Wednesday
November 22, 1989
Part I!
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 148 et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions For Third
Scheduled Wastes; Proposed Rule
-------
-------
'$-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
J IS5C
Dear Interested Parties:
°f thf Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
to
the 1984 amendinents to the Resource
» 5 Recovery Ac^ (RCRA) , the Land Disposal
SllSiSf 1°5S. Pro^am Phas«s in a prohibition against the land
disposal of hazardous wastes unless they meet specific treatment
standards. The statute established a strict sSheduli for
groups which
"California list" wastes,* July 8, 1987; and
All other wastes listed as of November 8, 1984-
- First Third, August 8, 1988;
- Second Third, June 8, 1989.
^^
<«•>
°r
Pri*Ud on Rtcyeltd Paper
-------
- 2 -
The enclosed proposed rule covers the Third Third of RCRA
listed and characteristic hazardous wastes.** Promulgation of
this rule by May 8, 1990, will complete the last phase of the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program for all wastes listed as of
November 8, 1984, as well as for three wastes listed since that
time.
EPA is proposing:
o Treatment standards for approximately 350 listed wastes
("F," "K," "P," and "U" wastes), three newly listed
wastes (identified as hazardous since November 1984),
and all of the characteristic wastes;
o Alternative treatment standards for multi-source
leachate;***
o Prohibitions and effective dates for wastes currently
being placed in underground injection wells; and
o Several clarifications of and a modification to the
framework of the Land Disposal Restrictions Program.
In the proposed rule, treatment standards are being set
either as specified technologies (e.g., incineration) or
concentration levels achievable by the best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT) for hazardous constituents. Where
technologies are specified as the treatment standards,
alternative treatment technologies are prohibited; if a
concentration level is the treatment standard, any technology not
otherwise prohibited may be used to meet the treatment standard.
EPA has the authority to grant up to a two-year national
capacity variance that extends effective land ban dates in
situations where alternative capacity is not available. Based on
data from a recently conducted survey of available alternative
capacity at treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling
facilities, EPA is proposing two-year extensions of the effective
dates for several waste codes, for mixed (radioactive/hazardous)
** A characteristic hazardous waste is any solid waste that
exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity.
*** Multi-source leachate is any liquid, including any suspended
components in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained
from various hazardous waste sources.
-------
V
I
- 3 -
wastes, and for soil and debris when the relevant treatment is
incineration, vitrification, or mercury retorting. After May 8,
1990, all wastes must meet BOAT treatment standards, or they are
prohibited from land disposal, unless they are subject to a
capacity extension or disposed of in an approved "no-migration11
unit.
Affected industries and generators can petition EPA for a
variance from the promulgated treatment standards in one of
several ways:
0 "No Migration" Variances - These variances are granted
on a facility-specific basis. The petitioner must
demonstrate no migration of hazardous constituents to
air, surface water, groundwater, or soil for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. Each no-migration
variance decision is made through a separate
rulemaking.
0 Case-by-Case Extensions - These variances can extend
the effective date for a specific restricted waste and
generating facility for up to one year (renewable once)
where treatment capacity is unavailable. Each case-by-
case extension is addressed through a separate
rulemaking.
o Treatabilitv Variances - Treatability variances are
both national and site-specific in scope. The national
treatability variances (developed through a separate
rulemaking) require demonstrations that the waste is
significantly different (physically or chemically) from
that used to set treatment standards, such that
existing treatment standards cannot be met. The site-
specific treatability variances are appropriate where
site-specific factors cause or contribute to difficulty
in meeting standards.
The land disposal restrictions proposed in this rule will
create changes in hazardous waste management practices for over
three hundred waste codes, as well as characteristic hazardous
wastes. Although the conditions set forth by this rule will
increase the costs of waste management for industry, they should
decrease current risks to human health and the environment. Your
efforts to provide comments and any relevant data expeditiously
will help us complete the final regulation, and pursue our
commitment to improved, environmentally sound hazardous waste
management programs.
-------
- 4 -
The regulated community and interested parties are requested
to submit their comments and any relevant data to EPA. Public
comments will be accepted by EPA up to 45 days from the date of
the proposal's publication in the Federal Register. Those
wishing to submit public comments for the record must send an
original and two copies of their comments to the following
address:
RCRA Docket Information Center (OS-305)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C, 20460
The docket »F-89-LDl2-FFFFF should be placed on all comments
pertaining to this proposed regulation.
I hope this information is of help to you. If you need
further assistance, please call Mr. Robert Scarberry of my staff
at (202) 382-4769.
Sincerely yours,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
48372 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFH Part 148,261,264,265, 268,
and 271
[SWH-FRL-3643-4; EPA/OSW-FR-89-020]
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA section
3004(g)(5), EPA is proposing to prohibit
the land disposal of certain hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR 288.12 (the third
one-third of the schedule of restricted
hazardous wastes, hereafter known as
the Third Third). Today's action
proposes treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates for these
wastes, as well as for some of the
wastes listed in §§ 268.10 and 268.11
(First Third and Second Third], and for
two newly listed wastes. The Agency
also is proposing prohibition effective
dates for these wastes when they are
injected into deep underground wells
regulated under 40 CFR 148. If these
proposed actions are finalized, Third
Third wastes can be land disposed after
the applicable effective dates if the
respective treatment standards are met,
or if disposal occurs in units that satisfy
the statutory no migration standard.
The Agency is also proposing certain
interpretations of general applicability.
The most important of these involve:
implementation of the dilution
prohibition; whether wastes formerly
excluded by the Bevill Amendment are
to be considered newly identified or
listed for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions; applicability of California
list prohibitions to Third Third wastes
that receive national capacity variances;
and applicability of the California list
prohibitions to newly identified or listed
wastes. EPA is also proposing to clarify
the scope of paragraphs (c) and (d) of 40
CFR 261.33 (commercial chemicals that
are hazardous wastes when discarded)
due to the possible lack of clarity that
became apparent in the course of
establishing treatment standards for
these wastes.
DATE: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before January
8,1990.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket (OS-
305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20480. Place the Docket Number F-
89-LD12-FFFFF on your comments. The
EPA RCRA Docket is located in Room
2427,401M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. The docket is open from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., 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 $.20 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline, Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; Telephone: 800-424-9346 (toll-
free) or 202-382-3000 locally.
For information on specific aspects of
this proposed rule, contact Robert
Scarberry or Michaelle Wilson, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-333), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)
382-4770. For specific information on
BOAT treatment standards, contact
Larry Rosengrant, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-322), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (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), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-7275.
For specific information on capacity
determinations or national variances,
contact Jo-Ann Bassi, Office of Solid
Waste (OS-322), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 475-6673.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
L 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
e. Scheduled Wastes
7. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
B. Regulatory Framework
1. Applicability
2. Treatment Standards
3. National Capacity Variances from the
Effective Dates
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the
Effective Dates
5. "No Migration" Exemptions from the
Restrictions
6. Variances from the Treatment
Standards
7. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
9. "Soft Hammer" Provisions
H. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
A. Applicability of Proposed Treatment
Standards
B. Applicability of Today's Proposed Rule to
Class I-H Hazardous Waste Injection
Wells Regulated Under 40 CFR 148
C. Characteristic Wastes
D. Proposed Treatment Standards for Multi-
Source Leachate
E. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive) Wastes
F. Applicability of Today's Proposed Rule to
Mineral Processing Wastes
G. Proposed Alternative Treatment
Standards for Lab Packs
H. Nationwide Variances from the Effective
Date
L Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BOAT)
J. Determining when Dilution is
Impermissible
K. Other Impermissible Dilution Issues
L. Storage Prohibition
M. Generator Notification Requirements
N. Waste Analysis Requirements
0. Modification to the Framework: Waste
Analysis Plans and Treatment/Disposal
Facility Testing Requirements
P. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid Wastes
Q. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions After May 8,1990
HL Detailed Discussion of Today's
Proposed Rule
A. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards
1. General Applicability of Treatment
Standards and Overview of Remainder '
of this Preamble Section
a. Restrictions on the Use of Technologies
Identified as BOAT
b. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
"Derived-From" Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
c. Wastewater Versus Nonwastewater
Standards
d. Transfer of Treatment Standards
e. Analytical Requirements and
Relationship of PQLs to BOAT
f. Treatment Standards Based on Single
Facility Data, Grab Samples Versus
Composite Samples, and Waste Analysis
Plans
g. General Issues Pertaining to
Development of Treatment Standards for
Characteristic Wastes
h. General Issues Pertaining to all
Remaining U and P Wastes
i. Procedures for Requesting Additional
Data on Specific Treatment Standards
2. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Halogenated Organic Wastes
a. Introduction
b. Halogenated Aliphatics
c. Halogenated Pesticides and
Chloro benzenes
d. Halogenated Phenolics
e. Brominated Organics
f. .Miscellaneous Halogenated Organics
3. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Additional Organic Wastes
a. Introduction
b. Aroma tics and Other Hydrocarbons
c. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
-------
Fmkral Register / VoL:,54, No. 224 / Wednesday,. November 22, 198» / Proposed Rules 4837T
d. Phenolics
e. Oxygenated Hydrocarbons and
Heterocyclics
f. Organo-Nltrogen Compounds
g. Organo-Sulfur Compounds
h. Wastes of a "Pharmaceutical" Nature
4. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Ignitable. Corrosive, and Reactive
Wastes
a. Introduction
b. Ignitable Characteristic Wastes
c. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
d. Reactive Characteristic Wastes
e. Effect of Treatment Standards on
Disposal Provisions in 40 CFR 264 and
265 for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
f. U and P Wastes that are Potentially
Reactive
5. Proposed Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes
a. Introduction
b. Arsenic and Selenium
c. Barium
d. Cadmium
e. Chromium
f.Lcnd
g. Mercury
h. Silver
i. Thallium
). Vanadium
8. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Additional Waste Code-Specific
Treatability Groups
a. Cyanide Wastes
b. F024 and F025
c. Wastes from Inorganic Pigment
Production
d.KOlS
e. K022, K025. K026, K035. and K083
f. K038 and K037
g. K044. K045, K046. K047
h.KOOO
1.K061
I.K069
k. Revisions to K086
I.K100
m. Gases
n. Revision of Petroleum Refining Wastes
o. Additional Treatment Standards for F002
andFOOS
7. Development of Treatment Standards for
Leachate
a. Background
b. Development of Proposed Treatment
Standards
c. Proposed Treatment Standards Based on
Option Two
d. Multi-Source Leachate that Exhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Wastes
e. Multi-Source Leachate Containing
Dioxtns and Furans
f. Separate Waste Code for Multi-Source
Leachate
8. Clarification of Applicability of Treatment
Standards to Soil and Debris
9. Treatment Standards for Lab Packs
B. Capacity Determinations
1. Determination of Alternative Capacity and
Effective Dates for Surface Land-
Disposed Wastes for which Treatment
Standards are Proposed
a. Total Quantity of Land-Disposed Wastes
b. Required Altemativo Capacity for
surface Land-Disposed Wastes
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates
2. Capacity Determination for Underground
Injected Wastes
3. Contaminated Soil and Debris Capacity
Variance
C. Characteristic Wastes
1. General Considerations
2. Treatment Below Characteristic levels
3. Overlap of Standards for Listed Wastes
that Also Exhibit a Characteristic
D. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive) Wastes
E. Applicability of Today's Proposed Rule to
Mineral Processing Wastes
F. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid Wastes
G. Determining When Dilution is Permissible
H. Other Dilution Issues
I. Storage Prohibition
J. Generator Notification Requirements
K. Modification to the Framework: Waste
Analysis Plans and Treatment/Disposal
Facility Testing Requirements
L. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day Tanks
or Containers
M. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions after May 8,1990
1. Application of the California List
Prohibitions During Capacity Variance
on Superseeding Standards
2. Application of California List Prohibitions
to Newly Identified or Listed Wastes
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. Wellhead Protection Regulated Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act
D. Air Emissions Regulated Under the Clean
Air Act
E. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
F. Applicability of Treatment Standards to
Wastes from Pesticides Regulated Under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
G. Regulatory Overlap of Polychlorinated
Biphenyis (PCBs) Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis—Surface
Disposed Wastes
1. Overview of Affected Wastes, Facilities,
and Management
a. Quantity of Affected Waste
b. Affected Facilities
c. Waste Management Practices
2. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
a. Human Health Benefits
b. Safety Benefit*
c. Environmental Benefits
3. Costs
4. Economic Impacts
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—Surface
Disposed Wastes
C. Regulatory Impact Analysis—Underground
Injected Wastes
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—
Underground Injected Wastes
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Review of Supporting Documents
List of Subjects in 40 CFR parts 14S,
264, 265,266.268 and 271
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
The Hazardou* and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), enacted on
November 8,1984, prohibit the land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Specifically, the amendments specify
dates when particular groups of
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal unless ". . . it has been
demonstrated to the Administrator, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous" (RCRA sections 3004
(d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5); 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l).
(eJ(l). (g)(5)). Congress established a
separate schedule for restricting the
disposal by underground injection of
solvent and dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes, wastes referred to
collectively as California list hazardous
wastes (RCRA section 3004(f)(2), 42
. U.S.C. 6924(f)(2)), and soil and debris
resulting from Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) sections 104
and 106 response actions, and RCRA
corrective actions when the soil and
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)(l) and (g)(5) is
made.
For the purposes of the restrictions,
HSWA defines land disposal ". . . to
include, but not be limited to, any
placement of such hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed
-------
48374
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1969 / Proposed Rules
formation, or underground mine or
cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.
6924(k)). HSWA defines land disposal to
include underground injection wells;
therefore, disposal of hazardous wastes
in injection wells is subject to the land
disposal restrictions.
The land disposal restrictions are
effective when promulgated unless the
Administrator grants a national capacity
variance from the otherwise-applicable
date and establishes a different date
(not to exceed two years beyond the.
statutory deadline) based on ". , . the
earliest date on which adequate
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human
health and the environment will be
available" (RCRA section 3004(h)(2), 42
U.S.C. 6924(h){2)). The Administrator
may also grant a case-by-case extension
of the 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
minimum technological requirements (or
certain exceptions thereto). Treatment
in surface impoundments is permissible
provided the treatment residues that do
not meet the treatment standard(s) (or
applicable statutory prohibition levels)
are". . . removed for subsequent
management within one year of the
entry of the waste into the surface
impoundment" (RCRA section
3005(j)(ll)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(ll)(B)).
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. 6924(j)).
2. Applicability to Injected Wastes
As noted above, disposal of
hazardous wastes in injection wells is
subject to the provisions of HSWA. The
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,
144.145,146,147, and 148 of the Code of
Federal-Regulations.
3. Solvents and Dioxins
Effective November 8,1986, HSWA
prohibited land disposal (except by deep
well injection) of solvent-containing
hazardous wastes numbered F001-F005
listed in 40 CFR 281.31 and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes numbered
F020-F023 and F026-F028 (RCRA
sections 3004 (e)(l), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924
(e)(l), (e)(2)). On November 7,1986, EPA
promulgated a final rule (51FR 40572)
implementing RCRA section 3004(e).
This rule established the general
framework for the land disposal
restrictions program, and established
treatment standards for the F001-F005
solvent wastes and F020-F023 and F026-
F028 dioxin-containing wastes.
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 equal to 1,000 mg/1.
(B) Liquid hazardous wastes,
including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge, containing the
following metals (or elements) or
compounds of these metals (or elements)
at concentrations greater than or equal
to' those specified below: (i) arsenic
and/or compounds (as As) 500 mg/ (ii)
cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd) 100
mg/1; (iii) chromium (VI and/or
compounds (as Cr VI)) 500 mg/1; (iv)
lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500 mg/
1; (v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg)
20 mg/1; (vi) nickel and/or compounds
(as Ni) 134 mg/1; (vii) selenium and/or
compounds (as Se) 100 mg/1; and (viii)
thallium and/or compounds (as Tl) 130
mg/1.
