective datesjor the following
Third Third wastes: K002
nonwastewaters, K003 nonwastewaters,
and K006 nonwastewaters. In today's
rule, EPA is not finalizing these
standards or effective dates. Since the
statutory deadline for these wastes is
-------
ederal Register / Vol. 54. No. ^20j( jgday._June 23,, J989 /, Rules_and.Re^aj^Qnjs
May 8,1990, and no prohibitions are
being established in today's rule, these
wastes are not subject to the land
disposal restrictions until promulgation
of the Third Third final rule.
Treatment standards for K004
nonwastewaters and K008
nonwastewaters were finalized on
August 16,1988 (No Land Disposal
Based on No Generation). Amendments
to these standards were proposed on
January 11,1989 (No Land Disposal
Based on Recycling). These treatment
standards were filially amended on May
2,1989 (No Land Disposal Based on No
Gerieration for forms of these wastes
generated by the process described in
the waste listing description and
disposed after August 17,1988, and not
generated in the course of treating
wastewater forms of these wastes; 54 FR
18836). EPA is today rescinding all
treatment standards for these
nonwastewaters; therefore, all K004 and
K008 wastes (wastewaters and
nonwastewaters) are under the effect of
the "soft hammer" provisions of 40 CFR
268.8.
b. Scheduled wastes with established
treatment standards which current data
indicate are not being injected, The
wastes listed in Table IH.C.3.b. are
wastes for which standards are being
established today and for which current
data indicate are not being injected. No
comment was received indicating that
any of these wastes are being
underground injected. Therefore, EPA is
prohibiting the underground injection of
these wastes unless they meet the
treatment standards on June 8,1989. The
Agency believes these decisions will
have no effect on the remaining national
capacity available to treat wastes
generated from RCRA/CERCLA cleanup
actions requiring the type of treatment
associated with these wastes.
The Agency has not established
treatment standards for F006
wastewaters; accordingly, today's rule
does not ban injection of F006
wastewaters. F006 nonwastewaters
were banned from injection on June 7,
1989 published in the Federal Register,
June 14..1989 (54 FR 25416).
EPA is also banning the underground
injection of K009 nonwastewaters and
K010 wastewaters. Data received since
the January 11,1989, proposal indicate
that' these wastes are not being
underground injected.
c. Scheduled wastes with established
treatment standards which current data
indicate are being injected. Table
III.C.3.C. lists those wastes with
treatment standards being established
today which are underground injected.
The Table summarizes the volumes
requiring alternative treatment capacity.
Table nLas.driistsVffectivei dates for "
the prohibitions against the underground
injection of these wastes. The Agency
believes these decisions will have little
effect on the remaining national
capacity available to treat wastes
generated from RCRA/CERCLA cleanup
actions requiring the type of treatment
associated, with these wastes. Moreover,
these waste streams are sufficiently low
volume not to affect transportation
capacity for these wastes (see 53 FR
30914, August 16,1988).
(1) Capacity determinations for
injected wastes requiring alkaline
chlorination or electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination (F007,
F008, F009, F011, F012, P029, P030, P063,
and P098). The wastewater treatment
standards for F007, F008, F009, Foil,
F012, P029, P030, and P098 are based on
alkaline chlorination. The
nonwastewater treatment standards for
F007, F008, and F009 are based on
alkaline chlorination followed by
precipitation. The treatment standards
for F011, F012, P029, P030, P063, and P098
nonwastewaters are based on
electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination. (As indicated in
preamble section HI.C.l.c., no
commercial facilities with a treatment
train consisting of electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination were'
identified in the TSDR Survey. The"
Agency believes that alkaline
chlorination alone will be able to meet
the BOAT treatment standards for Foil,
F012, P029, P030, P063, and P098
nonwastewaters.)
An estimated 130 million gallons per
year of these wastes will require
cyanide wastewater treatment. Of the
130 million gallons, approximately 128
.million gallons are being disposed by
underground injection. Table III.C.S.c.
gives the volumes of wastes injected for
the indicated waste codes. These wastes
may be injected in individual streams or
as mixtures of wastes.
There is no need to use the allocation
hierarchy in this situaiton. A straight
comparison of available versus required
capacity indicates a shortfall in alkaline
chlorination capacity for injected F007
wastewaters and nonwastewaters (33
million gallons available versus 128
million gallons of injected F007).
Comments received on the proposed
effective date supported that
determination. The Agency is therefore
granting a two-year national capacity
variance for F007 wastes which are
'underground injected. As indicated
earlier in the preamble, EPA will grant a
two-year variance not from the August
8,1988 statutory First Third deadline,
but rather from the effective date of this
rule.
Over 33 million gallons per year of
available alternate commercial
treatment capacity has been identified
for the low volumes of F008, F009, Foil,
F012, P029, P030, and P098 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters being injected;
therefore, no capacity variances were
proposed for these wastes. No comment
was received on this action. The Agency
is banning the underground injection of
P029, P030, and P098 wastes upon,
promulgation of this rule. As indicated
in preamble section IILC.l.a., EPA is
granting 30-day extensions of the'
effective date for F008, F009, Foil, and
F012 wastes. These wastes will
therefore be banned from underground-
injection on July 8,1989. (See preamble
section IILC.l.a. describing the
bifurcated treatment standard for Foil
nonwastewaters and F012
nonwastewaters).
P063 wastes are reported in the TSDR
survey as part of mixed waste streams
with K011, K013, and K014. In the
proposal EPA requested information on
the quantities of P063 being underground
injected, indicating a belief that such
wastes are being injected in much
smaller quantities than the data in the
TSDR survey might suggest. Information
received since this rule was proposed
indicates that only relatively small
amounts of P063 are being disposed by
underground injection. Consequently
EPA is banning the underground
injection of P063 wastes upon the
promulgation of this rule.
(2) Capacity determination for ;
injected P071, P089, U028, U088, U107,
and U190. Treatment standards for P071
and P089 nonwastewaters, and U028,
U088, U107, and U190 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are based on
incineration. Treatment standards for
P071 and P089 wastewaters are based
on biological treatment.
These wastes are currently injected in
low volumes, if at all (see Table
III.C.3.C.). The Agency has determined
that adequate treatment capacity exists ,.
for these wastes (281 million gallons of
available capacity and 44 million
gallons of available biological treatment
capacity versus a maximum of 300,000
gallons injected). No comments were
received on the proposed effective
dates. The Agency is therefore banning
the underground injection of these
wastes upon promulgation of this rule.
(3) Capacity determination for
injected K009 wastewaters and K010
nonwastewaters. On January 11,1989,
the Agency proposed to grant capacity
variances for all K009 and K010 wastes.
New information indicates that only >
K009 wastewaters and K010 J
nonwastewaters are being injected. The
-------
llllllflllli'lrll'l illllllllllllllllllliflil.l!lll'|itKlll*;'llllilll:lll!l|lllill!fc
IIP •rtjiaipjf'.Mijfl W'lriJ'i!