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a
pH less than or equal to two (2.0).
(D) Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
{PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
equal to 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 on liquid corrosive
wastes. The statutory prohibition is in
effect for the California list wastes
containing free cyanides, metals, and
the California list dilute HOC
wastewaters.
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, dioxins 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 effective dates for the
prohibition on injection of California
List wastes (53 FR 30908).
6. Scheduled Wastes
HSWA required the Agency to
prepare a schedule by November 8,1986
for restricting the land disposal of all
hazardous, wastes, including
underground injected 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, ensures that prohibitions and
treatment standards are promulgated
first for high volume hazardous wastes
with high intrinsic hazard before
standards are set for low volume wastes
with low intrinsic hazard. The statute
further requires that these
determinations be made by the
following deadlines: (A) At least one-
third of all listed hazardous wastes by.
August 8,1988; (B) at least two-thirds of
all listed hazardous wastes by June 8,
1989; and (C) all remaining listed
hazardous wastes and all hazardous
wastes identified as of November 8,
1984, by one or more of the
characteristics»defined in 40 CFR part
261 by May 8.1990.
Furthermore, if EPA failed to set a
treatment standard by the statutory
deadline for any hazardous waste in the
first third or second third of the
schedule, the waste was required to be
disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment that met the minimum
technological requirements specified in
RCRA section 3004(o) for new facilities
(RCRA section 3004(g)(6)). (NOTE: In the
-------
(
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 483"!>
August 17,1988 First Third final rule,
EPA interpreted the term "such facility"
in section 3004(g)(6) to refer to the
individual surface impoundment or
landfill unit.] In addition, prior to
disposal, the generator was required to
certify to the Administrator that he had
investigated the availability of treatment
capacity and had determined that
disposal in such landfill or surface
impoundment was the only practical
alternative to treatment currently
available to the generator. This
restriction on the use of landfills and
surface impoundments applied until
EPA set a treatment standard for the
waste, or until May 8,1990, whichever
was sooner. These requirements are
collectively referred to as the soft
hammer provisions. Other forms of land
disposal, including underground
injection, were not similarly restricted,
and could continue to be used for
disposal of untreated wastes until EPA
promulgated a treatment standard, or
until May 8,1990, whichever was
sooner.
If the Agency fails to set a treatment
standard for any scheduled hazardous
waste by May 8,1990. the soft hammer
provisions are superseded by the hard
hammer. These wastes are
automatically prohibited from all forms
of disposal on May 8,1990, unless the
wastes are the subject of a successful
"no migration" demonstration (RCRA
section 3004{g](5). 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(5)).
(Note: RCRA section 3004(h)(2) permits
extensions of the effective date such as
national capacity extensions or case-by-
case extensions beyond the hard
hammer date.)
On May 28,1988, EPA promulgated
the schedule for setting treatment
standards for the listed and identified
hazardous wastes (51FR19300). All
wastes that are identified as hazardous
by characteristic are scheduled in the
Third Third, as required by RCRA. This
schedule is incorporated in 40 CFR
268.10, 268.11 and 268.12.
For the scheduled wastes, the statute
does not provide different deadlines for
restriction of wastes that are injected
underground versus disposed of in
surface land units. The Agency did,
however, propose and promulgate First
Third regulations for surface disposed
and injected wastes on separate dates.
The First Third final rule, promulgated
on August a 1988 and published in the
Federal Register on August 17,1988 (53
FR 31138), set out the conditions under
which wastes included in the first one-
third of the schedule of restricted
hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
268.10 may continue to be land disposed
(other than by injection). Final
regulations prohibiting deep well
injection of certain First Third wastes
were published on August 16.1988 (53
FR 30908) and on June 14,1989 (54 FR
25416).
The Second Third final rule.
promulgated on June 8,1989 and
published in the Federal Register on
June 23,1989, (54 FR 26594) established
treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates for land disposal and
underground injection for certain wastes
included in 40 CFR 268.11. In addition,
treatment standards and effective dates
for certain First Third soft hammer
wastes, Third Third wastes and newly
listed wastes were promulgated.
Today's notice proposes the
conditions under which wastes included
in the third one-third of the schedule of
restricted hazardous wastes, listed in 40
CFR 268.12. may continue to be land
disposed including disposal in
underground injection wells. Treatment
standards for some restricted hazardous
wastes listed in §§ 268.10 and 268.11
(First Third and Second Third wastes)
and two newly listed waste (i.e., listed
after November 8,1984) are also
proposed.
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
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. Today's notice proposes
treatment standards for two newly
listed wastes (see section III.A).
B. Regulatory Framework
By way of preface, we note that the
following description of existing rules is
for the readers' convenience, and is not
intended to reopen any of these rules for
public comments. The November 7,1986
final rule (51 FR 40572) established the
regulatory framework for implementing
the land disposal restrictions program.
Some changes to the framework were
made in the July 8,1987, final rule (52 FR
25760) that prohibited the land disposal
of California list wastes, as well as in
the August 17,1988 final rule. Some
additional changes are also being
proposed in today's rule. 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.
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 288.4 and RCRA section
3005(j)(ll). Also, the storage prohibition
applies to wastes placed in storage after
the effective dates.
The provisions of the land disposal
restrictions apply to wastes produced by
generators of greater than 1.000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
calendar month, as well as small
quantity generators of 100 to 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste (or
greater than 1 kilogram of acute
hazardous waste) in a calendar month.
However, wastes produced by small
quantity generators of less than 100
•kilograms of hazardous waste (or less
than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous
waste) per calendar mor,;h are
conditionally exempt from RCRA,
including the land dispob i! restrictions
(see 40 CFR 268.1).
The land disposal restrictions apply to
all facilities subject to RCRA. including
both interim status and permitted
facilities. The requirements of the lard
disposal restrictions program supersede
40 CFR 270.4(a). which currently
provides that compliance iviih a RCRA
permit constitutes cornpiid -\cn with
subtitle C of RCRA. Therefjre. even
though the requirements rndy 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 (RCRA section
3004(m)(l)). After the applicable
effective dates, restricted wastes may be
land disposed in subtitle C facilities
only 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
scheduled hazardous wastes, which are
subject to the soft hammer provisions uf
-------
48378
Federal.Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
RCRA section 3004(g)(6) until May 8,
1990).
A treatment standard is based on the
performance of the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT) to treat the
waste (51 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 in the extract of
the waste or treatment residual. When
treatment standards are set as
performance levels, the regulated
community may use any technology not
otherwise prohibited (such as
impermissible dilution) to treat the
waste to meet the treatment standard.
Treaters thus are not limited to only
those technologies considered in
determining the treatment standard.
However, when treatment standards are
expressed as specific technologies, such
technologies must be employed.
3. National Capacity Variances from the
Effective Dates
The Agency has the authority to grant
national capacity variances from the
statutory effective dates, not to exceed
two years, if there is insufficient
alternative protective treatment,
recovery or disposal capacity for the
wastes (RCRA section 3004(h)(2)). To
make capacity determinations, EPA
compares the nationally available
alternative treatment, recovery, or
protective disposal capacity at
permitted and interim status facilities
which will be in operation by the
effective date with the quantity of
restricted waste generated. If there is a
significant shortage of such capacity
nationwide, EPA will establish an
alternative effective date based on the
earliest date such capacity will be
available. During the period such a
capacity variance is in place, if the
waste is disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, such disposal may be
made only in a unit meeting the
minimum technological requirements of
RCRA section 3004(o) (53 FR 31186 and
40 CFR 268.5(h)(2)). It should be noted,
however, that if a waste subject to a
national capacity variance is treated to
meet the applicable treatment standard,
it may be disposed in a Subtitle C
, landfill or surface impoundment
regardless of whether the unit meets
minimum technological requirements.
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the
Effective Dates
The Agency will consider granting up
to a one-year extension (renewable only
once) of a prohibition effective date on a
case-by-case basis. The requirements
outlined in 40 CFR 268.5 must be
satisfied, including a demonstration that
adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity for the
petitioner's waste cannot reasonably be
made available by the effective date due
to circumstances beyond the applicant's
control, and that the petitioner has
entered into a binding contractual
commitment to construct or otherwise
provide such capacity. During the period
that such a case-by-case extension is in
place, the waste may be land disposed
only in a unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o).
5. "No Migration" Exemptions from the
Restrictions
EPA has the authority to allow the
land disposal of a restricted hazardous
waste which does not meet the
treatment standard provided that the
petitioner demonstrates that there will
be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous (40 CFR 268.6). If a
petition is granted, it can remain in
effect for no longer than ten years for
disposal in interim status land disposal
units, and for no longer than the term of
the RCRA permit for disposal in
permitted units (40 CFR 288.6(h)).
Section 148.20 of 40 CFR (promulgated
on July 28,1988, see 53 FR 28118)
outlines in detail the Agency's plan for
implementing the "no migration"
provisions of RCRA with respect to
injected wastes. Briefly, a petitioner is
required, through modeling, to
demonstrate 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, 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 was in compliance
with the substantive area of review,
corrective action, and mechanical
integrity requirements of part 148.
6. Variances from the Treatment
Standards
EPA established the variance from the
treatment standard to account for those
wastes that cannot be treated to meet
the applicable treatment standards,
even if well-designed and well-operated
BDAT treatment systems are used (40
CFR 268.44). This variance is somewhat
analogous to the fundamentally different
factors variance in the Agency's Clean
Water Act effluent limitations guidelines
regulation. Among other things, petitions
must demonstrate that the waste is
significantly different from the wastes
evaluated by EPA in establishing the
treatment standard, and the waste
cannot be treated to the level or by the
method specified by the treatment
standard, or that such standard or
method is inappropriate for the waste
(51 FR 40605). This variance procedure
can result in 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 other
wastes at other sites (53 FR 31199).
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 (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 ar.d
are not placed into any other surface
impoundment. The owner or operator of
such an impoundment must certify to the
Regional Administrator that the
technical requirements have been met '
and must also submit a copy of the
waste analysis plan that has been
modified to provide for testing treatment
residuals in accordance with section
268.4 requirements.
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
Storage of prohibited wastes is
prohibited except where storage is
solely for the purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities of wastes to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal (40 CFR 268.50). A facility that
stores a prohibited waste for more than
one year bears the burden of proof that
such storage is solely for this purpose.
-------
Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wedneaday. November 22. 198& / Propoaed Rules
48377
Id. EPA bears the burden of proof if the
Agency believes that storage of a
restricted waste by a facility for up to
one year is not for the purpose of
accumulating sufficient quantities to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal. Id.
9. The "Soft Hammer" Provisions
First Third and Second Third wastes
for which EPA has not promulgated
treatment standards may continue to be
disposed in landfill and surface
impoundment units until May 8,1990, or
until EPA promulgates treatment
standards, whichever is sooner. Such
land disposal may occur only if certain
demonstrations are made, and provided
the landfill or surface impoundment
units meet the minimum technology
requirements of RCRA section 3004{o)
(see 53 FR 31181. August 17,1988). Other
types of land disposal are not similarly
restricted. On May 8,1990, those wastes
for which EPA has not established
treatment standards are prohibited from
land disposal and underground injection
(the hard hammer provision). On May 8,
1990, therefore, the soft hammer
provisions will no longer be in effect for
the First, Second, or Third Third wastes.
II. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
Today's notice describes the Agency's
proposed approach to implementing
RCRA Section 3004(g) requirements with
respect to certain listed and identified
(i.e., characteristic) hazardous wastes
included in 40 CFR 268.10-268.12. The
Agency is required to promulgate
regulations establishing conditions
under which the Third Third wastes
included in § 268.12 may be land
disposed by the statutory deadline of
May 8.1990. Today's notice is the fifth
rulemafcing promulgated by the Agency
in response to Congress' 1984 HSWA
mandate.
A, Applicability of Proposed Treatment
Standards
Today the Agency is proposing
treatment standards and effective dates
for all Third Third wastes (i.e., those
wastes included in 40 CFR 268.12) (see
section IU.A.2). The Agency is also
proposing treatment standards and
effective dates for all First and Second
Third soft hammer wastes (currently
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
268,8], and for two newly listed wastes.
The treatment standards being proposed
today will apply to wastes that are land
disposed (including those that are
Injected into deep wells).
In previous rulemakings. the Agency
amended the schedule so that certain
First and Second Third wastewater
residues, derived-from wastes (Ae,
multi-source leachate), and mixtures of
hazardous/radioactive wastes were
moved to the Third Third of the
schedule (see 53 FR 31214, 5 28ai2(b),
(c), and (d); 54 FR 8264; and 54 FR 28648,
§ 268.12(b) and (c)). The Agency today is
proposing treatment standards for these
wastes. In addition, the Agency is
proposing treatment standards for two
newly listed wastes (i.e., a waste listed
after enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984) that
fall into the F002 and F005 waste codes.
In the Second Third rulemaking, the
Agency solicited comments, data, and
specific suggestions regarding the
regulation of lab packs. In today's rule,
the Agency is proposing alternative
treatment standards expressed as
specified technologies for certain lab
packs as a separate treatability group.
In the Second Third proposed rule, the
Agency also solicited data and
comments on the options and
approaches that were being considered
for establishing BOAT treatment
standards for characteristic wastes. In
today's rule, the Agency is proposing
treatment standards for wastes that
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics.
B. Applicability of Today's Proposed
Rule to Class I-H Hazardous Waste
Injection Wells Regulated Under 40 CFR
148
The Agency has, on occasion,
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.
EPA is addressing all methods of land
disposal of wastes in today's proposal,
including injection wells regulated
jointly under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) and RCRA.
C. Characteristic Wastes
In today's rule, EPA is proposing
treatment standards for those wastes
which exhibit one or more of the
following characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity or EP toxicity (40
CFR 261.21-24). EPA today is proposing
methods of treatment for some
characteristic wastes, and concentration
levels for others. For certain
characteristic wastes, EPA is proposing
to require treatment below the level at
which the waste ceases to exhibit the
particular characteristic. A detailed
discussion of these issues is provided in
section DLC.
D. Propoaed Treatment Standards for
Multi-Source Leachate
On February 27,1989, the Agency
amended the schedule for prohibiting
hazardous wastes from land disposal by
placing multi-source leachate derived
from hazardous waste in the Third Third
(see 54 FR 8264). The Agency took this
step to study more fully the most
appropriate treatment standards for
such leachate. The Agency's original
approach to multi-source leachate was
that the leachate carries the waste
codes of all of the listed hazardous
wastes from which it is derived and.
therefore, is subject to the prohibitions
and treatment standards for those
wastes. In the event a particular
constituent in the leachate is present in
more than one prohibited waste, the
stricter treatment standard applies (53
FR 31138, August 17,1988).
Today the Agency is proposing two
options for the development of
treatment standards for multi-source
leachate: (1) Continued application of
the treatment standards developed for
the underlying wastes from which the
leachate is derived; or (2) establishment
of one set of wastewater standards and
ohe set of nonwastewater standards
which would apply to all multi-source
leachate. The Agency is'specifically
requesting comment on these two
options.
A detailed discussion of the proposed
options for the development of
treatment standards for multi-source
leachate is contained in section III.A of
today's proposed rule.
E. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive)
Wastes
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
national capacity variance under section
3004(h)(2) for mixed hazardous/
radioactive wastes subject to today's
rulemaking. The Agency bases the
proposed national variance for these
wastes upon a determination that there
is inadequate treatment capacity
available for these wastes. The Agency
is continuing to evaluate the volumes,
characteristics, and treatment options
for such wastes, A detailed discussion
of EPA's approach for mixed wastes
subject to today's rulemaking is
provided in section III.D of today's
proposed rule.
F. Applicability of Today's Proposed
Rule to Mineral Processing Wastes
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) of RCRA
excludes from die hazardous waste
regulations (pending completion of
studies by the Agency) solid wastes
from the extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals. On
-------
48378
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday! November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
September 1,1989, EPA published a final
rule in the Federal Register (54 FR 36592)
that narrowed the scope of this
temporary exclusion as it applies to
mineral processing operations to 25
enumerated wastes that meet the
exclusion criteria of "high volume/low
hazard," as specified in the September 1
rule. EPA determined that five specific
mineral processing wastes clearly
remain within the scope of the
exclusion, and that 20 additional
specified mineral processing wastes
remain within the exclusion pending
collection of further volume and hazard
data. All previously excluded mineral
processing wastes, other than these 25
specified wastes, that exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste will no longer be excluded from
the hazardous waste regulations when
the final rule becomes effective. (On
September 25,1989 (see 54 FR 39298-
39318), EPA proposed to remove an
additional 7 of these wastes from the
exclusion based on additional volume
and/or hazard data.)
EPA believes that the wastes
withdrawn from the exclusion are
"newly identified" for the purposes of
these provisions. Although technically
the wastes are not being identified by a
new characteristic, they are being
brought into the subtitle C system after
the date of enactment of the HSWA on
November 8.1984. The Agency is
proposing that these newly identified
mineral processing wastes not be
.subject to the BOAT treatment
standards proposed today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. A
detailed discussion is provided in
section III.E.
G, Proposed Alternative Treatment
Standards for Lab Packs
The Agency received many comments
concerning the applicability of the land
disposal restrictions to lab packs in
response to previous rulemakings. 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 them from the land disposal
restrictions if they contain prohibited
wastes. In the Second Third final rule.
however, the Agency solicited further
comment, data, and specific suggestions
to support treatment options for lab
packs and modifications to the
notification and certification
requirements.
The Agency is today proposing
alternative treatment standards for lab
packs that contain certain organic
constituents, and is specifying
incineration as the treatment standard
for these wastes. The Agency is also
proposing stabilization as an alternative
treatment standard for lab packs that
contain certain inorganic constituents.
The Agency believes that the proposed
approach provides some of the
administrative relief sought by the
commenters, and minimizes the risks
posed by land disposal of these small
volumes of hazardous waste. Section
III.A of today's proposed rule provides a
detailed discussion of the alternate
requirements for lab packs.
H. Nationwide Variances From the
Effective Date
Due to lack of sufficient treatment or
recovery capacity, EPA is proposing a
national capacity variance for soil and
debris contaminated with some of the
waste codes covered by today's notice.
EPA also is proposing a two-year
national capacity variance for certain
wastes disposed by deep well
underground injection.
Such determinations are based on a
comparison of the volumes of wastes,
requiring treatment to the amount of
capacity available for such treatment
(see section III.B). Although EPA does
not require that BDAT technologies be
used to meet the applicable treatment
standards, unless otherwise specified,
EPA assesses available capacity by
evaluating the availability of
technologies identified as BDAT.
The Agency is proposing to grant a
two-year national capacity variance for
the surface-disposed and deep well-
injected hazardous wastes, and mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes listed in
the following tables:
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2-
YEAR NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE
FOR SURFACE-DISPOSED WASTES
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Combustion of
sludge/solids.
Incineration
followed by
Mercury
retorting.
Mercury retorting.
Thermal recovery....
Vitrification
Waste
code
1 0001
1 Leachate..
3 0009
P065
P092
* D009
K071 .
K106
U151 ....
• 0006
P015
P073
P067
D004
Physical form
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2-
YEAR NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE
FOR SURFACE-DISPOSED WASTES—
Continued
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Waste
code
Physical form
0010 Nonwastewater,
K031 ! Nonwastewater.
K084,
K101 .
"I
Wet-air oxidation..
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
j K102 Nonwastewater.
P010 Nonwastewater,
P011 ! Nonwastewater
P012 1 Nonwastewater.
I P036 1 Nonwastewater,
I P038 j Nonwastewater.
P103 j Nonwastewater
P114 1 Nonwastewater,
U136 | Nonwastewater.
U204 j Nonwastewater.
U205 | Nonwastewater.
F019 1 Nonwastewater.
1 0001 (Ignitables).
1 Multi-source Leachate.
3 0009 (Organc-Mercury).
* 0009 Inorganic Mercury).
s 0006 {Cadmium batteries).
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TWO-
YEAR NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE
FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTED WASTES
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Alkaline
chlorination.
Chemical oxidation
followed by
chemical
precipitation.
Chromium
reduction
followed by
chemical
precipitation.
Mercury retorting
Neutralization
Treatment of
reactives
followed by
chromium
reduction &
chemical
precipitation.
Wet-air oxidation..
Wet-air oxidation
followed by
carbon
adsorption.
Waste
code
"vsical form
• D003 Was:owa:er
i
7 0003 ! Wastawater
0007 ! Wastewater
I
0009
0002
• 0003
K011
K013
K014
Lea-
chates".
.! Nonwastewater
.! Wastewater
.! Wastewa'er.
.; Waslewaler.
.! Wastewater.
! Wastewater
j Wastewater.
• 0003 (Cyanides).
' D003 (Sulfides).
• 0003 (Explosives. Reactives).
• Multi-Source Leachate,
/. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDAT)
Today's proposed rule defines waste
treatability groups by waste code, and
identifies the Best Demonstrated
-------
Available Technology (BDAT) for each
waste code within the treatabiHty group
(see section DLA.1). Treatment
standards are based on the performance
levels achievable by the BDAT
identified for each waste code. Any
technology not otherwise prohibited
(e.g.. impermissible dilution) may be
used to meet the concentration-based
treatment standards. Where treatment
standards are expressed as a
technology, the waste must be treated
using the specified technology prior to
land disposal
/. Determining When Dilution is
Permissible
EPA believes that its existing rules
regarding impermissible dilution of
prohibited wastes require further
clarification when applied to situations
involving aggregation for centralized
treatment of more than one waste.
Therefore, the Agency is today
amplifying its interpretation of
permissible dilution to clarify that, with
respect to prohibited wastes containing
BDAT constituents at concentrations
exceeding the treatment standard,
aggregation for centralized treatment of
such wastes must result in actual
reduction in the toxicity or mobility of at
least one BDAT constituent in each
prohibited waste that is centrally
treated. In many cases, such a reduction
must occur for more than one BDAT
constituent. In addition, given the site-
specific nature of the determination,
EPA retains its authority to deviate from
this general principle in individual cases
where centralized treatment is
inadequate. A detailed discussion of this
clarification is provided in section ffl.G
of today's proposed rule.
K. Other Impermissible Dilution Issues
EPA today is proposing that: (1)
Impermissible dilution of a waste that
exhibits the characteristic of toxicity be
prohibited: (2) impermissible dilution of
listed wastes to achieve a delisting level
be prohibited: and (3) impermissible
dilution of a waste that exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity,
or reactivity be prohibited if EPA has
established a method of treatment as the
treatment standard for the waste. The
Agency believes that these types of
dilution are incompatible with the
language, goals, and legislative history
of HSWA. where Congress expressed
clear intent that dilution not be used as
a substitute for treatment standards
promulgated pursuant to RCRA section
3004(m). A detailed discussion of these
proposed prohibitions on dilution is
provided in section HLH of today's
proposed rule.
L. Storage Prohibition
Section 3004{j} provides that storage
of prohibited hazardous waste is itself
prohibited "... unices 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." See § 268.50(a){2), and 51FR
1709, January 14,1988. This language
applies only to storage of prohibited
wastes in non-land based storage units
(e.g.. tanks and containers), land-based
storage being a type of disposal. The
Agency is today soliciting comment on
its interpretation that the storage
prohibition does not apply where
storage precedes legitimate, protective
treatment, recovery or disposal. A
detailed discussion of this interpretation
is provided in section HI.I of today's
proposed rule.
M. Generator Notification Requirements
The generator notification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 268.7
specify that when the generator has
determined, either through testing or his
knowledge of the waste, that the waste
is restricted and does not meet the
applicable treatment standards, the
generator must, with each shipment of
waste, notify the treatment facility in
writing of the appropriate treatment
standards. If the generator has
determined that the waste he is shipping
is restricted, but can be land disposed
without further treatment he must
submit to the land disposal facility the
same information, as well as a
certification stating that the waste meets
the applicable treatment standards. In
today's rule the Agency is considering
changing the interpretation of 5 288.7 to
allow referencing the treatment
standards. In addition, the Agency is
proposing to amend 8 268.7 to allow a
one-time notification and certification
for small quantity generator (SQG)
shipments subject to tolling agreements.
A detailed discussion of these
amendments is provided in section nij
of today's notice.
M Waste Analysis Requirements
The Agency today is proposing to
incorporate the approach to waste
analysis promulgated in the First and
Second Third final rules (53 FR 31146
and 54 FR 28594). Where BDAT is a
destruction or removal technology, a
total waste analysis is required because
it is most appropriate for measuring
such destruction or removal. The
legislative history indicates a strong
preference for treatment that destroys
hazardous constituents (see, e.g., 130
Cong. Rec., S9179, daily ed. July 25,1984.
statement of Senator Chaffee), and the
only reliable way to verify that
destruction has occurred ia to measure
the total waste. Similarly, where BDAT
is identified as an immobilization
technology such as stabilization,
analysis of a TCLP waste extract is
required because it ia the most
appropriate measure of immobilization.
In cases where both technologies are
identified as BDAT. both types of waste
analysis are required.
In order for the initial generator to
determine whether his waste meets the
applicable treatment standard as
generated, he should analyze the waste
extract if a treatment standard is in 40
CFR 288.41, or he should analyze the
total waste if the treatment standard is
found in § 268.43 (see proposed section
268.35). The generator may also make
this determination based on his
knowledge of the waste (see § 268.7(a)),
provided there is a reasonable basis for
doing so (for example, the generator
uses so little of a key constituent that it
could not be found in the waste at levels
exceeding a treatment standard). The
Agency has discussed this principle in
past rulemakings, and is not reopening it
for comment here.
O. Modification to the Framework:
Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
Today, the Agency is soliciting
comment on proposed revisions to the
treatment and disposal facility testing
requirements contained in § § 264.13(a).
265.13(a), 268.7(b), and 268.7(c).
Currently, the comment contained in
§§ 264.13(a)(2) and 265.13(a)(2) indicates
that the owner/operator of a treatment
or disposal facility may rely on the
generator of the hazardous waste to
supply part or all of the waste analysis
information (provided that this
information is sufficient for the
treatment or disposal facility to meet the
regulatory requirements imposed by part
268). This language has been mistakenly
construed to preclude requiring the
owner or operator of a treatment or
disposal facility to conduct a detailed
analysis of a representative sample of a
waste. The Agency is today seeking
comment on the following two
approaches that would specify the
circumstances under which EPA may
require testing:
(1) The generator may supply the
waste analysis information only if an
EPA-approved waste analysis plan
allows the generator to do so. The
Agency is clarifying that the owner or
operator of the treatment or disposal
facility will be required to conduct this
testing unless otherwise stated in an
-------
48380 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday,
EPA-approved waste analysis plan. The
Agency is proposing to amend
§§ 268.7(b) and 268.7(c), the waste
analysis requirements under the land
disposal restrictions, to reflect this
change; or
(2) The owner/operator of the
treatment or disposal facility is required
to test the waste a minimum of once a
year. The Regional Administrator may
require more frequent testing, through
the waste analysis plan, on a site-
specific basis.
A detailed discussion of the two
approaches is provided in section III.K.
The Agency is also addressing the
testing requirements of wastes treated in
so-called 90-day tanks (or containers).
There is a regulatory gap with respect to
treatment of prohibited wastes that is
conducted in such tanks or containers
regulated under § 262.34. This is because
such tanks (or containers) are not
subject to a waste analysis plan
requirement. Thus, there is presently no
regulatory vehicle for determining
testing frequency in such circumstances
(although the existing testing
requirement obviously applies, and
continues to apply, to persons
conducting treatment of prohibited
wastes in section 262.34 tanks and
containers).
In order to close this regulatory gap,
EPA is proposing today that persons
treating prohibited wastes in section
262.34 tanks and containers must
' prepare a plan justifying the frequency
of testing that they choose to adopt. A
detailed discussion of the proposed
requirements is provided in section III.L
of today's proposed rule.
P. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid
Wastes
The Agency is proposing.amendments
to the existing language of 40 CFR 261.33
to clarify the regulations pertaining to
"P" and "U" hazardous wastes. The first
amendment involves § 261.33(c), a
provision that lists residues from
containers and inner liners of containers
that have held commercial chemical
products listed in § 261.33 (e). This
language is partially in error, and the
Agency is proposing to correct it. EPA is
also proposing a change to clarify when
contaminated soil, water, and spill
debris contaminated with 40 CFR
261.33 (e) and (f) materials can be solid
wastes. A detailed discussion of the
Agency's proposed amendments is
provided in section IH.F of today's
preamble.
Q. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions After May 8, 1990
With the promulgation of the Third
Third final rule, almost all of the
California list prohibitions will be
superseded by more specific
prohibitions and treatment standards.10
The only continued applicability of the
California list appears to be (1) for liquid
hazardous wastes that contain over 50
ppm PCBs; (2) for HOC-containing
wastes identified as .hazardous by a
characteristic property that does not
involve HOCs, as, for example, an
ignitable waste that also contains
greater than 1000 ppra HOCs (but not an
EP toxic waste that exhibits the
characteristic because it contains one of
the six chlorinated organic pesticides
covered by the EP toxicity
characteristic; and (3) for liquid
hazardous wastes that exhibit a
characteristic and also contain over 134
mg/1 of nickel and/or 130 mg/1 of
thallium. In section III.M of today's
proposal, the Agency is soliciting
comment on whether the California list
prohibitions should be applicable to
newly listed or identified wastes and
discusses this option at length.
Also, EPA is restating that the
California list prohibitions apply to
wastes which receive national capacity
variances in later rulemakings. This
discussion also appears in section III.M
of this preamble.
III. Detailed Discussion of Today's
Proposed Rule
A. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards
Today's notice proposes treatment
standards for the remaining Third Third
scheduled wastes for which treatment
standards have not been promulgated.
(Land disposal restrictions were
promulgated ahead of schedule for 16
wastes originally scheduled in the Third
Third: KlOO nonwastewaters on August
8.1988 (53 FR 31174, August 17,1988),
clarified on May 2,1989 (54 FR 18836);
and K005. K007, K023, K093, K094. P013,
P021, P099, P109, P121, U069, U087, U088,
U102 and U190 wastes on June 8,1989
(54 FR 26594, June 23,1989). Details of
the development of treatment standards
for these wastes can be found in the
First Third and Second Third
administrative records in the RCRA
docket.) Treatment standards are also
being proposed for the remaining First
Third and Second Third wastes which
are currently subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
Development and identification of the
proposed treatment standards are
presented on a waste code basis in
sections III.A.2. through III.A.6. of
10 See 52 FR 29993 (August 12.1987) and 52 FR
25773 (July & 1987): see also 40 CFR 268.32(h) (HOC
prohibition superseded by treatment standard and
effective date for a particular HOC).
today's notice. Section III.A.7. presents
the development of proposed treatment
standards for wastes identified as multi-
source leachate and includes a reference
table for the BOAT list constituents that
correspond to a good portion of the U
and P chemicals. This table is a handy
reference to the discussion of the
development of standards for these U
and P chemicals and includes: an
alphabetical list of the chemicals
proposed for regulation in multi-source
leachate, their corresponding U or P
code (if applicable), and a reference to
sections IH.A.2. through III.A.6. that
presents background on the
development of treatment standards for
the corresponding U or P code. .
The bulk of the following discussion
and that of section III.A.l. has appeared
in previous preambles and is being
repeated here as an aid to the reader's
understanding, not to reopen these
issues for comment. (The final
paragraph in this section, relating to
whether the standards proposed today
are below levels that minimize threats to
human health and the environment is a
new discussion and is open for
comment.)
THe first step in the development of
treatment standards is to divide the
wastes to be regulated into groups
based on similar physical and chemical
properties. These waste treatability
groups take into account differences in
the applicability and effectiveness of
treatment for those particular wastes.