"; , . * :";• ";!''!.:!|lll||i! ''i.:,;1!,1;1 ': I1,:1:,1;", ," *, rs s',:'-11'!1! *. ";!••;« "aji,1!'1;"
^^^^ II "iKS'll. ; "i.l'ISM,V SI! J.'i'lj, !'>,,!'!l .ill!.'1' IV Til I'Kt Ill .."I .il'.lhlll'tt11!
Uff'H,' i! " liJ.1' it I'll SSI EBIni ;.* ••I! '.'"* •': W'1 IB!''«' _lf .ill11;!!!!
............................................ , .......... . .............. ,
• ...... v ...... ; s: ...... -if!1! ...... i"::1::; ...... , ........... Sj |
26642
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, "ig&g ""( Rules and Regulations
" ........ i ........ !'•! ..... •• ..... .
Agency is setting treatment standards
for K009 wastewaters based on steam
stripping followed by .biological
treatment. Treatment standards for K010
nonwastcwaters are based on
Incineration. Inadequate alternative
treatment capacity exists to treat the
K009 wastewaters that are annually
being injected (0 gallons of capacity
available versus approximately 79
million gallons injected). There is
adequate alternative treatment capacity
to treat the KOIO nonwastewaters that
»r» being Injected annually [281 million
gallons of capacity available versus
approximately 5 million gallons
injected). Consequently, EPA is today
granting a two-year capacity variance to
the prohibition of underground injection
of K009 wastewaters. The underground
infection of K010 nonwastewaters is
ktftnecl on June 8, 1983. As indicated
previously, K063 nonwastewaters and
KOIO .waste waters not meeting the
treatment standards are banned on June
8, 19B9, based upon assessment of the
best data available to the Agency,
which Indicate that these wastes are not
being underground injected.
(4) Capacity determination for
injected K011 nonwastewaters, K013
nonwasf ewalers, and K014
nonwastewaiers. A significant volume
of K011 nonwaatewaters and K013
nonwastewaters (wastes from
acrylcnitiile production) are currently
being land disposed by underground
Injection. Treatment standards for these
wastes are based on incineration. The
data indicate that approximately 282
million gallons of commercial
Incineration capacity exists versus 347
million gallons of injected K011
nonwastewaters apd K013
nonwastewaters requiring incineration.
The Agency received extensive
support for the proposed capacity
variance for these waste codes. As
Indicated earlier in the preamble, EPA
will grant a two-year variance not from
the August 8, 1SB8, statutory First Third
deadline, but rather from the effective
date of this rule. K011 nonwastewaters
and K013 nonwastewaters will be
banned from underground injection on
June 8, 1091. At proposal, EPA had
treated K011, K013, and K014 injected
nonwaslewaters as one nonsegregable
treatabiiity group for the purpose of the
national capacity determination. Upon
further evaluation, EPA believes
injected K014 nonwastewaters are
segregable from K011 and K013 injected
nonwastewaters. EPA plans to publish a
notice to provide an opportunity to
comment on this issue and will set an
effective date for injected K014
nonwastewaters after evaluating
comments. Thus, EPA is not taking final
action on the proposal for'setting an
effective date for injected K014
nonwastewaters. Until final action,
injected K014 nonwastewaters remain
under the effect of the "soft hammer"
provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
(5) Capacity determination for
injected U221, U223, and P044 Wastes.
Table IH.C.3.C. indicates that
approximately 27 million gallons per
year of U221 wastes are being injected
underground, and additional volumes of
U223 and P044 wastes are being injected
in mixed waste streams. Treatment
standards for P044 nonwastewaters, and
U221 and U223 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are based on
incineration. Treatment standards for
P044 wastewaters are based on carbqn
adsorption or incineration. The data
indicates .that there is adequate
treatment capacity for both injected
nonwastewaters and wastewaters (282
million gallons of incineration capacity
available versus 27 million gallons
injected; 2 million gallons of carbon
adsorption capacity available versus
<100,000 injected). No national capacity
variances were proposed for U221, U223
or P044 waste, s. No comment was
received on this decision. The Agency is
therefore banning the underground
injection of U221, U223, and P044 on
June 8,1989, unless these wastes meet
the treatment standards.
Table III.G.S.a.—Second Third Wastes for
Which Treatment Standards Are Not
Established
K025 (wastewaters), K029 (wastewaters),
K041, K042, K095 (wastewaters), K098
(wastewaters), K097, K098, K105
P002, P003, P007, P008, P014, P028, P027, P049,
P054, POS7, P060, P068, P067, P072, P107, P112,
P113, P114
U002, U003, UOQ5, U008, U011, U014, U015,
U020, U021, U023, U025, U028, U032, U035,
U047, U049, U057, U059, UQ60, tf062, U070, ,
TJ073, UOOO, U083, U092, U093, U094, U095,
U097, U098, U099, U101, U106, U109, U110.
Ulll, U114, U118, U119, U127.U128.U131,
U135, U138, U140, U142, U143, U144, U148,
U147, U149, U150, U161, U162, U163, U164,
U165, U168, U169, U170, U172, U173, U174,
U176, U178, U179, U189, U193, U198, U203,
U205, U206, U208, U213, U214, U215, U216,
U217, U218, U239, U244
Table IH.C.S.b.—Wastes for Which Treatment
Standards Are Today Established and Which
Are Not Underground Injected
(Banned from underground injection on June
8,1989)
First Third
K036 (wastewaters). P039, P041, P094, P097 .
Second Third
Ftilb, F024, KOOS (nonwastewaters), KOIO
(wastewaters), K027, K028, K029
(nonwastewaters), K038, K039, K040,
K043, K095 (nonwastewaters), K098
(nonwastewaters), P040, P043, P082, P074,
P085, P104, P108, Pill, U058, U235
Third Third
K005 (nonwastewaters), K007
(nonwastewaters), K023, K093, K094,
P013, P021, P089, P109, P121, U069, U087,
U102
Newly Listed Wastes
K113, K114, K115, K116
TABLE III.C.S.c.—WASTES FOR WHICH
TREATMENT; STANDARDS ARE TODAY
ESTABLISHED AND WHICH ARE BEING
UNDERGROUND INJECTED
[Millions of gallons per year]
Volume of
injected wasta
Waste codo requiring
treatment
capacity
First Third:
F007
F008
F009
K011 nonwastswaters
K01 3 honwastswaters
P030
P063
P071
P089
U221
U223
Second Third:
P011
F01 2
K010 nonwastewaters
P029
P044
P098
U028
(J107
Third Third
U088
U190
1 127.6
1 <0.1
1 <0.1
» 173.4
1 173.4
1 <0.1
1 <0.1
1 <0.1
> <0.1
•26.8
* <0.1
'0.0
»0.0
79.0
5.0
1 <0.1
'0.0
1 <0.1
, »0.0
1 <0.1
'0.0
<0.1
1 Indicates wastes are injected in mixed waste
streams. Wastes with no volumes Indicated may be
injected as part of thass mixed streams.