The Agency initially decides how
wastes should be grouped by examining
whether the wastes are generated by
similar industries or from similar
processes. This is a valid starting point
because the waste characteristics that
affect treatment performance are
expected to be similar for these wastes
even though the wastes themselves are
somewhat different.
The next step in the development of
treatment standards is to identify the
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for each treatability
group. A treatment technology is
considered to be "demonstrated"
primarily based on data from full-scale
treatment operations that are currently
being used to treat the waste (or a
similar waste). Once the
"demonstrated" technologies have been
identified, the Agency determines
whether these technologies may be
considered "available". To be
"available" the technology itself or the
services of the technology must be able
to be purchased, and the technology
must substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or reduce the likelihood of
migration of the waste's hazardous
-------
Federal Register / Voh S4. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Propo3ed Rules 48381
constituents. EPA notes that it prefers to
base BDAT on technologies that further
the statutory goals of waste
minimization and recycling. In some
circumstances EPA may select this type
of technology as BDAT over more
conventional treatment, provided the
disparity in performance of the
technologies is not too pronounced, and
the technology selected minimizes
threats to human health and the
environment by substantially
diminishing waste toxicity and reducing
mobility of toxic constituents.
Treatment data from "demonstrated"
"available" technologies are then
screened with regard to the design and
operation of the equipment, the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
analyses of the performance and
operating data, and the accuracy and
precision of the analytical tests used to
assess treatment performance. After this
screening, the treatment data are
adjusted for each constituent based on
the analytical recovery of that
constituent from treatment residuals.
The Agency has chosen to perform this
adjustment in order to account (in part)
for analytical interferences associated
with the chemical makeup of the
treatment residual. Where data for more
than one treatment technology exist, the
individual performance data for each of
the various treatment technologies are
then statistically evaluated. The mean
concentrations of constituents in the
treatment residuals from each
technology are compared using an
analysis of variance test (referred to as
"ANOVA") in order to determine if one
technology performed significantly
boiler than the other. (A detailed
discussion of the methodology for
identification of BDAT and the ANOVA
test is provided in the November 7,1988
final rule (51FR 40572)). Where data
exist for only one technology, the
Agency uses best engineering judgement
to assess whether that particular
technology represents the best
applhable technology for that particular
waste and whether the data indicate
lhat the treatment system was well-
designed and well-operated.
Once BDAT is identified, EPA
establishes the treatment standard as
maximum constituent-specific
concentrations allowed in the waste (or
in an extract of the treated waste), as a
specific technology (or group of
technologies), or as combinations of
these. Although the statute provides
discretion to establish treatment
standards as either levels or methods of
treatment, EPA normally attempts to set
concentration-based treatment
standards whenever possible, because
this allows the use of other technologies
or combination of technologies that can
achieve the same level of performance
(as measured by compliance with these
standards). Thus, concentration-based
standards provide the regulated
community some degree of flexibility in
choosing treatment technologies and
also allow the investigation and
development of new and alternative
technologies. In addition, establishing
concentration-based standards provides
a means of ensuring that the treatment
technologies are operated at conditions
that the Agency has determined will
result in the best demonstrated
performance.
(Note: EPA is presently studying its
response to the Court's remand order in
the land disposal prohibition framework
case (Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council v. EPA, No. 86-1657, D.C. Cir.
Sept. 15,1989). Although the Agency has
not formulated its final response, we are
finding for purposes of this proposal
that, based on present knowledge, none
of the treatment standards being
proposed appear to be below levels
where threats to human health and the
environment are minimized. In many
cases, the standards being proposed are
greater than various standards
developed pursuant to less exacting
statutory directives. For example, most
of the standards for metals are greater
than, or in the same order of magnitude,
as maximum contaminant levels
established pursuant to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, which take into
account technical feasibility and cost.
Other examples include the treatment
standards for polyaromatic
hydrocarbons in organic and petroleum
refining wastes that are orders of
magnitude higher than risk-based levels
developed for purposes of the Clean
Water Act's Water Quality Criteria. For
other wastes, the Agency is presently
unable to determine with confidence as
to when threats would be minimized
because of various uncertainties such as
the amount of a carcinogen that can
pose a risk, behavior of hazardous
wastes in a land disposal environment,
extrapolation of animal toxicity data to
human data. Based on the information
the Agency at this time views the
technology-based standards proposed
today as not being below levels where
threats to human health and the
environment are minimized.)
1. General Applicability of Treatment
'Standards and Overview of the
Remainder of This Preamble Section
Section III.A.l. of today's preamble
discusses certain general issues arising
from developing or applying today's
proposed treatment standards. In order
to provide a comprehensive general
discussion, sections III.A.l.a. through
III.A.l.f. restate the Agency's position on
certain issues pertinent to the
development of today's proposed
treatment standards. The Agency is also
providing a clarification on how
treatment standards compare to
Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
(see section (III.A.l.e.)), and a
clarification on the use of grab and
composite samples for purposes of
establishing and enforcing treatment
standards (see section III.A.l.f.). The
Agency is not reopening these issues for
public comment, nor is it here presenting
a complete discussion of these issues
(references to previous Federal Register
notices and background documents will
be provided).
Sections III.A.I.g. and h. provide
overviews of general issues and
information on the applicability of
treatment standards to all characteristic
(D001 through D017) wastes and to all U
and P wastes, respectively. Section
III.A.1.J. presents procedures the public
should follow for requesting copies of
additional data that the Agency expects
to receive during the public comment
period, and the reasons that these
procedures have been established.
a. Restrictions on the Use of •
Technologies Identified as BDAT.
Compliance with a concentration-based
treatment standard requires only that
the treatment level be achieved; once
achieved, the waste may be land
disposed in a subtitle C unit. The waste •
need not be treated by the BDAT
technology; in fact, a concentration-
based treatment standard provides
maximum flexibility in one's choice of
treatment technology because any
treatment, including recycling or any
combination of treatment technologies,
unless prohibited (e.g., impermissible
dilution) or unless defined as land
disposal (e.g., land treatment), can be
used to achieve these standards.
Some treatment standards in today's
proposed rule, however, are expressed
as a technology rather than as a
concentration-based standard. EPA
typically establishes a treatment method
as the standard when the Agency has no
means of calculating valid
concentration-based standards that can
be used for compliance monitoring. In
such cases, that particular technology
must be used to treat that particular
waste (including any mixture that
contains the waste). After the waste is
treated using the specified method it
may be land disposed, unless EPA has
specified otherwise in the rule (see for
example, the proposed standard for
certain mercury containing wastes), or
-------
4B382 Federal Renter / Vol. 54, No. 224;.-/.. Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
(in some situations} if the residue
exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic and does not meet BDAT
for that characteristic.
In cases where EPA has specified the
use of a technology (or technologies] a
generator or treater can. however,
demonstrate that an alternative
technology can achieve the equivalent
level of performance as that of the
specified treatment method (40 CFR
268.42(b)J. This demonstration is
anticipated to typically be both waste-
specific and site-specific and may be
based on: (1) The development of a
concentration-based standard that
utilizes a surrogate or indicator
compound that guarantees effective
treatment of the hazardous constituents;
(2) the development of a new analytical
method for quantifying the hazardous
constituents (see discussion of
analytical complications in establishing
concentration-based standards for U
and P wastes in section III.A.l.h.(2) of
today's preamble]; and (3) other
demonstrations of equivalence for an
alternative method of treatment based
on a statistical comparison of
technologies, including a comparison of
specific design and operating
parameters.
As a result, a new treatment standard
based on this demonstration, as well as
any analytical methodology used in the
demonstration, could then be proposed
to be applicable to other wastes
determined to be in the same treatability
group. 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 without receiving specific
variance requests from industry, if
adequate data and information become
available through other means.
In situations where wastes subject to
concentration-based standards are
mixed with wastes subject to treatment
standards expressed as a method, the
mixture must be treated by the specified
method and must also meet the
concentration-based treatment
standards for any other prohibited
waste contained in the matrix (see
generally 53 FR 31146-7, August 17,
1986).
b. Applicability of Treatment
Standards to Treatment Residues
Identified as "Derived-From" Wastes
and to Waste Mixtures. (1) ••Derived-
From " Wastes. The Agency emphasizes
that all residues from treating the
original listed F, K, U and/or P wastes
are likewise normally considered to be
the listed waste by virtue of the
"derived-from" rule found in 40 CFR
261.3(c](2). Consequently, all wastes
generated in the course of treatment are
prohibited from land disposal unless
they comply with the treatment
standard or are otherwise exempted
from the prohibition, such as, through a
no-migration petition or by a capacity
variance.
Treatment operations including those
identified as BDAT, typically generate
wastewater and nonwastewater
residuals that may require further
treatment. For example, incineration
generates two residues, ash and
scrubber waters. In order to comply
with the treatment standards, the ash
may need to be stabilized in order to
immobilize the metal constituents that
have concentrated in the ash. In
addition, subsequent treatment of the
scrubber waters may generate
additional inorganic residues that may
contain metals that were captured in the
scrubber water. Thus, these inorganic
residues may also need to be stabilized
prior to land disposal, in order to
comply with the same treatment
standards as the stabilized ash. (Note:
The. Agency has not tested every
possible waste that may result from
every subsequent part of the treatment
train. However, since the treatment
standards proposed today are generally
based on treatment of a relatively
concentrated form of the waste (i.e., the
"original" waste), the Agency believes
that residues from subsequent treatment
are less difficult to treat.)
The "derived-from" rule does not
apply to wastes that are identified as
hazardous solely because they exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste (see
40 CFR 261.3(d)(l)). Once these
characteristic wastes are treated in
compliance with today's proposed
treatment standards (and in accordance
with the restrictions on impermissible
dilution of prohibited characteristic
wastes), any residue (provided that it no
longer exhibits the characteristic or a
new characteristic) is no longer
considered to be a RCRA hazardous
waste. This does not necessarily mean,
however, that treatment is curbed by the
characteristic level. See section III.C. of
today's preamble.
The Agency is also investigating "de
minimis" levels for certain hazardous
constituents in listed wastes below
which the waste will no longer be a
hazardous waste for purposes of subtitle
C regulation. The Agency has yet to
propose these "de minimis" levels; thus
it has not completed its evaluation of the
regulations that would be affected, in
particular, the relationship of "de
minimis" levels to treatment standards
promulgated under the land disposal
restrictions.
(2) Mixtures of Different Hazardous
Waste Streams, Today's proposed
treatment standards apply to mixtures
of different waste streams. Where a
waste mixture has more than one
applicable concentration-based
treatment standard for a particular
constituent, the most stringent standard
must be met prior to land disposal (see
40 CFR 268.41(b)). In the event that a
waste mixture cannot be treated to meet
the most stringent standard, one may
petition the Agency for a variance from
the treatment standard pursuant to 40
CFR 268.44.
c. Wastewater Versus
Nonwastewater Standards. In today's
proposed rule the treatment standards
(both concentration-based and specified
methods) are generally presented as
applicable to wastewaters or to
nonwastewaters. However, for certain
wastes or waste treatability
subcategories the Agency is not making
a'distinction between wastewater and
nonwastewaters.
As an example, for some treatability
subcategories of D001, D002, and D003
wastes, the definition of these wastes in
40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23
establishes only a single treatability
group (e.g., the characteristic of
corrosivity only applies to "aqueous"
wastes (i.e., water) and to "liquids"
according to §§ 261.22(a) (1) and (2)
respectively. In other cases, making
such a distinction would be nonsensical
(e.g., D001 ignitable compressed gases).
Thus, the Agency is generally proposing
to apply only one standard to these
treatability subcategories for which the
distinction between wastewater and
nonwastewater cannot be made. (See
discussion of proposed standards for
each D001, D002, and D003 treatability
subcategory in section III.A.4. of today's
preamble.) The Agency believes that
this is the most reasonable approach for
these characteristic wastes because the
difference between wastewater and
nonwastewater may be difficult (or
impossible) to establish, or is
unnecessary to make because the same
technology can be logically applied to
the entire treatability subgroup.
(1) Definition of Wastewaters and
Nonwastewaters. Generally, the Agency
is adopting in this notice the definition
of wastewaters that was used to
promulgate treatment standards for the
First and Second Third final rules.
Wastewaters are defined 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48333
FOOT. F002, F003. F004. and F005 solvent-
water mixtures. (See S3 FR 31145
(August 17.1988) which adopts this
definition for most First Third wastes.
and 51 FR 40579 (November 7.1986) for
the definition of F001, 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 nonwastewaters and thus
would contain greater than or equal to
1% TOC. or greater than or equal to 1%
total suspended solids. (Note, however.
the discussion in III.B. of further
subcategorization of nonwastewaters
for purposes of national capacity
variances based on a lack of solids
incineration capacity.)
(2) Impermissible Switching of
Applicable Wastewater and
Nonwastewater Standards. It is not
permissible to dilute or partially treat 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 (July 8,1987)
noting special circumstances when
California list wastes are involved). The
Agency has established this principle
because technologies applicable to
nonwastewaters are not generally
applicable to wastewaters, or require
special designs (in the cases of
incineration) in order to simultaneously
handle wastewaters. Furthermore,
treatment residues meeting the
definition of nonwastewaters must
comply with all applicable
nonwastewater treatment standards;
likewise, residual wastewaters must
comply with all applicable wastewater
treatment standards.
The Agency recognizes, however, that
certain technologies are specifically
designed to separate wastewaters from
nonwastewaters. Such technologies may
or may not be considered partial
treatment under this principle, as
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Dewatering technologies such as
filtration and centrifugau'on are typically
designed to remove suspended solid
materials (TSS) from aqueous wastes.
(Note: For the purposes of applying
BOAT treatment standards, the Agency
does not consider carbon adsorption a
dewatering technology even though it
may act as a filter for suspended
material.) When these technologies are
applied to a nonwastewater that
contains greater than IS TSS but less
than 1% TOC. the resultant liquid
residue will probably meet the definition
of a wastewater (i.e.. it will probably
contain less than 1% TSS and less than
1% TOC). The Agency does not consider
this impermissible switching of
applicable treatment standards.
When the suspended material is
organic and the overall untreated waste
contains greater than 1% TOC, these
dewatering technologies are also not
precluded from use. The resultant
residuals (i.e., the removed solids and
the liquids) must comply with the
applicable wastewater or
nonwastewater treatment standards
depending on their TOC and TSS
content. If the liquid residues from these
dewatering technologies-meet the
definition of wastewaters, the Agency
does no.t consider this impermissible
switching of applicable standards.
The importance of the TOC level in
determining impermissible switching of
applicable wastewater or
nonwastewater treatment standard is
apparent in the scenario of treatment of
a waste containing less than 1% TSS and
slightly more than 1% TOC (such as 2 or
3% TOC), and thereby being a
nonwastewater by definition. If EPA has
established concentration-based
treatment standards for the
corresponding wastewater form of this
waste, it would be permissible to use
carbon adsorption to treat this
nonwastewater, so long as these
concentration-based treatment
standards for the wastewaters are
ultimately achieved (i.e., if the residual
wastewater contains hazardous
constituents at levels above the
concentration-based wastewater
treatment standards, additional
treatment with other technologies is
necessary prior to land disposal.)
However, if EPA has established a
wastewater treatment standard
expressed as "Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment" for this waste
code, the nonwastewater described
above must comply with the standard
for the nonwastewater form, despite the
fact that the TOC content is only slightly
greater than 1%. This is not just a
mechanical application of the
requirement that treatment must be
conducted by the specified method, with
the treatability group determined at the
point of generation. EPA established
"Carbon Adsorption as a Method of
Treatment" standard for certain
wastewaters based on the assumption
that wastewaters typically-contain TOC
levels much less than 1%, so that
removal of the organic constituents from
these wastewaters was anticipated to
be effective. If the nonwastewater
previously described is subjected to
carbon adsorption as a method of
treatment, there would be no means of
assuring optimum removal of the
hazardous constituents. Thus, in such a
situation, the use of carbon adsorption
for this nonwastewater, is not permitted
as a means of complying with BDAT.