TABLE II I.S.C.d.—SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVE
DATES FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTED
WASTES WITH STANDARDS ESTAB-
LISHED IN TODAY'S RULE
Waste code
First Third:
F007, K011 nonwastewaters,
K013 nonwastewaters.
P030, P063. P071, P089,
U221, U223.
F008, F009
Second Third:
K009 wastewaters
K010 nonwastewaters, P029,
P044, P098, U028, U107.
F011, F012 (590 mg/kg, 30
mg/kg).
Effective date
June 8,1991.
June 8,1989.
JulyS, 1989.
Junes, 1991
June 8,1989.
July 8, 1989.
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
i^^
26643
TABLE Ill.S.C.d.—-SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVE
DATES FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTED
WASTES WITH STANDARDS ESTAB-
LISHED IN TODAY'S RULE—Continued
Waste code.
F011, F012 (110 mg/kg, 9.1
mg/kg).
Third Third:
U088, U190
Effective date
Dec. 8, 1989.
June 8. 1989.
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR Part 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified tune frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)], new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While.States must still adopt
HSWA-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 will be added to
Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all
States, regardless of their authorization
status. States may apply for either
interim or final authorization for the
HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
discussed hi the following section.
When this rule is promulgated, Table 2
in 40 CFR 271.1(j) will be modified also
to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementing provision of HSWA.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's final 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 interm or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b], respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1,1993 (see 40
CFR 271.24{c)).
Section 271.21{e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modification to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the
State must modify its program to' adopt
this regulation will be determined by the
promulgation of the final rule in
accordance with § 271.21(e). These
deadlines can be extended in certain
cases (see § 271.21 (e)(3)). Once EPA
approves the modification, the State
requirements become Subtitle C RGRA
requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
final 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 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
regulations in their application.
However, the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth in
§ 271.21(e). States that submit official
applications for final authorization 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations must include standards
equivalent to these regulations in their
application. The requirements a State
must meet when submitting its final
authorization application are set forth in
40 CFR 271.3..
The amendments being promulgated
today need not affect the State's
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
primacy status. A State currently
authorized to admmi£ter the UIC
program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) could continue to do so
without seeking authority to administer
these amendments. However, a State
which wished to implement Part 148 and
receive authorization to grant
exemptions from the land disposal
restrictions would have to demonstrate
that it had the requisite authority to
administer sections 3004(fJ and (g) of
RCRA. The conditions under which such
an authorization may take place are
summarized below and are discussed in
a July 15,-1985 final rule (50 FR 28728].
C. State Implementation
The following four aspects of the
framework established in the November
7,1986, rule (51 FR.40572) affect State
implementation to today's final rule and
impact State actions on the regulated
community: •
1. Under Part 268, Subpart C, EPA is
proposing 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 268, EPA is
proposing to grant two-year national
variances from the effective dates of the
land disposal restrictions based on an
analysis of available alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity. Under section 268.5, case-by-
case extensions of up to one year
(renewable for one additional year) may
be granted for specific applicants
lacking adequate capacity.
The Administrator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective dates because these,
determinations must be made on a
-------
26644
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
national basis. In addition, it is clear
that RCRA section 3004(h)(3) intends for
tho Administrator to grant case-by-case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the basis of national concern?
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore, States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. Under |268.44, the Agency may
grant waste-specific variances from
treatment standards in cases where it
can be demonstrated that the physical
and/or chemical properties of the
wastes differ significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standards, and the wastes cannot be
treated to specified levels or treated by
specified methods.
The Agency is solely responsible for
granting such variances since the result
of such an action may be the
establishment of a new waste
treatability group. All wastes meeting
the criteria of these new waste
trealability groups may also be subject
to the treatment standard established by
the variance. Grafting such variances
may hav« national impacts; therefore,
this aspect of the program is not
delegated to the'States at this time.
4, Under § 266,8, 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 fhe authority to impose
restrictions may be authorized under
RCRA, section 3008 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. EPA will be handling "no
migration" petitions at Headquarters,
though the States may be authorized to
grant these petitions in the future. The
Agtsncy expects to gain valuable
experience and information from review
of "no migration" petitions which may
affect future land disposal restrictions
rulemakinga. In accordance with RCRA
section 3004(i), EPA will publish notice
of the Agency's final decision on
petitions in the Federal Register.
States are free to impose their own
disposal restrictions if such actions are
tnora stringent or broader hi scope than
the actions of Federal programs (RCRA
section 3009 and 40 CFR 271.1(1)). Where
States impose such restrictions, the
broader and more stringent State
restrictions govern.
V. 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 Second Third wastes to
discharge to publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) in order to avoid
incurring the costs of alternative
treatment. In shifting from land disposal
to discharge to POTWs, an increase in
human and environmental risks could
occur. Also as a result of the land
disposal restrictions, hazardous waste
generators might illegally discharge their
wastes to surface waters without
treatment, which could cause damage to
the local ecosystem and potentially pose
health risks from direct exposure or
bioaccumulatipn.
Some generators might treat their
wastes prior to discharging to a POTW,
but the treatment step itself could
increase risks to the environment. For
example, if incineration were the
pretreatment step, metals and other
hazardous constituents present in air
scrubber waters could be discharged to
surface waters. However, the amount of
Second Third waste shifted to POTWs
would be limited by such factors as the
physical form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatmenf required prior to discharge,
and State and local regulations.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
Management of some of the hazardous
wastes included in today's rulemaking
could be shifted from land disposal to
ocean dumping and ocean-based
incineration. If the cost of ocean-based
disposal plus transportation were lower
than the cost of land-based treatment,
disposal, and transportation, this option
could become an attractive alternative.
In addition, ocean-based disposal.could
become attractive to the regulated
community if land-based treatment were
not available.
However, the Ocean Dumping Ban
Act of 1988 has restricted ocean
dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes to existing, authorized
dumpers until December 31,1991, after
which "... it shall be unlawful for any
person to dump (sewage sludge or
industrial wastes) into ocean waters".
Therefore, the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
has made moot any economic or other
incentive to ocean dump industrial
hazardous wastes, including the wastes
subject to this regulation.
C. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act
Some treatment technologies
applicable to Second Third wastes could
result in cross-media transfer of
hazardous constituents to air. For
example, incineration of metal-bearing
wastes could result in metal emissions
to air. Some constituents, such as
chromium, can be more toxic if inhaled
than if ingested. Therefore, it might be
necessary to issue regulatory controls
for some technologies to ensure they are
operated properly.
The Agency has taken several steps to
address this issue. EPA has initiated a
program to address metal emissions
from incinerators. It has also initiated
two programs under section 3004(n) to
address air emissions from other
sources. The first program will address
fugitive emissions from equipment such
as pumps, valves, and vents from units
processing concentrated organic waste
streams. The second program will
address other sources of air emissions,
such as tanks and waste transfer and
handling.
D. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability ,
Act
The land disposal restrictions may
have significant effects on the selection
and implementation of response actions
that are taken under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). There are three primary
areas in which these effects may occur.