The Agency considers this an
impermissible switching of applicable
treatability groups and treatment
standards.
(3) Application of Wastewater/
Nonwastewater Standards To Residues
Generated From Use of a Specified
Method. 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.
Commenters during previous
rulemakings suggested that EPA
specifically clarify the applicability of
the treatment standards expressed as a
required method for certain residues
generated from the use of the specified
methods.
In the Second Third final rule (see
generally 54 FR 26625, 26630, June 23,
1989), the Agency presented specific
guidelines on this. This summary is
repeated here for the reader's
convenience. Where EPA has
established "Incineration as a Method of
Treatment" as a treatment standard for
nonwastewaters and/or wastewaters, or
where EPA has established "Carbon
Adsorption as a Method of Treatment"
for wastewaters, the following
statements concerning residuals from
treatment trains incorporating these
technologies are true: (1) Scrubber
waters from incinerators in compliance
with the substantive provisions of 40
CFR 264 subpart O or 265 subpart O are
considered to meet the treatment
standard and can be land disposed: (2)
the scrubber waters from incinerators in
compliance with the substantive
provisions of 40 CFR 264 subpart O or
part 265 subpart O are not required to
undergo "Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment" when this
specified wastewater treatment method
also has been established; (3)
incinerator ashes and residues from the
subsequent treatment of scrubber
waters from incinerators in compliance
with the substantive provisions of 40
CFR 264 subpart O or 265 subpart O a?e
considered to meet the required
"Incineration" treatment standard, and
can be land disposed; (4) incinerator
equipment (such as fire brick) derived
from sections of the incinerator that
have been directly subjected to the high
temperatures of the incinerator that was
operated in compliance with the
substantive provisions of 40 CFR 264
subpart O or 265 subpart O, or are
downstream from the high temperature
-------
48384 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 ^Wednesday. November 22, 1989
zones, are considered to meet the
treatment standards for these wastes
and can be land disposed; (5)
wastewater effluent and any subsequent
nonwastewater treatment residues from
carbon adsorption units treating
wastewater forms of these wastes (i.e.,
wastes from downstream from the
carbon column) are considered to meet
the specified treatment standard and
can be land disposed; and [6) where
EPA specifies carbon adsorption as the
treatment method for Wastewaters,
spent carbon, as well as any other
nonwastewater residues from the
wastewater treatment preceding carbon
adsorption, are not considered to meet
the treatment standard; such spent
carbon and nonwastewater residues
must be treated by the specified
nonwastewater method prior to land
disposal.
d Transfer of Treatment Standards.
Rather than testing the performance of
BOAT on every waste, for certain
wastes the Agency examines similarities
in waste stream characteristics and
constituents in order to transfer
treatment standards from a tested waste
to a similar untested waste. EPA
believes that transferring treatment
performance data for untested wastes is
technically valid, particularly when the
untested wastes are generated from
similar industries or similar processing
steps. EPA also believes that
transferring treatment performance data
for tested constituents in one waste to
untested constituents in another similar
waste is technically valid, particularly
when the constituents and wastes have
similar chemical and physical
properties.
To determine whether wastes
genRrated by different processes can be
treated to the same performance levels.
EPA reviews data on waste
characteristics to identify parameters
that are expected to affect treatment
selection. When this analysis suggests
thul an untested waste can be treated
with the same technology as a tested
waste, the Agency examines a more
comprehensive list of constituents that
represent the most important waste
characteristics that will affect treatment
performance.
The complete methodology for
transferring treatment standards,
however, depends upon the waste itself
and often differs from treatability group
to treatability group. For a detailed
discussion of the transfer methodology
for the wastes presented in today's
notice, refer to the background
documents for each waste or treatability
•.jr-o up and the background documents
for the wastes from which the treatment
standards were transferred.
EPA notes further that in the case of
transfers of standards based on
performance of incineration, EPA is
most often transferring standards that
were based on the ability of the
incinerator to achieve destruction of
organics to detection limits as measured
in the ash and scrubber water. This is
supported by data from approximately
fourteen different test burns of a variety
of different RCRA hazardous wastes.
These wastes contained varying
concentrations of many BOAT list
organics. While not all of the organics
on the BDAT list were present in the
untreated wastes, the residues were
analyzed for them and thus detection
limits were calculated for a variety of
incinerator residues. In developing
concentration-based treatment
standards for U and P wastes, the
Agency considered all of these detection
limits and determined which were the
most representative of U and P wastes.
In order to account for the anticipated
variability in waste characteristics of
untreated U and P wastes, the Agency
typically selected the highest detection
limits for the constituent that
corresponded to the chemical
represented by the U or P code. Thus,
the Agency believes the resultant
treatment standards should be
achievable on a routine basis for the
majority of U and P wastes.
However, in developing
concentration-based treatment
standards for specific F and K wastes
containing organics, the Agency •
considered all of these data and
determined which particular waste was
the most representative of that
particular F or K waste (based on the
availability of waste characterization
data for the untreated F or K waste). As
a result, the Agency often transferred
treatment standards that were
significantly lower than those developed
for the U and P wastes. The Agency
believes that these lower treatment
standards are achievable for these F and
K wastes based on the achievability of
detection limits in the waste matrix from
which the standard was transferred.
e. Analytical Requirements and
Relationship ofPQLs to BDAT—(I)
Waste Analysis Requirements. In
today's proposed rule, BDAT has been
identified as a destruction technology
for organic constituents and cyanides in
many wastes. For these wastes the best
measure of treatment performance is
one that reflects the extent to which
these organics and cyanides have been
destroyed. This approach is likewise
consistent widi the Congressional
preference to destroy hazardous wastes
where possible. See, e.g., 130 Cong. Rec.
S 9179 (July 25,1984) (statement of Sen.
Chaffee) (wastes with high organic
content should be incinerated). This
approach is also consistent with the
strong Congressional goal of eliminating
uncertainty from land disposal of
hazardous waste, see, e.g., RCRA
section 3004(d)(l), because it ensures
removal of hazardous constituents from
the land disposal environment.
Therefore, the corresponding treatment
standards for these constituents are
based on an analysis of total constituent
concentrations in a representative
sample of the treated waste. [NOTE:
The land disposal restrictions for
solvent waste codes F001-F005 (51 FR
40572) require analysis of waste extracts
obtained from the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) 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 TCLP is
typically required as the measure of '.he
performance of the treatment
technology. Where treatment standards
for nonwastewaters are based on
multiple treatment processes due to
mixtures of organics and metals, or
where recovery of metals is the basis of
the treatment standards, analysis of
total constituent concentrations and
analysis of the TCLP extract (or EP
extract depending upon the standard)
must be performed prior to land
disposal.
(2) The BDAT List. The Agency has
established a list of chemicals, primarily
derived from the constituents in 40 CFR
261 Appendix VII and Appendix VIII.
that are evaluated for regulation as
BDAT constituents (i.e., concentration-
based treatment standards) when they
are present in a listed waste. 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
limited to regulating only those
constituents for which a waste is listed
(40 CFR 261 Appendix VII). Appendix
VII sets forth only the constituents that
were the basis for the listing and is not
an exhaustive list of hazardous
constituents in each waste. Additional
support for taking this approach is found
in RCRA section 3001(f), which specifies
-------
that EPA must consider additional
hazardous constituents other than those
for which the waste was listed when
evaluating delisting petitions. Section
3001(f) thus acknowledges that
Appendix VII is only a partial list of the
hazardous constituents that can be
present in a listed waste.
(3) Relationship of Treatment
Standards to PQLs. The regulated
community has asked a number of
questions about the relationship of
treatment standards to the practical
quantltation limits (PQLs) for a number
of constituents. It is important, therefore.
to clarify the definition of PQLs. their
Intended use. and their relationship to
treatment standards.
In proposed revisions to the
September 1988 edition of Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Wastes (also
known as and herein referred to as SW-
848). the Agency defines PQLs as
" * * * the lowest level of quantitation
that the Agency believes a competent
laboratory can be expected to reliably
achieve." The intended use of PQLs is
mentioned in Method 8250 of SW-846
(the analytical method for the
determination of semivolatile organics
in wastes by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry). This discussion states:
"Sample PQLs are highly matrix-
dependent. The PQLs listed herein are
provided for guidance and may not
always be achievable" (SW-846.
September. 1986. Table 2. p. 8250-5). The
discussion further defines PQLs as the
method detection limit in reagent water
(from Table 1. pp. 8250-2,8250-3. and
8250-4) multiplied by a matrix
dependent factor that was estimated for
four matrices (Table 2. p. 8250-5).
As is evident from the above citations.
the PQLa are directly related to the
amount of interferences that are present
in the different waste matrices, and the
PQLs listed in SW-848 are not always
achievable for constituents as measured
in untreated wastes. However, the
Agency points put that most treatment
processes, particularly destructive
technologies such as incineration.
destroy not only the hazardous
constituents of the waste but also other
organics that typically interfere with the
analysis for constituents in untreated
wastes as well. Thus. PQLs typically are
significantly lower for treatment
residuals such as incinerator ash than
for untreated wastes. Such differences
in PQLs for untreated versus treated
wastes are demonstrated by the data for
almost every incineration test burn
performed by the Agency in developing
BDAT treatment standards (see
appropriate background documents for
each waste treatability group).
Potential users of PQLs should keep in
mind that the PQLs in SW-848 were
established to provide guidance for the
analysis of waste samples by acting as
minimum performance criteria for
analytical laboratories. The PQLs do not
necessarily represent the lowest limits
of analytical performance achievable for
any given waste.
The PQLs in SW-846 were intended to
be broadly applied to groups of wastes.
As a result, matrix dependent correction
factors were not developed for any
particular waste code, and do not
specifically apply to any particular
treatment residuals (i.e., only correction
factors for matrices identified as ground
water, low-level soil, high-level soil, and
non-water miscible waste were
specified in Method 8250 of SW-846).
Furthermore, the Agency is currently
modifying and expanding the matrix
correction factors, as well as modifying
the detection limits from which the PQLs
are derived.
The PQLs listed in SW-846 for some
constituents are less stringent than some
of the treatment standards. This
apparent anomaly results primarily from
the fact that the PQLs in SW-846 were
not based on the same waste matrices
(i.e., treatment residues) that were
tested in developing the treatment
standards. The treatment standards for
a given waste code are based on
analysis of the treatment residuals of
the waste (or in some cases, a similar
waste from which the treatment
standards are transferred).
Consequently, the resulting treatment •
standards appropriately reflect the level
of analytical performance achievable for
that waste. Thus, the PQLs in SW-846
are generally not used directly in
developing the part 268 treatment
standards.
The question has been raised whether
constraints posed by the limits of
applicable analytical methods allow
treatment standards to be met reliably
on a routine basis. The Agency points
out that the laboratories used to develop
the treatment standards are reliable and
must maintain compliance with EPA's
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
requirements on a routine basis. The
background documents for all wastes for
which incineration has been established
as BOAT provide additional support that
treatment standards are above the limits
of detection for regulated constituents
on a routine basis. These documents
provide data that indicate that the
laboratories consistently obtain low
detection limits for the regulated
constituents in the wastes.
In cases where a facility believes that
waste-specific treatment standards
cannot be met because their laboratory-
is unable to achieve PQLs below the
treatment standards on specific
treatment residuals, the facility may
submit a petition for a variance from the
treatment standards for that particular
waste code (EPA construes 40 CFR
268.44 as encompassing such petitions).
The facility must demonstrate that the
analyses are in compliance with all
other BDAT QA/QC provisions (as
outlined in the BDAT Generic Quality
Assurance ProJGct Plan (EPA/530-SW-
87-011, March 1987). Moreover, the
petitioner must also demonstrate that
the treatment process is a well-designed
and well-operated BDAT process.
(Note: The Agency may use analytical
methods that are not specifically
identified in SW-846 for setting
treatment standards, provided that the
methods comply with all appropriate
detection limits, spike/surrogate
recoveries, and other quality assurance
criteria. Thus, a facility may also
develop a petition in a similar manner.)
/. Treatment Standcr-Js Based on
Single Facility Data. Crab Samples
Versus Composite Samples. a:id Waste
Analyst's Plans—{ij S.'.-;j;:'e Facility
Data. As discussed ir. 'r-e August 17.
1988 final rule for Firs: i bird wastes the
Agency believes that -he jse of a sirnll
number of data sets frr.rn a s.nsie
treatment facility can be n-p-ps"t-r.!,.itive
of the treatment achiewjd bv thi- ,
particular treatment system! This is
particularly true when no other
treatment data are available, or v.hen
data exist but there is no i.»nficMtion
that the treatment process from whk.h
the data were obtained was well-
designed or well-operated It is not
possible for the Agency to sanpie every
facility generating the waste cr every
treatment system treating the unsts. For
the purposes of determining tr^ itment
standards, the Agency has es' iblished a
methodology for selecting particular
facilities and treatment systems that it
considers to be well-designed and well-
operated. The Agency also selects
wastes that are representative of those
most difficult to treat.
The Agency recognizes that there is
variability inherent in every treatment
system, as well as variability in the
characteristics of the wastes. The
Agency accounts for these by
multiplying the mean of the constituent
concentrations by a correction factor
known as the variability factor. This
factor is derived through a quantitative
procedure that determines the statistical
99th percentile for the treatment
standard. This establishes a treatment
standard that should be achievable 99
percent of the time by a well-designed,
-------
4338ft Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
well-operated system. The Agency
further adjusts the treatment standard to
account for variabilities due to
analytical recovery. In addition, all
analyses of hazardous constituents are
performed in accordance with an
established QA/QC plan as outlined in
the BDAT Generic Quality Assurance
Project Plan. The Agency is confident
that this methodology will result in
treatment standards that accurately
represent the performance of a
particular treatment system.
Standards based on incineration are
always established above the limit of
detection rather than at the detection
limit. This is because the Agency prefers
to account for the variability inherent in
the treatment system and in the analysis
of the recovery data. Therefore,
following EPA's methodology for
establishing treatment standards, the
data (the average detection limit} are
adjusted through use of the variability
factor (typically 2.8) and a correction for
recovery of a spiked analyte (or
surrogate). The resulting treatment
standards for the organic constituents
are above the detection limits. The
standards are thus actually greater than
the achievable levels (which are at or
below the detection limits) and should
be easily met by a well-designed, well-
operated incineration system.
(2) Grab versus Composite Samples.
Where performance data exist based on
both the analysis of composite samples
and the analysis of grab samples, the
Agency establishes the treatment
standards based on the analysis of grab
samples. 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 these data are used to establish
the treatment standard, the treatment
standard is identified as based on
analysis of a composite sample.
Enforcement of that standard thus
would also be based on composite
samples.
(3) Waste Analysis Plans. The waste
analysis plan shall provide the basis for
monitoring a disposal facility'*
compliance with promulgated treatment
standards. This plan must be adequate
to assure compliance with part 268. The
disposal facility is, however, ultimately
responsible if it disposes a waste that
does not meet a treatment standard.
Therefore, a disposal facility may
violate 'he land disposal restrictions
while at the same time complying with
the provisions of its waste analysis plan.
Put another way, a waste analysis plan
may be written to authorize types of
sampling and monitoring different from
those used to develop the treatment
standard(s). In such an instance, the
disposal facility must demonstrate mat
the waste analysis plan (and the specific
deviating feature) is adequate to assure
compliance with part 268 (see 40 CFR
264.13). 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.
In any case, enforcement of the land
disposal restrictions is based on grab
samples (except as described in the
previous section) and analysis of all
constituents regulated by the applicable
treatment standards, not on the facility's
waste analysis plan.
g. General Issues on Developing
Treatment Standards for Characteristic
Wastes. This section of today's
preamble presents a discussion of
general issues on establishing treatment
standards for all characteristic wastes.