One area that may be affected by the
LDR is in the selection of treatment
standards at the remedial action site.
The cleanup standards set at CERCLA
sites are risk-based, while treatment
standards developed under the land
disposal restrictions program are
technolpgy-based. Therefore, the
technology-based treatment standards
may be more stringent than the risk-
based cleanup standards developed
based on the CERCLA selection of
remedy criteria, and vice versa. Another
matter that may be affected is the
treatment of soil and debris
contaminated with wastes restricted .
from land disposal. Contaminated soil
and debris are a primary type of waste
that must be remediated at most
CERCLA sites. In many cases, the soil
matrix is different from that of the
industrial waste for which treatment
standards are set. CERCLA site
managers must either comply with the
treatment standards or request and be
granted a variance from the treatment
i i
in
-------
Federal Register / Vql. ,54
Eri^iy. Jirne 23,. 1989
^m^asm^B^amme^^^mm n !•• i i U
.;26645
'
.standard (§ 268.44) or request and be
granted a "no-migration" variance
(§ 268.6). '
Finally, even though the hazardous
substances at a CERCLA remediation
site may have been disposed prior to the
effective date of RCRA, if the action
involves removal of restricted wastes
after the prohibition effective date, the
land disposal restrictions are legally
applicable (51 FR 40577). For example, if
a waste is excavated from a unit,
treated, and redisposed, EPA has
indicated that "placement" (see RGRA
section 3004(k)} of the waste in a land
disposal unit has occurred and the
applicable treatment standards must be
met (see 53 FR 51444 and 51445, Dec. 21,
1988). However, if the waste is capped
-in place, removal or "placement" has
not occurred and the treatment
standards are not legally applicable.
E. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Wastes from Pesticides Regulated
Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
A number of generators of pesticide
waste that have heretofore been
comparatively unaware of the land
•- disposal restrictions may be regulated -
when today's rulemaking is
promulgated. This will require that the
Agency develop guidance materials and
provide training on how to comply with
the requirements of the land disposal
restrictions,
Generators of significant quantities of
pesticide P'and U wastes are farmers
and commercial pesticide applicators.
The provisions of 40 CFR 268.1(c)(5)
exempt farmers from regulation under
the land disposal restrictions program;
however, no such exemption exists for
commercial applicators. Such generators
of hazardous wastes have traditionally
land disposed their pesticide wastes.
Subsequent to promulgation of today's
final rule, these generators must comply
with the requirements of the land
disposal restrictions if they .dispose a
hazardous waste subject to treatment
standards of "soft hammer" provisions.
F. Regulatory Overlap of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Under the Toxic Substance Control Act
and Resource Conservation and ~~
Recovery Act
Certain wastes listed as P or U
contain PCBs. The PCB component of
such a waste mixture is regulated
primarily under TSCA, whereas the
listed P or U component of the waste is
regulated under RCRA. Such a mixture
of listed/PCB waste must meet the
applicable requirements under both
statutes. Such a waste must ordinarily
go to'anincihqrator;pefmittedunder '
both TSCA and RCRA. Any ash residual
from incineration must meet the
treatment standard for the listed waste
component prior to land disposal.
VI. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Purpose
The Agency estimated the costs,
benefits, and economic impacts of
today's final rule to determine if it is a
"major" regulation as defined by
Executive Order No. 12291. For all major
rules, the Agency is required by the
Executive Order to conduct a Regulatory
Impact Analysis, and by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to assess small business
impacts. The cost and economic impact
estimates serve, additionally, as
measures of the practical capability of
facilities to comply with the final rule.
The results indicate that today's final
rule is not a major rule. This section of
the preamble discusses the results of the
analyses of the final rule.
2. Executive Order No. 12291
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
EPA to assess the effect of final Agency
actions and alternatives during the
development of regulations. Such an
assessment consists of a quantification
of the potential benefits and costs of the
rule, as well as a description of any
beneficial or adverse effects that cannot
be quantified in monetary terms. In
addition, Executive Order No. 12291
requires that regulatory agencies
prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for major rules. Major rules are
defined as those likely to result in:
• An annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
• A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries; •
or
• Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
innovation, or international trade.
The Agency has conducted cost
analysis and has concluded that the
final rule is not a major rule. Annual,
costs to the economy are estimated at
approximately $24.9 million to $32.4
million for wastes not injected
underground and an additional $3.9
million for those injected underground.
3. Basic Approach
The Agency analyzed costs and
benefits using the same approach and
methodology that was used for the
August 17,1988 First Third final rule (53
FR 31138). The effects of the final rule
were estimated by comparing post-
regulatory costs, benefits, and economic
impacts with those resulting under
baseline conditions. The baseline for all
Second and Third wastes is defined as
continued land disposal of wastes in
units meeting minimum technological
requirements. The baseline was not :
adjusted to reflect treatment
requirements that would automatically
occur in the absence of a rule after May
8,1990f,
The baseline for First Third wastes
included in this rule is defined as
treatment needed to comply with the
First Third Land Disposal Restrictions
rule or the soft hammer provisions that
went into effect on August 8,1988. This
baseline corresponds to treatments
evaluated under Alternative A Scenario
2 in the First Thirds RIA (53 FR 31138,
August 17,1988).
4. Results
Table VI(A) summarizes the results of
the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as
discussed in the following section.
TABLE VI(A)—REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Affected facilities:
e Promulgated
Wastes -.
• "Soft hammer"
Wastes
Total
Costs (annual) in
millions:
• Promulgated
Wastes
• "Soft hammer"
Wastes.
• Total
Economic Impact:
Significantly affected
facilities
Benefits (over 70 yrs.):
• Cancer case
avoided
• Noncarcinogenic
exposures
avoided;
Surface
Disposal
27
8
35
249
7.5
32.4
0
.07
555
Under-
ground
Injection ,
20
20
3 9
3.9
Q
a. Population of affected facilities.
The final rule will affect 27 facilities that
surface-dispose wastes. An additional 8
facilities would be affected by the soft
hammer provisions that will take effect
on June 8,1989.
Only 20. injection facilities will be
required to either treat wastes or file
"no migration" petitions. These facilities
will not significantly contribute to
compliance costs already incurred by
injection well owners/operators
managing .solvents, dioxins, California *
list, and First Third wastes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
b. Costs. The standards promulgated
by this final rule are estimated to cost
industry $24.9 million per year for
surface-disposed wastes, and 3.9 million
per year for injected wastes. If there is
not enough capacity to treat the wastes
subject to the soft hammer provisions,
the facilities may be able to continue
managing their wastes in minimum
technology units at no additional cost.
If treatment capacity is available,
surface-disposed wastes subject to the
soft hammer provisions would need to
be treated. The Agency estimated the
upper range costs of treating those
wastes by assuming these wastes would
b® incinerated. This treatment could add
as much as $7.5 million to the cost of the
rulo. Less costly forms of treatment
would be available for the soft
hammered wastes, which would reduce
tfao cost.
In general, the Agency assumed that
the least costly treatment would be
selected. This assumption had negligible
effects on the estimated costs except for
the case of a combined waste stream
containing KQ27 and D007, a Third Third
chromium waste. The Agency assumed
that the combined waste would be
treated to comply with the final rule.
The Agency also assumed that no
twatment of the residual scrubber
sludges to remove chromium would take
place because treatment standards for
D007 have not been promulgated.
Promulgation of standards for D007
under the Third Third rule would
increase costs for this combined waste
by approximately $28 million annually.
The additional volume of injected
wastes attributable to the Second Third
schedule is small by comparison to the
volumes of wastes regulated by previous
rulemakSngs. The Agency performed an
analysis to assess the economic effect of
associated compliance costs for Second
Third wastes and found total,
compliance costs to be $3.9 million
annually and petition costs are
estimated at $0.1 million annually.
a Economic impacts. The economic
impact analysis for surface-disposed
wastes estimates that none of the
affected facilities would be significantly
affected by the final rule. None of the
affected facilities is expected to close as
c result of the rule.
d. Benefits. The benefits analysis for
surface-disposed wastes estimated that,
over a 70 year lifetime, the final rule
would reduce the number of cancer
cases by 0.07 and the number of
exposures to noncarcmogenic chemicals
above threshold levels by 555.
Benefits other than reduction in
human health risk—such as resquce
damage avoided and corrective action
coats avoided—were not quantified. As
a result, the benefits of the land disposal
restrictions for Second Third wastes are
likely to be understated.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility '
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for a final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis [RFA) that describes the effect
of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). This
analysis is unnecessary, however, if the
Agency's Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting an RFA, if over 20 percent of
the population of small businesses,
small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions is likely to
experience financial distress based on
the costs of the rule, then the agency is
required to consider that the rulelvill
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities and to perform
a formal RFA. EPA evaluated the
economic effect of the final rule, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, and determined that no facilities
would be significantly affected. The
Administrator certifies that Part 268 and
Part 148 will not have significant
economic effects on a substantial
number of small entities. As a result of
this finding, the Agency has not
prepared a formal RFA.
C. Paperework Reduction Act
All information collection
requirements in this final rule were
promulgated in previous land disposal
restrictions rulemakings (other than
those for the Underground injection
Control Program) and approved by the
Office of Management and Budget at
that time. Since there are no new
information collection requirements
being promulgated today, an
Information Collection Request has not
been prepared.
For the Underground Injection Control
Program, the information collection
requirements in this final rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etl seq.
Reporting and recordkeeping burden on •
the public for this collection is estimated
at 745 hours for the respondents, with an
average of 14 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.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, -
(please reference ICR No. 370.09), to
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
223, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460 (202-382-2745); and Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project (2040-0042),
Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
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).
VII. REFERENCES
(1) U.S. EPA, "Treatment Technology
Background Document" June, 1989. EPA/
530-SW-89-048A.
(2) U.S. EPA, "Methodology for Developing
' Treatment Standards," June, 1989. EPA/
530-SW-89-048B.
(3) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for Cyanide Wastes,
F006 (Cyanide Only), F007-F012, F019,
, P012, P013, P021, P029, P030, P033, P063,
P074, P098, P099, P104, P106, and P121,
U246." June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048K.
(4) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for K011. K013, and
K014. June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048J.
(5) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for K009 and 8C010.
June 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048I. -
(6) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) forK043. June 1989.
EPA/530-SW-89-048L.
(7) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for Phthalate
Wastes, K023, K093, K094, U028, U069,
U088, U102, U107, U190. June 1989. EPA/
530/SW-89-048H.
(8) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for
Organophosphorous Wastes, K038-K040,
P039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P071,
P085, P089, P094, P097, P109, Pill, U059,
U087, and U235. June 1989. EPA/530-
SW-89-048G.
(9) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for F024. June 1989.
EPA/530-SW-S9-048M.
-------
^VoIm^^iEOH/^r^^
(10) U.S, EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for Waste from the
Production of Dinitrotoluene,
Toluenediamine, and
Toluenediisocyanate, K027, K111-K1161
U221, and U223. June 1989. EPA/530-
SW-89-0480. :
(11) U.S. EPA, "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for Wastes From the
Production of 1,1,1,-Trichloroethene
K028, K029, K095, and K096. December
1988. EPA/530-SW-89-048N.
(12) IGF, Memorandum From Ralph Braccio,
Jean Tilley to William Vocke, "Results of
Preliminary Analysis of Proposed Second
Thirds Land Disposal Restrictions Rule.
December 19,1988,
(13) U.S. EPA, "Background Document for
Second Third Wastes to Support 40 CFR
Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions
Proposed Rule, Second Third Wastes
Volumes, Characteristics, and Required
and Available Treatment Capacity". June
1989. EPA/530-SW-89-048F.
(14) U.S. EPA, "Evaluation'of Availability of
Alternate Treatment and Disposal
Capacity for Injected Hazaf dous
Wastes"; Tischler and Kocurek. October
1987.
(15) U.S. EPA, "Information Collection
Request for the Proposed Hazardous
Waste Disposal Restrictions for Class I
Injection of Second Thirds List Wastes",
Cadmus Group, Inc. November 1988.
(16) U.S. EPA, "Second and Third Thirds Cost
Estimate", Cadmus Group, Inc. December
1988.
(17) U.S. EPA, "Response to Comments
. Background Document for Second Third
Scheduled Wastes, Vol. 1"; June 1989.
EPA/530-SW-89-048D.
(18) U.S. EPA, "Response to Comments
Background Document for Second Third
Scheduled Wastes, Vol. 2"; June 1989.
EPA/530-SW-89-048E.
(19) U.S. EPA, "Response to Comments
Background Document for Second Third
Scheduled Wastes, Vol. 3"; June 1989.
EPA/53Q-SW-89-048C.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Fart 148,264,
265,268, and 271
Administrative practice and -- .
procedure, Confidential business
information, Environmental protection,
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous
waste. Imports, Indian lands, Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Penalties,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: June 8,1989.
William K. Reilly,
.Administrator. ; ,
For the reasons set but ja the
preamble, Title 40, Chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows: • "- •' ••••'••
PART 148-^H AZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.
2. Section 148.14 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)
as paragraphs (d), (e), and (g); by
revising the introductory text of newly
redesignated paragraph (g); and by
adding new paragraphs (b), (c), and (f)
to read as follows:
§ 148.14 Waste specific prohibitions—first
third wastes.
*****
(b) Effective June 8,1989, the waste
specified hi 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste number K036
(wastewaters); and the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33 as P030, P039, P041,
P063, P071, P089, P094, P097, U221, and
LJ223 are prohibited from underground
injection.
(c) Effective July 8,1989, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers F008 and
F009 are prohibited from underground
injection.
* * * * *
(f) Effective June 8,1991, the waste
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste number F007; and the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
K011 (nonwastewaters) and K013
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
underground injection.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (fj of this section
do not apply: .