EPA initially took the position that
wastes that are hazardous exclusively
by virtue of exhibiting a characteristic
are not subject to the RCRA section
3004(g)(C) "hard hammer" (See 51 FR
1607 n.4., January 14,1986). EPA no
longer takes this position, and is now
reading RCRA section 3004(g)(6KC) to
encompass all wastes for which EPA
has an obligation to establish treatment
standards for under paragraph (g)(5),
which includes identified characteristic
wastes. The legislative history also
indicates that Congress intended EPA to
include identified characteristic wastes
(i.e., those identified as of the effective
date of HSWA) by the statutory
deadline (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1133,98th
Cong., 2d Sess. 88 (1984)). In any case,
since EPA intends to promulgate
treatment standards for these wastes,
the issue has no practical significance.
The criteria for identifying a waste as
a characteristic hazardous waste are
defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24.
These criteria identify five major groups
of characteristic wastes: Ignitable
(D001), Corrosive (D002), Reactive
(D003), EP Toxic Metals (D004-D011),
and EP Toxic Pesticides (D012-D017).
There are several criteria within each of
these major groups that define the
particular characteristic. EPA used these
individual criteria as the basis for •
identifying treatability groups '
(subcategories) within each major
characteristic group.
There are a number of options for
developing treatment standards for any
characteristic waste code or
subcategory. One option is to propose
concentration-based standards when
the Agency has data to support such an
action. A second option is to propose a
treatment standard expressed as a
required method. A third option is to
simply establish the characteristic level
as the treatment standard. A fourth
option is to establish a method of
treatment along with a required
performance level. (See preamble
section III.C. for further discussion of
EPA's authority to establish treatment
standards for characteristic wastes.)
Section III.A.4. of today's preamble
presents the proposed treatment
standards for: ignitable (D001), corrosive
(D002), and reactive (D003)
characteristic wastes; their treatability
subcategories; and related U and P
reactive wastes. Proposed treatment
standards for EP Toxic Metals (D004-
D011) are presented in section III.A.5.
along with proposed treatment
standards for some K, U and P wastes
that contain these metals. Proposed
treatment standards for EP Toxic
Pesticides (D012-D017) are presented in
section IU.A.2.C. along with treatment
standards for related K, U. and P
halogenated pesticides.
For many of the wastes that are
hazardous only because they exhibit
one of the characteristics in 40 CFR
261.3(c)(l) and (d)(l), the use of some
BDAT technologies will result in a
residue that no longer exhibits any of
the characteristics. In some cases.
however, the use of a BDAT treatment
technology to remove one characteristic
. will result in a residue which has a
different characteristic, and thus
. requires further treatment (e.g.,
incineration of an ignitable D001 waste
may generate an ash that exhibits the
characteristic of EPToxicity for metals
(D004-D011)). Furthermore, if the
characteristic waste or its treatment
residue is mixed with a listed hazardous
waste, the entire mixture is considered
to be me listed hazardous waste due to
the derived-from rule, even if treated to
remove all characteristics.
The Agency is today proposing that
characteristic wastes and residues from
treatment of characteristic wastes must
be treated to meet all characteristic
treatment standards prior to land
disposal. When the treatment standard
for one characteristic is expressed as a
required method of treatment, the
method must be used and the treatment
standard for any additional
characteristic in the residue must be
met. See preamble section HI.A.4.a. for a
-------
further discussion of this concept as it
applies to ignitable, reactive, and
corrosive characteristic wastes.
For purposes of complying with
today's proposed treatment standards,
dilution of characteristic wastes in order
to remove the characteristic.^ lieu of
meeting the treatment standard) is not
allowed. Dilution does not destroy the
chemical constituents causing the
characteristic? it is merely a physical
process that provides temporary
removal of the characteristic which can
be reversed if the physical conditions
are changed. The Agency understands,
however, that dilution is sometimes
necessary in order to facilitate treatment
(e.g., in order to lower the BTU value of
a Don waste with a very high BTU
value). This type of dilution to effect
treatment is not prohibited as long as it
is not used as treatment or to avoid
compliance with treatment standards, or
In the case of California list wastes,
prohibition levels. (See preamble
sections UI.C. and in.D. for further
discussion of issues relating to dilution.)
h. General Issues Pertaining to All
Remaining UandP Wastes. Today's
proposed rule addresses several issues
pertinent to the development of
concentration-based treatment
standards for U and P wastes as defined
in 40 CFR 281.33 (e) and (f). These
include issues such as deficiencies in
waste characterization, analytical
complications, sporadic generation
patterns, infrequent land disposal,
potential necessity for dissolution prior
to treatment, and difficulties in
evaluation of recycling potential. EPA is
also proposing two clarifying corrections
to the existing scope of section 281.33:
one change to correct an unintended gap
in paragraph (c), and the other to clarify
that contaminated soils and other spill
residues are not automatically excluded
from being solid wastes if recycled.
The Agency believes that
concentration-based treatment
standards can be developed for many of
the U and P wastes based on existing
data. EPA has grouped all of the U and P
wastes into various treatability groups
based on similarities in elemental
composition (e.g.. carbon, halogens and
metals) and the presence of key
functional groups (e.g., phenolics, esters,
and amines) within the structure of the
individual chemical represented by the
U or P waste code. The Agency has also
accounted for physical and chemical
factors that are known to affect the
selection of treatment alternatives and
to affect the performance of the
treatment, such as volatility and
solubility, when developing these
treatability groups. The use of the
chemical (e.g., pesticide* and
Pharmaceuticals) was also important in
establishing these groups. Emphasizing
the use of these chemicals allows the
Agency to identify issues specific on
these groups of chemicals, to target
potential sources of data, and to solicit
comments and data from specific
industries and public interest groups.
(1) Waste Characterization of UandP
Wastes. EPA has designated a specific
U or P waste code number referring to
the specific chemical constituent
associated with that code. EPA's listing
sorts these wastes into two general
hazard categories. Those wastes
identified as P wastes are defined as
"acute hazardous" wastes and those
wastes identified as U wastes are
defined as "toxic" wastes. The Agency
has determined that these distinctions
generally have no significant bearing on
treatability of the particular chemical or
waste, and thus did not consider these
distinctions between U and P wastes in
developing the treatability groups
identified in this section.
The U and P wastes are defined as
out-of-date commercial products,
chemical intermediates, off-specification
(off-spec) products, container liners (or
residues), or spill residues. (See 40 CFR
261.33.) These wastes can also exist as
wastewater or nonwastewater
treatment residues based on the
derived-from or mixture rules. In
addition, U and P wastes are often
contained in lab packs as complex
mixtures of discarded concentrated
chemicals, contaminated laboratory
samples, old analytical laboratory
standards, and contaminated
equipment.
The composition of these wastes can
vary significantly. Some U and P wastes
may not contain the same constituents
or concentration of the specific U or P
chemical that was present in the waste
from which concentration-based
standards may be proposed to be
transferred. However, given the
statutory time constraints that exist, the
Agency cannot possibly test every single
U and P chemical. The Agency believes
that the transfer of data and
development of concentration-based
standards is the best alternative for
these U and P wastes, and is therefore
proposing such standards whenever
possible. •
(2) Analytical Complications, The
Agency has determined that for many U
and P wastes, as well as for some K
wastes, there are several complications
that arise in terms of how reliably the
primary hazardous constituents can be
quantified. These complications appear
to preclude the establishment of
concentration-based treatment
standards. As a direct result of these
complications, the Agency-is compelled
to establish a method (or methods) of
treatment as a treatment standard rather
than concentration-based constituent
specific standards.
For any particular U or P chemical.
there are four major reasons that these
quantification complications exist: (1)
there are no methods that are currently
verified for the quantification of the
constituent of interest in treatment
residuals; (2) calibration standards (i.e.,
standard solutions of known purity for
validating compliance with QA/QC
procedures) of that chemical are not
currently available on the commercial
market; (3) the chemical may be
unstable in water, or react with water;
and (4) the chemical may not be listed
as a single chemical entity (e.g., P030 is
listed as "soluble cyanide salts, not
otherwise specified"). Chemical specific
complications are presented in the
appropriate section of today's preamble
that discusses the specific treatability
group where the U or P chemical has
been classified. Implications of these
complications on the general procedures
for establishment of concentration-
based standards are outlined in greater
detail below.
(a) A vailability of a Verified
Analytical Method. The September,
1986, edition of Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Wastes (also known as
SW-846), does not include analytical
methods that are currently verified for
the quantification of some U and P
chemicals in treatment residuals. This
does not imply that an existing
analytical method cannot be used to
quantify that particular chemical, but
rather, it indicates that the Agency has
not verified the quantification of that U
or P chemical in the specific treatment
residuals of interest. However, in the
absence of this verification and where
the Agency has sufficient belief that a
particular analytical method can
analyze a particular chemical, the
Agency is not precluded from
establishing a concentration-based
treatment standard for that U or P
chemical. In fact, the Agency anticipates
that for many U and P chemicals,
analytical methods will be verified as
appropriate for complex matrices such
as treatment residuals. EPA is currently
working to validate analytical methods
for a growing number of chemicals in a
variety of matrices. It is anticipated that
treatment data obtained during the
development of BDAT for specific waste
codes will also assist in the validation of
these methods.
-------
Federal Register / yoi. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
For many U and P chemicals, the
Agency has determined that only High
Performance Liquid Chramatography
(HPLC) analytical methods can be used
to measure their concentration.
Although HPLC techniques have been
used to quantify certain chemicals in
relatively clean aqueous matrices, the
Agency has not completely verified that
HPLC is appropriate for analysis of
either untreated wastes or treatment
residuals. There is only one HPLC
method that is currently listed in SW-
846 as applicable to analysis of solid
wastes, with very limited applicability.
However, the Agency is in the process
of validating other HPLC methods,
including multiple-column HPLC
systems and HPLC units coupled with
mass spectroscopy. Until this method
validation work is completed, the
Agency does not believe that it should
establish concentration-based treatment
standards for these particular U and P
chemicals. Further, the Agency currently
lacks data on treatment: of hazardous
wastes based on HPLC analyses.
The Agency also recognizes the
existence of methods other than those
specifically identified in SW-846. that
can successfully quantify some U and P
compounds in complex matrices, and for
the purposes of today's proposed rule
solicits information about them. In
particular, the commenter should supply
all available QA/QC information and
the data must represent analysis of
treated residuals from the use of
technologies that are equivalent to that
examined or specified in today's
preamble as BDAT for that particular
chemical. Commenters should specify
that the submitted data are applicable to
a particular waste code.
(b) Commercial Availability of
Calibration Standards. Solutions of
known purity and concentration of a
chemical or mix of chemicals are often
referred to as calibration standards.
These are used by analytical
laboratories to verify the accuracy and
precision (QA/QC) of a particular
analysis for a particular chemical or
group of chemicals. The continued
availability of these standards from
commercial chemical suppliers is
important in maintaining proper QA/QC
of quantitative analysis for the chemical
constituents in treatment residuals. For
the purposes of routine compliance with
treatment standards, the Agency
believes that an analytical laboratory
must be able to readily and consistently
purchase these calibration standards.
EPA determined which compounds
are commercially available by asking
five major suppliers whether they had
the chemicals in stock and whether they
were available for shipping to
prospective buyers. Only those
chemicals thus found to be
"commercially available" were included
- on the list of those for which EPA will
set concentration-based standards and
require analytical quantification.
However, EPA realizes that some
analytical reagents may exist for these
chemicals, outside the commercial
inventories of the major supply houses
contacted. Nevertheless, unless a
compound is consistently in stock at
major suppliers, the Agency believes
that the difficulties in obtaining these
standards and in verification of their
purity are sufficient cause to not
establish concentration-based treatment
standards for these U and P chemicals.
This does not, however, preclude the
Agency from promulgating a
concentration-based standard at a later
date.
While the use of calibration standards
is an integral component of all analyses,
the Agency's SW-846 methods do not
typically require that a calibration
standard be available for every
compound being analyzed. Surrogate
compounds are often used as calibration'
standards in many analytical methods.
The Agency could establish
concentration-based treatment
standards for a surrogate compound in
the waste or for some other waste
characteristic that could act as an
indicator of effective treatment (i.e.. an
indicator parameter), provided that a
correlation of the concentration of the
surrogate or indicator parameter to the
concentration of the constituent of
interest can be established. In general,
the lack of waste characterization data
and the variability in waste composition
for U and P wastes interferes with the
establishment of surrogate or indicator
parameters for many U and P wastes.
This does not preclude the Agency
from the use of surrogates or indicator
parameters in establishing
concentration-based treatment
standards.. Where deemed appropriate,
the Agency has specifically identified
these surrogates or indicators on a
waste code specific basis in today's
proposed rule. In fact in the Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26614, June 23.1969).
treatment standards for total and
amenable cyanides have already been
promulgated for several U and P waste
codes that are listed as specific cyanide
salts. In general, commenters to the
proposed rule for these wastes
supported the use of these indicator
parameters.
In cases where these U and P
chemicals are no longer produced or
used in this country, and are not
reasonably expected to be detected in
environmental or waste samples, the
Agency may choose to not establish
concentration-based treatment
standards for particular constituents. In
most cases, EPA does not wish to
encourage a market for high-purity
samples of these compounds, as might
happen if it required that these
compounds be analyzed, thus creating a
demand for quantification reagent
samples.
(c) Stability in Water. Some U and P
compounds dissociate, decompose or
otherwise significantly change their
identity when exposed to water. EPA
chooses not to set concentration-based
BDAT standards for these compounds.
because there is generally a high
probability of the presence of water in
many treatment residuals and
particularly in wastes classified as
wastewaters. Thus, while analytical
methods may exist for some of these
"unstable" chemicals when measured in
nonaqueous matrices and even in
aqueous samples (depending on their
"half-life" of instability), accurate
quantification of their concentration in
treatment residuals where there is a
reasonable expectation that water may
be present would be severely hampered.
For many of these chemicals, a high
level of coordination of sampling and
analytical personnel would be required
in order to assure a consistency in
holding times and thus highly variable
analytical results might be expected.
In developing the list of chemicals to
be analyzed for purposes of compliance
with groundwater monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 264 (i.e., the
chemicals listed in Appendix IX), EPA
faced the same problem of identifying
those chemicals that are "unstable" in
water and therefore not amenable to
these groundwater monitoring
requirements. Consequently, EPA
designates as "unstable" those U and P
chemicals that were particularly
excluded from Appendix IX for this
reason. EPA is confident that it is
correct in relieving the regulated
community from the burden of
undertaking analysis of hazardous
waste treatment residuals for those U
and P compounds excluded from
Appendix IX because of their instability
in water.
(d) Multiple or Ambiguous Identity.
For several U and P waste codes, the
specific listing for that waste code does
not identify only one particular chemical
for which die listing applies (e.g., P075 is
listed as "Nicotine and salts" and P051
is listed as "Endrin and metabolites").
For purposes of compliance with the
-------
treatment standards, the Agency has
determined which chemicals should be
analyzed" (if any).
In cases where the U or P listing did
not specify particular isomers and there
are a limited number of isomers,
treatment standards are typically
reported as applicable to all isomers, are
isomer specific, or are applicable to the
sum of the Jsomers depending upon
whether the identity of isomers can be
distinguished.
When the exact identity of the
chemical for which tka U or P waste
code is listed is ambiguous, or where the
listing specifies "and salts" or "and
metabolites", the Agency typically
chooses to set a technology rather than
a concentration-based standard in order
to preclude analysis for a particular
chemical that may not have even been
present originally. The Agency also may
choose to establish an indicator
compound for these wastes (or the
primary listed compound) that would
assure treatment of any additional
chemical that may fall into the broad
listing (See earlier discussion of P030 in
this section of today's preamble).
(3J Current Generation and Land
Disposal Practices. Data indicate that
there are relatively few generators of
many of the U and P wastes.
Information from the 1988 TSDR survey
also suggests that the majority of these
U and P wastes are not typically land
disposed. The Agency considered
proposing a treatment standard of "No
Land Disposal Based on No Generation"
for many of these wastes. However, the
sporadic nature of generation suggests
that these wastes may be generated at
any time and thus may require land
disposal of treatment residues.
While establishing a treatment
standard of "No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation" allows generators to
petition for a variance from the
treatment standard (40 CFR 268.44), the
Agency prefers to establish
concentration-based standards or
methods of treatment whenever a
transfer of standards can be reasonably
performed However, for some U and P
wastes that have a very low probability
of generation, the "No Land Disposal
Based on No Generation" alternative
may be feasible. This alternative may be
particularly attractive for a few U and P
wastes for which the Agency cannot
identify sufficient data to sho'w that
treatment technologies are
demonstrated or even applicable.
(4) Dissolution for Treatment, Some of
the discarded or off-spec U and P
chemicals, when existing as
concentrated chemicals or mixtures,
may be dissolved in a suitable solvent
or water prior to treatment Because this
is a form of dilution, the question arises
whether it is a form of permissible
dilution. Two such instances occur as
follows: 1) concentrated organic liquids
and solids are sometimes dissolved in
appropriate organic solvents (or waste
solvents) and then incinerated in a
liquid injection system; and 2)
concentrated inorganic chemicals and
metal salts are sometimes dissolved in
water or acidic media, chemically
oxidized (or reduced), and precipitated
as an insoluble salt. In all of these cases,
this type of management is permissible
because it renders the chemical suitable
for treatment by the designated BOAT
technology.
Where organic U and P wastes are
generated in small amounts, however,
incineration in a rotary kiln may be
preferred over dissolution in order to
reduce the risk from mixing and
handling. However in other cases,
dissolving the organic U and P
chemicals in solvents may actually be
desirable in order to reduce the
maximum emission rate of halides or
oxides of phosphorus, nitrogen, or sulfur
that may occur from incinerating
excessive amounts of the concentrated
forms' of these U or P chemicals. Thus,
EPA does not wish to preclude
dissolution for purposes of effective
treatment
(5) Recycling Potential. The Agency
believes that it may be feasible to
legitimately recycle some organic U and
P wastes. For example, a true "off-spec"
product could potentially undergo
further on-site processing rather than
land disposal, be sold as a low grade
chemical product in the market or be
exchanged as a raw material to other
industry participating in a hazardous
waste exchange program. Indeed, these
materials may not be solid wastes if
legitimately recycled (see 40 CFR
281.33).
However, other forms of organic U
and P wastes may require further
treatment prior to recycling (e.g.,
organics that tend to polymerize or
solidify may need to he stabilized prior
to reuse). In addition, other organic U
and P wastes may not be amenable to
recycling for a variety of reasons. The
major reason being that quite often
other chemicals such as residual
catalysts, unreacted reagent chemicals,
by-products, or process contaminants
are present in the waste that preclude
their reuse. Because of the variety in
possible contaminants per organic U
and P waste, the Agency cannot identify
specific waste characteristics per waste
code that would allow the Agency to
establish direct reuse as a treatment
standard for the majority of U and P
organic chemicals. The Agency solicits
data and information to identify those
wastes (or subcategqries based on
certain waste characteristics), that are
amenable to direct reuse and recycling.
EPA does not intend to preclude the
legitimate recycling of any of these
wastes. EPA notes, however, that soil
and other residues from spilling these
commercial chemicals would ordinarily
not be recyclable. Indeed, the spilling
onto the land is itself a type of disposal.
Thus, EPA is proposing as part of
today's rule a clarifying change whereby
such soils and other spill residues would
be solid wastes unless they are recycled
a short time after the spill event (see
section H.P. above and III.F. below).
(6) Analysis of Existing and Newly
Developed Treatment Data. Overall,
there are over 300 organic chemicals
represented by the U and P waste codes.
Existing treatment data for wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of specific U
and P wastes are somewhat limited. The
treatability data that does exist is
primarily for the corresponding U or P
constituents as they are present in other
wastes' (such as the K wastes tested by
the Agency). Therefore, in the
development of today's proposed
treatment standards, EPA examined all
of the available BOAT data for the
corresponding U and P constituents in
approximately fourteen different
incineration test burns of RCRA
hazardous wastes. In addition, the
Agency examined available data on the '
treatment of wastewaters.
The majority of all of these data
appear to be for the U and P treatability
subcategories identified as halogenated
aliphatics, aromatics, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons, and oxygenated
hydrocarbons. This seems logical in that
for wastewaters most of the available
data are for those constituents that are
also designated as priority pollutants
under regulation by the Agency's Office
of Water, and that for nonwastewaters
most of the available data are for
organic chemicals that are typically
used as solvents or pesticides. More
information on the development of
treatment standards for these wastes
can be found in the background
document for each treatability group in
the RCRA docket.
(a) Treatment Data for U and P
Nonwastewaters. For the purpose of this
rulemaking. the Agency examined the
relative availability, expense, and ease
of generating new incineration data for
nonwastewater forms of the organic U
and P waste codes. EPA decided to
select for testing a limited number of
compounds representative of the various
classifications inherent to the structure
of these chemicals. These new data
-------
48380 Fedarat RegtoUr / VoL 54. No. Jg4 / Wednesday. November 22, 1S89 / fTopored Rule*
were used in conjunction with previous
data to develop treatment standards
that were then transferred to toe
remaining untested wastes. The
compounds that were tested were
carefully selected as representative of
the trealability of each grottp of waste
codes, based on similarities in chemical
structure {i.e., presence of key functional
groups, elemental composition
(including chlorine, sulfur, and nitrogen},
number of carbon atoms, arrangement
and number of aromatic and
nonaromatic rings, isomer and
homologue series, and degree of
chlorination).
These aew performance data on the
treatment of the representative
compounds were obtained utilizing a
rotary kiln incinerator and performed by
EPA in June, 1989. The feed included
three specific RCRA hazardous wastes
that contained constituents in the
halogenated pesticide and
chlorobenzene treatab&ty group, in
concentrations of up to 8%. The
hazardous wastes from this treatahility
group that were burned include;
Heptachlor process waste (which
contained Chlordane, HeptachJor,
hexachlorobutadieae and
hexachlorocyclopentadlene), DOI4 (EP
Toxic for Methoxycblor), and D016 (EP
Toxic for 2,4-D).
In addition to the three hazardous
wastes, the feed contained fifteen
commercial chemical products
representing other various U and P
waste codes. These commercial
chemical products were used because
the Agency was unable to obtain any
wastes specifically identified as U or P
wastes in the period of time required to
perform the test.
The burn was designed such that the
physical forms, concentratiens, and soil
content of the feed would represent a.
range of wastes likely to exist The
trea lability test consisted of two 6-hour
burns consisting of U tfajqiMt and 7
solids. Clean fin (i.e.. dirt) was added to
produce ash that is necessary in order to
analyze for treated concentrations (or
detection limits), and to simulate a
waste spilled on soil Four sample sets
of ash and scrubber water wene
analyzed for BD AT list constituents.
(More information on the test bora can
be found in the Onsite Engineering
Report of the Third Incineration
Treatabifity Test. July. ISffl.)
The Agency is proposing to ace much
of these data to transfe
r
based standards &OJB flfw compounds
to the varkms U.P.K,«ndD waste
codes where other data are unavailable
or of questionable value. These data wiH
also supplement existing data that have
been judged to represent BDAT lor ether
wastes,
(b) Treatment Data for Uaod P
Wastewaters. Similar to the
aforementioned test bum for
nonwastewaten, the Agency is
conducting wastewater treatment tests
for selected U and P "faytirait asing
wet air oxidation, powdered activated
carbon treatment (PACT), and carbon
adsorption. Since mach of the currently
available wastewaier treatment data is
from the treatment of relatively low
concentrations of U and P constituents
in industrial wastewaters, these studies
have beea particularly designed to
examine the applicability of these
technologies to wastewaters contniang
relatively high coacentratiara of U and
P conflntoents. The data developed in
these studies haw beea placed in the
administrative record for inspection and
comment
For many of the U and P waste codes
in todays rate, concentration-based
standards for die waotewater forms
have been developed based en
concentratioM of the constituents
measured m incinerator scrubber
waters. In general, when the Agency has
appropriate wastewater treatment data
from well-designed and weft-operated
wastewater treatment raits, it prefers to
use these data rather than use scrubber
water concentrations to develop
wastewater treatment standards. This
does not, however, preclude the Agency
from establishing treatment standards
for other wastes based on constituent
concentrations ia incinerator scrubber
waters and given me time constraints
imposed by me statutory deadfine, the
Agency beneves that the use of scrubber
water data for the development of
wastewater standards is a viable
alternative to developing no standard.
Treatment standards for these
wastewaters based on incinerator
scrubber water may also be appropriate
when one considers that Incineration
typically provides significant
destruction (even for wastewaters) and
that some of these wastewaters may
actually contain high concentrations
(near IX TOC] of organics. Furthermore.
commenters to the Second Third
proposed rule, indicated that they were
indeed incinerating many wastewaters
and mat they did not want to be
precluded from doing so where EPA had
proposed only carbon adsorption as a
method of treatment for wastewater
forms of certain U and Porgano-
phosphorus pesticides.
The Agency ha* recently gathered and
analyzed wastewater treatment date
from various sources tm^mjiiy (i) the
Office of Water's Industrial Technology
Division (ITD) and National Pollution
Discharge EUnuaatioa System (NPDES)
data (specifically from toe Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) data base); (2) the
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory (HWESL) database; (3) the
Office of Solid Waste's BOAT data
(from previous land disposal restrictions
rules); and (4) additional wastewaier
treatment data were gathered from
literature articles on wet air oxidation
and PACT. As expected, these data
include the treatment of wastewaters
that are not specifically listed as D, F. K,
U, or P wastewaters. bat do contain
varying concentration* of many of the
corresponding cumUtuents. Wiole these
date were not arauabte in time to
incorporate into the discussion of
individual toeaiabiliry groaps in sections
HLA.2. through ffl. A.7. of today's notice,
or into the background document for
each treatabiHty group, these data are
being placed in the administrative
record for today's notice and the Agency
has been able to develop alternative
standards for wastewaters based on
these data.
These alternative wastewater
treatment standards are presented in
section ffl.A.7. of today's notice as
treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source teaehate. While
these standards are presented on a
constituent basis, they correspond to the
respective waste code. (For example, the
alternative standard for "11220
(toluene)" wastewaters based on these
new data is presented simply as a
standard for "toluene" for wastewater
forms of mufti-source leachate in section
IH.A.7.; the standard for U220 (toluene)
presented in section lHAJ.b. is the
standard based on analysis of scrubber
water.) Thus, the Agency is proposing
these standards as alternative standards
for all U and P wastewaters for which
concentration-based standards based on
incinerator scrubber waters have been
proposed in sections HLA.2. and IILAJ.
of today's preamble and for some
wastewater forms of EP Toxic metals.
Further information on these alternative
standards based on these data can be
found in the "BDAT Background
Document for Waatewaters Containing
BDAT List Constituents" in the
administrative record for today's notice.
Much of these new data for
wastewaters include analysis of
composite samples rather than grab
samples. Thua, the Agency has
developed many of the alternative
concentration-based treatment
standards based oa an analysis of
composite ""f*°t rather than grab
Where data from analysis of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rule.
composite samples were used as the
basis of the treatment standard, the
Agency so indicates in the appropriate
table of treatment standards.
The Chemical Manufacturing
Association (CMA) has calculated
suggested wastewater treatment
standards for many constituents based
on data contained in the OCPSF
database, and has submitted these
suggested limits to the Agency for
review. However, standards based
solely on these data may not be
representative of the treatability of all
wastewaters, in particular wastewater
forms of U, P, and D wastes containing
high concentrations of the respective
chemicals. As an example, the standard
suggested by CMA for chloroform in
wastewaters is lower than that
promulgated by the Agency specifically
for K009 and K010 wastewaters. The
Agency has not completed its review of
CMA's suggested standards; however, it
has placed this information in the
administrative record for today's notice.
(7) Methods of Treatment as UandP
Wastewater Standards. Based on
analytical complications previously
discussed in section IILA.l.h.(2.), the
Agency is proposing certain methods of
treatment as the treatment standard for
many U and P wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Generally, for U and P
nonwastewaters this process is
relatively easy because incineration
processes are relatively indiscriminate
in the destruction of organics due to the
high temperatures, efficient mixing, and
consistent residence times. However, in
the case of wastewater treatment
technologies, there are more chemical
specific factors that are involved such
as: water solubility, instability,
molecular size, volatility, elemental
composition, and polarity of the specific
chemical that is to be treated. Other
waste characteristics will also affect the
efficiency of treatment such as: total
organic carbon, oil and greases, total
dissolved solids, total suspended solids,
pH, and alkalinity/acidity.
For these reasons, the Agency has
grouped the organic U and P waste
codes into treatability groups (as
presented in sections III.A.Z and
I1LA.3.) that are designed to reflect
similarities in wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment besides
similarities in structure or elemental
composition. However, in some cases
these similarities may not reflect
similarities in treatability for all
wastewater treatment technologies. As
a result, the Agency has typically
proposed more than one method of
treatment as the treatment standard for
these U and P wastewater treatability
groups.
In all cases, the Agency believes that
incineration, while not always practical
for wastewaters, will provide an
efficient destruction of these organic U
and P constituents in wastewaters.
While the Agency does not want to
identify incineration as the primary
BDAT treatment technology for these
wastewaters, it also does not want to
preclude its use. In addition, the Agency
does not want to process needless
variances for a technology that is
recognized to be effective. Therefore, in
all cases, "Incineration as a Method of
Treatment" is proposed as one of the
alternative treatment standards for
wastewater forms of these organic U
and P wastes.
The wastewater treatment technology
that most closely resembles incineration
is wet air oxidation. It is specifically
designed to destroy organics in
wastewaters and efficiently oxidizes
organics in aqueous media by operating
at relatively high temperatures and high
pressures. Furthermore, wet air
oxidation is typically performed on
wastewaters that contain relatively high
concentrations of organics (i.e., those
that are at or near the 196 TOC cut-off
for wastewaters). For wastewaters that
contain significantly lower
concentrations of organics, chemical
oxidation and biodegradation can
typically provide the necessary
destruction of organics to levels that can
then be adsorbed onto activated carbon
(as a polishing step). Since these
technologies are known to provide
effective treatment for constituents that
can be analyzed, the Agency is therefore
proposing multiple treatment
technologies for most of the organic U
and P constituents that require specified
methods of treatment. None of these
technologies have been specifically
identified as better than the others due
to the current lack of data for these
constituents that are difficult to analyze,
or for any other surrogate/indicator
parameters. However, the Agency is
currently investigating the potential use ,
of surrogates/indicators that could be
used to ensure complete destruction and
to determine which technology performs
best for these U and P constituents in
wastewaters. The Agency is soliciting
comment on the selection of surrogates
(such as COD, BOD, TOC, and etc.) that
could be established per waste or
technology, and any data that may aid
in the comparison of these technologies
for these wastes. The Agency reminds
commenters that these particularly
difficult to analyze U and P wastewaters
are generated at relatively few facilities.
483|>1
and that surrogates that can be used to
measure performance for these
constituents may be best addressed in
an individual facility's waste analysis
plan.
For quite a few of the organic and
some inorganic U and P wastes that
, require specified methods of treatment,
concentration-based treatment
standards have not been proposed
because the compounds are relatively
unstable in water. This instability
implies that they should easily be
destroyed with any chemical oxidant
(and most probably at ambient
temperature and air pressure). In a
similar manner, biodegradation can be
expected to result in oxidation of certain
U and P organics. Again, due to the
instability of these organic compounds
in water, the Agency believes that
biodegradation can provide effective
removal of some of these organics from
wastewaters.