* * * * *
3. Section 148.15 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (e); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (e); and by adding new
paragraphs (b). (c), and (d) to read as
follows:
§ 148.15 Waste specific prohibitions-
second third wastes.
* * * * *
(b] Effective June 8,1989, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers F010, F024;
the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
K009 (nonwastewaters), K010, K027,
K028, K029 (nonwastewaters), K038,
K039, K040, K043, K095
(nonwastewaters), K096
(nonwastewaters}, K113, K114, K115,
K116; and wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.33 as P029, P040, P043, P044, P062,
P074, P085, P098, P104, P106, Pill, U028,
U058, U107, and U235 are prohibited
from underground injection.
(c) Effective July 8,1989, and
continuing until December 8,1989, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous W^jte numbers Foil
and F012 are prohibited from
underground injection pursuant to the
treatment standards specified in
§§ 268.41 and 268.43 applicable to F007,
F008, and FC09 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Effective December 8,
1989, Foil (nonwastewaters) and F012
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited
pursuant to the treatment standards
specified in §§ 268.41 and 268.43
applicable to Foil and F012
wastewaters and n.onwastewaters.
(d) Effective June 8,1991, the waste
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste number K009
(wastewaters) is prohibited from
underground injection.
(e) The requirements of paragraphs
Ca), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do not
apply:
* * * * *
4. Section 148.16 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignatec"
paragraph .(c); and by adding new
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§148.16 Waste specific prohibitions-
third third wastes.
***** ;"
(bj Effective June 8,1989, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K005
(nonwastewaters), K007
(nonwastewaters), K023, K093, K094;
and the wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.33 as P013, P021, P099, P109, P121,
U069, U087, U088, U102, and U190 are
prohibited from underground injection.
(c) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply:
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6925.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
§264.73 [Amended]
2. Section 264.73 is amended by
revising the first sentence in the
parenthetical statement to read as
follows: (Approved by the Office of
-------
266£8 Federal .Register / Vol.' 54, No. 120 /:Friday; June 23. 1989 f Rules and Regulations
Management and Budget under control
numbers 2050-0012,2050-0013 and 2040-
0042 * * *).
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1, The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Aulhority: 4Z U.S.C. 6905,6912{a j, 0924,
C925, and 6835.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkceping, and Reporting
§265.73 lAmended]
2. Section 265.73 is amended by
revising the parenthetical statement to
read as follows: (Approved by the Office
of Management and Budget under
control numbers 2050-0039 and 2040-
OW2),
PART 26B—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 6905, 6912[ajl 6921, and
8824.
Subpart A—General
§268.7 [Amended]
2. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising the parenthetical statement to
rtad as follows: (Approved fay the Office
of Management and Budget under
control numbers 2050-0062 and 2040-
0042),
Subpart B—Schedule for Land
Disposal Prohibitions and
Establishment of Treatment Standards
3. Section 268.12 is amended by
removing paragraph (c); by
re designating paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g),
and fh) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f),
and (g); and by revising paragraphs (b)
and newly rcdesignated paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
f 268.12 Identification of wastes to be
evaluated by May 8,1930.
* '* * * *
(b) Wastewater residues (less than 1%
total organic carbon and less than 1%
total suspended solids] resulting from
tho following well-designed and well-
operated treatment methods for wastes
listed In §| 208.10.and 268.11 for which
EPA has not promulgated wastewater
treatment standards: metals recovery,
nietals precipitation, cyanide
destruction, carbon adsorption, chemical
* oxidation, steora stripping,'
biodegradatlon, and incineration or
other direct thermal destruction.
(c) Hazardous wastes listed in
§§ 268.10 and 268.11 that are mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes.
Suppart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
4. Section 268.34 is added to read as
follows:
§ 268.34 Waste specific prohibitions-
second third wastes.
(a) Effective June 8,1989, the following
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F010; F024;
the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K005, K007;
K009 (nonwastewaters), K010; K023;
K027; K028; K029 (nonwastewaters];
K036 (wastewaters); K038; K039; K040;
K043; K093; K094; K095
(nonwastewaters); K096
(nonwastewaters); K113; K114; K115;
K116; and the wastes specified in 40
CFR 261.33 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. P013; P021; P029; P030; P039; P040;
P041; P043; P044; P062; P063; P071; P074;
P085; PQ89; P094: PJJ97; P098; P099; P104;
P106; P109; Pill; P121; U028; U058; 0669;
U087; UQ88; U102; U107; U221; U223; and
U235 are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective June 8,1989, the
following wastes specified in-40 CFR
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K009 (wastewaters), K011
(nonwastewaters), K013
(nonwastewaters), and K014
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal except when they are
underground injected pursuant to 40
CFR 148.14(f) and 148.15(d).
(c) Effective July 8,1989, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
• Hazardous Waste Nos, F00§7-cyanide
(nonwastewatef); F008; Fb09; Foil
(wastewaters) and F012 (wastewaters)
are prohibited from land disposal.
(1) Effective July 8,1989, the following
waste specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F007 is prohibited
from land disposal except when it is
underground injected pursuant to 40
CFR148.14(f).
(2) Effective July 8,1989 and
continuing until December 8,1989, Foil
(nowastewaters) and F012
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal pursuant to the treatment
standards specified in § § 268.41 and
268.43 applicable to F007, F008, and FQ09
nonwastewaters. .EffectiveDecember 8,
1989 Foil (nowastewaters) and F012
{nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal pursuant to the treatment
standards specified in § § 268.41 and
268.43 applicable to Foil
(nonwastewaters) and F012
(nonwastewaters).
(d) Effective June 8,1991, the wastes
specified in this section 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.
(e) Between June 8,1989 and June 8,
1991, (for wastes F007, F008, F009, Foil,
and F012 between June 8,1989 and July
8, lS89) wastes included in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section may be
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, regardless whether such
unit is a new, replacement, or lateral
expansion unit, only if such unit is in
compliance with the technical
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(f) 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.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) of this section do not
apply if 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.
(h) Between June 8,1989 and May 8,
1990, the wastes specified in § 268.11 for
which treatment standards under
Subpart D of this Part are not
applicable, including California list
wastes subject to the statutory
prohibitions of RCRA section 3004(d) or
codified prohibitions under § 268.32, 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.
(i) To determine whether a hazardous
waste listed in §§ 268.10, 268.11, and
268.12 exceeds the applicable treatment
standards specified in §§ 268.41 and
268.43, the initial generator must test a
representative sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste, depending
on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or die waste, or the
generator may use knowledge of the
waste. If the waste contains constituents
in excess of the applicable Subpart D
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal and all requirements of Part 268
% are applicable, except as otherwise
. specified.
-------
Federal Register../^Voh" ^KMo ^Q-/.,Fri[da^^Iune;23, 1989 ../ Rules' and Regulations'1
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
6. In § 268.41, Table CCWE is
amended by removing from the subtable
for F006 nonwastewaters "Cyanides
(Total) * * * Reserved", and by adding
the following subtables to Table CCWE
in alphabetical/numerical order by EPA
Hazardous Waste Number:
§268.41 Treatment standards expressed
as concentrations in waste extract
(a)* * * ' "
TABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
F007, F008, and F009
nonwastewaters (see also table
CCW in § 268.43)
Cadmium
Chromium (total) ......
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
F011 and F012 nonwastewaters
(see also table CCW in § 268.43)
Cadmium
Chromium (total)..
" Lead.'.; :
Nickel
Silver
Concentration:
(in mg/l)
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
6.072
F024 nonwastewaters (see also
table CCW in § 268.43)
Chromium (total)....,
Nickel '..
Concentration (in
mg/l)
Reserved.
Reserved.
K028 nonwastewaters (see also
table CCW in § 268.43)
Chromium (total)..
Nickel
Concentration (in
mg/l)
Reserved.
Reserved.
K115 nonwastewaters (see also
table CCW in § 268.43) '
Nickel....
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.32
P074 nonwastewaters (see also
. table CCW in § 268.43)
Nickel..
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.32
P099 nonwastewaters (see also
table CCW in § 268.43)
Silver
Concentration
(in mg/l)
• Q 072
P104 nonwastewaters (see also
table CCW in § 268.43)
Silver
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0072
7. In § 268.42, paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) are added to read as follows:
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
(a)***
(3) The nonwastewater form of the
following hazardous wastes listed in
§§ 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 must be
incinerated in accordance with the
•requirements of Part 264, Subpart O, or
Part 265, Subpart O, or burned in boilers
or industrial furnaces burning in
accordance with' applicable regulatory
standards: K027, K039, K113, K114, K115,
K116, P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P085,
P109, Pill, U058, U087, U221, and U223.
(4] The wastewater form of the
following hazardous wastes listed in
§§ 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 must be
treated by carbon adsorption, or
incineration, or pretreatment followed
by carbon adsorption: K027, K039, K113,
K114, K115, K116, P040, P041, P043, P044,
P062, P085, P109, Pill, TJ058, U087, U221,
andU223.
***,**
8. In § 268.43, paragraph (a) is revised;
Table CCW is amended by revising the
subtable for F006 nonwastewaters; by
revising the siibtables for K024
wastewaters and nonwastewaters; by
removing K004 and K008 from the
subtable for No Land Disposal; by
adding the following subtables in
alphabetical/numerical order by EPA
hazardous waste number, and by adding
paragraph (b) and K005 and K007 to the
subtable for No Land Disposal 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. The wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards in
Table CCW are based on analysis of
grab samples except the wastewater
treatment standards that are based on
analysis of composite samples for
wastes, K009, KOIO, K036, K038, K040,
• P039, P07i, P089, P094, P097, and U235.
TABLE CCW— CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION IN WASTES
* * * * *
F006 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in §268.41)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
590
30
F007, F008, and F009
nonwastewaters (see also Table
CCWE in §268.41)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)............
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
590
-30
F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters (see also Table
CCWE in §268.41)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable) ;......
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel -... .
, Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
0.32
0.04
0.44
F010 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
1.5
F010 wastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
F011 and F012 nonwastewaters1 •
Cyanides (Total) ." .
Cyanides (Amenable)......
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9-1
1 Effective December 8, 1989; from July 8, 1989
until December 8, 1989, these wastes are subject to
the same treatment standards as F007, F008, and
F009 nonwastewaters (see also Table CCWE in
§268.41).
F011 and F012 wastewaters (see
also Table CCWE in §268.41)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Chromium (Total)
Lead ........
Nickel ;
.Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
0.32
0.04
0.44
F024 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in § 268.41)
2-Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene ,...
3:Ch!orbpropene
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
0.28
0.28
-------
ilnJIllllll'i I,,, ' " "","
•v , •: ,„ ii i! up '••,,ii'" !-v i", '• 't fv
Federal Regfelfet /
iffo / feday.'jane 23. 19B9 / Rulps and Regulations
F024 nonwijttowatofs (see also
Tabte CCWS |> §268.41}
1,1-0»cWoro«!fian«........,,« „„._,„„
J^-OeWofocthana .„.„..,„.
1 ^btcMoropiapah* „
d§4,343fcWoropfOfxift«.
Bi»(?-«fti4 Itwxyljphfhateto
1-teweNofCKjtfian* ,,.,,„, ,
Hw*cttofO-1^-txHa*m«,.,.»
3-Chtoropfopana.... „...
t,1 -OkiWofoothdna..., _.
I.S'OteWofWl'hane.™.,-™.......^™,™
1.2-OtcMoroprafMn*. „.„....„ —
e^-l,3-0«c}*xopfop<»n« — .
(fww-t^DichtoropropeiMi , —
BhCSm9i>ih9x-y)) phthalata..........
I'hwjtctAxodtfcwao-furans „.,..„„
HeaKhtofodtswao-iMSoxlos ,„ „„„_„
Panteclitofodtwnzo-forans
PftolnciiiofGdlbofuo-p^fioxkus w™.^™.
Tttf*cl>to«xllb8nzo-furan6 „.„,
C»w>n*>m CTotnl)™™.™.... — „
WckaJ..^^™,,,,..,,,..™. „
'i
K009 »nd K010 nonwastowaters
CWowtem _„_„„_ . ,„ ..,„.,„,
Concentration
On mg/kg)
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
1,8
1.8
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
" :,: ' '"
Concentration
((nmg/l)
0.28
0.28
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.036
0.036
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.35
0.47
.. • • -!> , ,
Concontratfon
On mg/kg)
6.0
KQ09 and KOtO wastewaiers
Cftlo^olQcni t,.^^,,^! ,»,«„(« «» .
ConcontralJon
Cnmg/I)
0.10
1 " '" ' ' ' , '" ' ,
K01I, K013, and KOH
nonwmtcwatofs
nrf'1"
AMtonMtat .-. ,„,.,,'.„„. „.„„„„„..„...„,.,
Aor>fc«Adle.... ,.,.,..!,...„_ ..„...„
Aeryfwrtit.,*. .„«.„.„„„. .
SWUWMI ,„=„„.„„,„„„.„.„„.,„.„„„
Gf a*lid€* (TotiR
Concentration
(In rag/kg)
1.8
1.4
23
0.03
57
„ 1|P
WJ23. K093, «f?d K094
nonwastewmiaTS
Pttttaltc adhyirJa (moasurod as
PtithaHe scHi) .«*«, ^...^..^w'.^.^.
Concentration
(!n mg/kg)
28
KC23. K093, and K094
wnitowateu
Phttwte antiydrid* (measured as
PhthiSo ecWJ ,™wra,,,™ ,
Concentration
(mmg/l)
0.54
; i : : = ; 1 T~ — r 1 i — " ~ ~ 1 T : — —
K024 nonwastewaters
Phthalks anhydride (measured as
Phthallc acid) .
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
28
K024 wastewaters
I^hthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid)
K028 nonwastewaters (see also
Tabte CCWE in §268.41)
1,1-CHcMoroethane..... _
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene ,„.
Hexachloroethane «......« „.
Pentachloroo thane
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachtoroetriane „
1 ,1 ,1-Trlchtoroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane _
Tetrachtoroethylene
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.54
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
6.0
6.0
5.6
28
5.6
5.6
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
K028 wastewaters
1,1-Dichloroethane.._
trans-1 ,2-Dichtoroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene ,
Hexachloroethane...... „
Pentachtoroathane , „.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane „ „.„.
Chromium (Total) „..
Lead....
Nickel
K029 nonwastewaters
1,1,1-TrlcWoroethane ."......
Vinyf cWoricfs
K036 wastewaters
Dlsutfoton ,.„
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.033
0.033
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
6.4
0.35
0.037
0.47
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.025
K038 and K040 nonwastewaters
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
0.1
• •
. K038 and K040 wastewaters
Phorate ,
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.025
K043 nonwastewaters
2,4-Dichloropheno!
2 4 6-Trichlorophenol
Tetrachlorophenols (Total)
PentacWorophenol
Tetrachloroethene^.........,...,...
Hexachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxlns
Hoxachlorodibenzo-iurans .
Pentachlorodibenzc-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans
Concentration
. (in mg/kg)
0.38
0.34
8.2
7.6
0.68
1.9
1.7
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
K043 wastewaters
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichtorophenol,M „
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Tetrachlorophenols (Total)
T hi », '
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo-furans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzfrfurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans .................
K095 nonwastewaters
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1 1 2-Trk>hloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Hexachloroethane...
Pentachtoroethane.. ; —
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.049
0.013
0.016
0.039
0.018
0.22
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Concentration
„ (in mg/kg)
5.6
5.6
6.0
6.0
5.6
28
5.6 -
K096 nonwastewaters
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1 ,2-TetrachtoroeJhane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ..,
concentration
(in mg/kg)
5.6'
5.6
5.8
5.6
6.0
19
5.6 ,
8.0
K115 wastewaters {see also Tabte
CCWE in §268.41)
Concentration
On mg/l)
0.47
.
P013 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Amenable) „
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
** ! -
II ll i
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 120 / Friday, June 23, 1989 / RutesAand Regulations^
26651
P013 wastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable) ~
P021 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
•
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cyanides (Total) ."„ _.i.
Cyanides (Amenable)
. .
P029 wastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
P030 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Total) .'. „...:..
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
P039 nonwastewaters
Disutfoton
. P039 wastewaters
P063 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Amenable) .-.
Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
Concentration
110
9.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0 10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
0.1
(in mg/t)
0.025
(in mg/kg)
9.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
^
0.10
P071 nonwastewaters
Methyl parathion
P071 wastewaters
Methyl parathion :
P074 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in § 268.41)
. .. .
Cyanides (Amenable)
P074 wastewaters (see also Table
CCWE in §268.41)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Nickel
P089 nonwastewaters
Parathion
P089 wastewaters
Parathion
.
P094 wastewaters
Phorate
P097 nonwastewaters
Famphur
P098 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
0 1
Concentration
(in rng/l)
0.025
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
044
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
0 1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.025
Concentration
(in mg/kg) •
0.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.025
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0.025
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
P098 wastewaters
P099 nonwastewaters (see also
Cyanides (Total) „
Cyanides (Amenable)
CCWE in § 268.41) '
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
P104 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in § 268.41)
P104 wastewaters (see also Table
CCWE in § 268.41)
Cyanides (Amenable)
P106 nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
P106 wastewaters
P121 nonwastewaters
rv ;.__..
•
Cyanides (Amenable) .....;.
U028 nonwastewaters
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
U028 wastewaters
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate............:...
Concentration
(in mg/l)
0 10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
(in mg/l)
1.9
0.10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
Concentration
(in mg/l)
19
.0.10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
9.1
(in mg/l)
0.10
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
9.1
Concentration
(in mg/l)
•0;10
Concentration
28
• . -'
(in mg/l)
0.54
-------
' i"1' i :
!"' I ' i '!lili'::!,it lni1-;1 • 3" ,»:<:
2S6S2
' f I)*; • .i.i.t ''''(I'lfSBiiii,!, "tiiiif'ilHiililli''";!.!:1 svliWi .«• Hi SllHil'11: itHSRvi."!! !• s'lf'tif °>f,MO|lir'iBta I'lfilA illis:,! I
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 120 /Friday, June 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
006S nonwastawajcrs,.
01- n-buiyi phihalate .„„.„.„.,.
U069 wastewaters
U068 nonwastewaters
Dtothyf phihalatt ..„„.._ _.
UOC8 *as!e«t*«
DJethyt pMtatal* -.., ... .,,.„
U1Q2 nonwastewators
Dimethyl phtwlate.. ,.,.„.., ..... .., ,1,,,.
Ui02 wastewa'onf
DSmtlhyJ pW*wtat« „..».,.„„...„,„«_.„,
Concentration
, (Jo mg/kg)
28
Concentration
(In mg/1)
Concentration
28
Concentration
(in mg/l)
054
. I"1':. , ?-
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
28
Concentration
(In mg/1)
0,54
U107 nonwastewaters
Di-n-octyi phthalate
U107 wastewaters
Di-n-octyl phthalate
.-:
U190 nonwastewaters
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid) .
U190 wastewaters
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid
U235 nonwastewaters
s-( i, ,! romopropy)p sp e...
• • *j..i.. '
U235 wastewaters
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate...
No Land Disposal for;
1 ' '
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
28
Concentration
(in mg/1)
0.54 '
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
28 "
Concentration
(in rng/l)
, 0.54
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
- ;; „;;„;„"'„„;;;;
Cdncentration
(in mg/1)
'o".025
— .... , ,„' *?'""' !.'"**"' ', ," "•""""! "'""7^*"
K005 Nonwastewaters generated by the
process described in the waste listing
description, and disposed after June 8, 1989,
and not generated in the course of treating
wastewater forms of these wastes. (Based
on No Generation)
K007 Nonwastewaters generated by the
process described in the waste listing
and not generated in the course of treating
(b) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
meet the lowest treatment standard for
PART 271— REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
H/&7AI?rjOII*5 W/A*?TF PROf5H&ft.1«;
1. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
following entry to Table 1 in
publication in the Federal Register:
§271.1 Purpose and scope.
rn * * *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
. PfomuJgtttion date
iinwrt d*tt o( publication] .
:
Title of regulation
Land Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
wastes.
FEDERAL REGISTER reference
Effective date
3* § 27l,1(jJ is amended by revising the § 271.1 Purpose and Scope
entry for June 8,1989 in Table 2 to read * . » * * *
as follows:
01 * * *
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effects
JootB, 1889 „.,./...„.„„.„,„.., ..„,.,.„„.
Self-implementing provision
wastes.
RCRA citation
•
FEDERAL REGISTER reference
"•'" - ' • ." ;• , - -
nOmt^rs of this document.)
(PR DdC, 83-14202 Filed 6-22-89 8:45 amj
BttUNQ COOt (K0-50-M
------- |