(8) Regulated Constituents. The
regulated constituents for the D, U, and
P wastes generally are those specific
constituents for which the D, U, or P
waste is listed (as specified in 40 CFR
261.33 (e) and (f)). The regulated
constituents for the F and K wastes
were determined based on waste
characterization, the constituents for
which the F and K waste was listed, and
compounds shown or expected to be
present in the waste. Other than the D
wastes, metals are typically regulated
only for selected U, P, F. and K wastes
in these treatability groups when they
are expected to be present. More detail
on the selection of regulated
constituents can be found in the
background documents for each
treatability subcategory. The proposed
regulated constituents for these wastes
and the proposed treatment standards
are presented in the tables at the end of
each section.
L Procedures for Requesting Additional
Data on Specific Treatment Standards
The Agency is today proposing
treatment standards according to a
relatively rapid schedule. This schedule
is statutorily imposed and requires that
treatment standards must be developed
for all remaining RCRA waste codes by
May 8.1990. If treatment standards are
not developed by this so-called "hard
hammer" date, the wastes are
automatically prohibited from land
disposal by statute.
Every effort has been made to develop
treatment standards for all of these
remaining waste codes in this proposed
rule. In certain cases, however, EPA
expects to receive additional data
during the public comment period
-------
48302
f
. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Propped Rules
pertaining to the proposed treatment
standard. This additional data may be
used to refine the proposed treatment
standard. In order to give other
interested parties the opportunity to
comment on any data 'submitted during
the public comment period. EPA will
make these data available upon specific
request. I
In instances where EPA expects
additional data to be submitted during
the public comment period, the Agency
identifies this potential in the
appropriate section of ;the preamble.
Commenters should attempt to identify
all areas where additional data can be
submitted without the 'Agency
specifically requesting! it. Commenters
should view this proposal as their
opportunity to provide1 the additional
data required to develop these
standards. Data submissions should be
in compliance with all 'appropriate
BDAT data requirements and should
include all appropriate! QA/QC
information. The Agency also points out
that treatment data must include
analyses of treatment residuals and that
operational evidence must be provided
indicating that the treatment system was
both well-designed and well-operated.
Submission of such data does not
guarantee that BDAT virill be developed
based on the submitted data. {EPA notes
that commenters couldihave been
legitimately aware of the need to
generate such data since November,
1984. EPA thus will look with disfavor
on comments protesting the lack of time
to develop such data.) !
Data submitted during the comment
period must be properly noticed and
available to the public. |A11 new data
must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice in order for the Agency to give
subsequent notice of these new data
following the procedures outlined hi this
section. Data received after 30 days will
be placed in the administrative docket
for the final rule, but may not be
considered in development of the final
standards. Given the time constraints
for this rule, data that are submitted as
confidential business information limits
the Agency's ability to incorporate into
these treatment standards.
Commenters wishing'to receive a copy
of any additional data, should
specifically request it in writing and
submit it to the RCRA docket,
identifying the request according to the
specific preamble section numbers and
title of interest (i.e., "IIIA^g.—Arsenic
Stabilization Data"). This request for
additional data may be included as part
of your comments on the overall
proposed rule, or it may be made
separately. The request (for additional
data (as well as all comments on the
overall proposed rule) must be
submitted to the RCRA docket during
the 45-day public comment period—flie
Agency prefers that these requests be
submitted early hi the comment period,
i.e., within 30 days of the notice, in order
to expedite this subsequent notice of
data as it arrives.
The Agency intends to send copies of
additional data only to persons
specifically requesting it, following the .
aforementioned procedures. It will be
extremely burdensome for the Agency to
process requests for data that are
nonspecific (e.g., requests for all data
submissions). The Agency also points
out that all new data will be submitted
to the RCRA docket for public viewing
as rapidly as possible. The Agency will
allow 21 days from the date the
additional data are mailed to those
requesting it for review and submittal of
any written response. Subsequent
comments on the additional data most
be sent to the RCRA docket and be
clearly identified as "Response to
Additional Data Pertaining to * * *"
[preamble sections numbers and specific
treatment standard title].
2. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Halogeriated Organic Wastes
a. Introduction. Many of the chemical*
represented by the U and P wastes and
many of the major constituents present
in several D, F, and K wastes fall under
a general category of chemicals known
as halogenated organics. For the
purposes of assessing BDAT, the
Agency has determined that within this
general category, there are six major
subcategories of wastes based primarily
on similarities m the structure of these
halogenated organic chemicals. These
subcategories are also based partially
on tne industrial use and waste
generation patterns of the waates. These
major subcategories include: chlorinated
aliphatics, halogenated pesticides,
chlorobenzenes, halogenated phenolics,
brominated organics, and miscellaneous
halogenated organics.
(1) Relationship to the California List
Rule for HOCs. The Agency
promulgated treatment standards for
certain California list wastes on July 8,
1987 (52 FR 25780). Treatment standards
were promulgated for certain
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs)
when present in hazardous wastes at a
total HOC concentration of greater than
1,000 parts per million (ppm). as well as
for liquid RCRA hazardous wastes
containing greater than 50 ppm of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Although PCBs are also halogenated
organics, this stricter limit for PCBs was
mandated by HSWA.
There is a regulatory overlap between
treatment standards for California list
HOCs and treatment standard* for
halogenated organics proposed in
today's rule. The Agency has stated in
previous rulemakings (see 52 FR 25773;
53 FR 31187) that, in cases when there is
a regulatory overlap, the more waste-
specific treatment standard and
effective date applies. This principle is
set out in the rules in section 268.32(h).
The concentration-based treatment
standards being proposed today, when
promulgated, will therefore supercede
the California list treatment standards
because they are more specific
treatment standards. However, if there
is a national capacity variance based on
the new standards, the old standards
will continue to apply during the period
of the variance. (See further discussion
of this final point in section III.M.
below.)
(2) Specifying Incineration for
Halogenated Nonwastewaters. As
generated, the majority of the wastes
Hsted in this section of the preamble are
likely to contain greater than 1.000 ppm
of HOCs, and thus land disposal of
these wastes is most likely already
restricted by the California list
prohibition for HOCs. This prohibition
further establishes that BDAT for these
HOCs is Incineration as a Method of
Treatment, with Fuel Substitution as a
Method of Treatment (burning in a
boiler or industrial furnace) allowed as
an alternative. The Agency assumed
that there was sufficient fuel content in
many of the wastes that would fall
under the broad definition of HOC
wastes.
In the proposal for the Second Third
wastes (54 FR 1058, (January 11,1989)),
the Agency presented advance notice
that it was considering the transfer of
performance data to the majority of the
remaining waste codes that contain
halogenated organics from the
incineration of various other
halogenated wastes (such as KOte and
F024). In doing so, the Agency indicated
that incineration was the appropriate
treatment technology and would
probably be determined to be BDAT for
these halogenated organic wastes. (The
Agency in fact, specifically indicated
each waste code that was considered a
halogenated organic.) No comments
were received indicating that any other
technology should be considered BDAT
for the majority of these halogenated
organic wastes.
Due to the high concentration* of
specific, identified halogenated organics
known or anticipated to be present in
these U and P off-spec chemicals; the
relatively high toxicity of some of the
-------
Federal Register / VoL
54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1969 / Proposed Rules
pesticides and miscellaneous
halogenated organic*; the anticipated
low fuel value of these U and P wastes;
and the need for control of HC1
emissions from the destruction of
halogenated organics, the Agency does
not believe that fuel substitution is a
viable alternative for the majority of
specific U and P waste codes identified
in this section.
Jn today's rule, the Agency is
proposing that incineration represents
BOAT for all of the halogenated
organics presented in this section.
Where the Agency is proposing
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment'
as the treatment standard for a
particular halogenated organic waste
code, it has not included fuel
substitution as an alternative. However,
where the Agency has proposed
concentration-based standards, thermal
destruction in fuel substitution units is
not precluded.
(3) Additional Wastewater Treatment
Data. Additional wastewater treatment
data primarily from the Agency's Office
of Water have been recently analyzed
for incorporation into the treatment
standards for many of the U and P
wastes in this section. These data
include the treatment of wastewaters
that are not specifically listed as U or P
wastewaters, but do contain many of
the corresponding U, P, and metal
constituents. While these data were not
available in time to incorporate into this
discussion or into the background
document for these wastes, these data
are being placed in the administrative
record for today's notice. Therefore, the
Agency is not precluded from using
these da la in promulgating the
standards for these wastes. Further
information on these data can be found
in section ni.A.l.h.(6.J.
Alternative standards based on these
data are presented in section in.A.7. of
today's notice for wastewater forms of
mullisource leachate. These standards
are presented on a constituent basis and
correspond to the respective U or P
wastewater. Thus, the Agency is
proposing these standards as alternative
standards for all U and P wastewaters
for which concentration-based
standards based on incinerator scrubber
waters have been proposed in the
following sections.
(4) Specifying Technologies for
Halogenated Wastewaters. Based on
analytical complications previously
discussed in section ULA.lJi.r2.). the
Agency is also proposing certain
methods of treatment as the treatment
standards for many U and P
waslewaters. In the following sections
(IILA.2.b. through f.) of the preamble the
Agency identifies twenty five specific
48393
halogenated organic U and P wastes for
which the Agency is proposing three
treatment technologies as alternative
BDAT treatment standards: (1) Wet air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption; (2) Chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption or (3)
Incineration of wastewaters. Since these
technologies are known to provide
effective treatment for the halogenated
organic constituents within each
treatability group (as identified in
III.A.2.) that can be analyzed, the
Agency is therefore proposing these
multiple treatment technologies for all of
the twenty five U and P halogenated
organics that require specified methods
of treatment.
Biodegradation has not been specified
as an alternative technology for
halogenated organics. because they are
generally thought of as more difficult to
biodegrade than nonhalogenated
organic due to the overall higher toxicity
of the halogenateds compared to their
nonhalogenated counterparts. However,
the Agency solicits comment and data
that would indicate that the twenty five
specific U and P halogenated organics
are similar to the biodegradability of
other halogenated organics and/or other
nonhalogenated organics, and thereby,
potentially serving a» surrogates or
indicators of efficient destruction. While
biodegradation is not specifically
specified as BDAT, it is not precluded
from use as part of a treatment train,
provided that it is not elsewhere
prohibited as land disposal.
Carbon adsorption has been specified
as part of the treatment train because
these particular twenty five halogenated
U and P organics are believed to be
adsorbable when present in low
concentrations, as might be expected in
an effluent from either wet air or
chemical oxidation.
The Agency further recognizes that
while difficulties can arise in specifying
only one treatment method for these
wastewaters (as outlined in greater
detail in section ffl.A,l.h.(7.)), the
Agency must develop a treatment
standard for these wastes to avoid the
hard hammer and at the same time,
somehow justify that these technologies
provide significant treatment. None of
these technologies have been
specifically identified as better than the
others by the Agency because of the
lack of data for these specific twenty
five halogenated organic constituents
(due to the identified analytical
complications) or for any surrogate
parameters.
b. Halogenated Aliphatics. This
subcategory of halogenated organics
consists of six K wastes from the
production of various halogenated
organics and nineteen U wastes. The
individual waste codes are provided at
the beginning of each subheading in this
section, EPA grouped these waste codes
together because the primary
constituents for which the wastes were
listed are halogenated aliphatic
compounds. These compounds are all
open chain, alkane or alkene
hydrocarbons consisting of up to six
carbons, with varying numbers of
hydrogen atoms replaced by chlorine.
The Agency is proposing to transfer
standards for the organic constituents in
these wastes based in part on this
structural similarity. Thus, for purposes
of BDAT, the Agency has grouped all of
these wastes into one general
treatability group identified as
halogenated aliphatics.
(1) K017 and K073 Wastes.
K017—Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the
purification column in the production of
epichlorohydrin.
K073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from
the purification step of the diaphragm cell
process using graphite anodes in chlorine
production.
Treatment standards for K017 and
K073 wastes were originally scheduled
to be promulgated as part of the First
Third rulemaking (Le., they were to be
promulgated by August & 1988). The
Agency did not promulgate standards
for K017 or K073 by August 8, 1988, and
as a result, land disposal of these
wastes are currently subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for all wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K017 are
proposed today based on the transfer of
performance data from incineration of
nonwastewater forms of F024 (wastes
from the production of chlorinated
aliphatics such as distillation residues,
heavy ends, tars, and reactor clean-out
wastes). Treatment standards for F024
were promulgated with the Second
Third wastes on June 8,1989 (54 FR
26594 (June 23,1989)).
Concentration-based treatment
standards for all wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K073 are
proposed today based on the transfer of
performance data from incineration of
nonwastewater forms of K019 (heavy
ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichloride in ethylene dichloride
production). Treatment standards for
K019 were promulgated with the First
Third wastes on August 8, 1988.
The transfer of standards is
dependent upon the constituents present
in each waste and the corresponding
concentrations and waste
characteristics of K019 and FO24. The
Agency compared these data to
-------
48394
Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
determine which of the constituents in
each waste most resembled the
anticipated treatability of the
constituents in K017Jand K073. Details of
the transfers can be found in the
Background Documeht for K017 and
K073 Wastes in the IjlCRA docket.
The Agency reminds commenters that
there are very few (if any) of these
wastes that are currently being
generated as originally listed and that in
practice, the standards will probably
only be necessary for residues from
previous disposal. Th' e Agency believes
that these residues should be similar or
less difficult to treat than the original
waste as generated.
(2) K021 Waste. \
K021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst from
fluoromethane production.
Treatment standards for K021 wastes
were originally scheduled to be
promulgated as part of the First Third
rulemaking (i.e., K0211 wastes were to be
promulgated by August 8,1988). A
treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" for
K021 nonwastewaters was promulgated
on August 8,1988. This standard,
however, was subsequently revised on
May 2,1989 (54 FR 18)336) to be
applicable only to "Npnwastewater
forms of these wastes generated by the
process described in the listing
description and disposed after August
17,1988, and not generated in the course
of treating wastewate'r forms of these
wastes [Based on No Generation]." The
Agency did not promulgate standards
for the wastewater fo'rms of K021 by
August 8,1988, and as a result, land
disposal of K021 wastewaters is
currently subject to the "soft hammer"
provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
In the proposal for the Second Third
wastes (54 FR at 1100 (January 11.
" 1989)), EPA stated its intention to
develop concentration-based treatment
standards for all forms of K021 prior to
May 8,1990, and has therefore decided
to propose to revoke the promulgated
treatment standard of!"No Land
Disposal Based on NoJ Generation" for
K021 nonwastewaters. This is because
there is a reasonable (ihance that these
nonwastewaters may jbe generated.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for organics in wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of K021 are
proposed today based; on the transfer of
performance data from incineration of
nonwastewater forms of K019 (heavy
ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichloride in ethylene dichloride
production). Treatment standards for
K019 nonwastewaters |were promulgated
with the First Third wastes on August 8.
1988. Concentration-based treatment
standards for antimony in
nonwastewater forms of K021 are
proposed today based on the transfer of
performance data from the stabilization
of ash from the incineration of
nonwastewater forms of K048 (dissolved
air flotation (DAF) float from the
petroleum refining industry) and K051
(API separator sludge from the
petroleum refining industry) wastes.
Because the concentration of
antimony in the untreated incinerator
ash was relatively low compared to
concentrations of antimony that might
be expected in a K021 waste or clean-up
residue, the Agency is simultaneously
proposing a concentration-based
standard for antimony nonwastewaters
of 5.6 ppm, based on the performance of
vitrification of arsenic wastes (see
section III.A.5.(a.) of today's notice
describing the development of this
arsenic standard for D004 wastes). The
Agency believes that this transfer of
treatment performance data may be
appropriate due to the chemical
similarity between arsenic and
antimony. The Agency, however is
seeking comment of which standard is
more appropriate for K021 waste.
The treatment standard for antimony
in K021 wastewaters is based on
concentrations found in the scrubber
water from the incineration of K048 and
K051. However, additional data are
available for the treatment of antimony
in wastewaters and as a result the
Agency is simultaneously proposing a
concentration-based standard for
antimony wastewaters of 1.9 ppm, based
on the performance of lime precipitation,
sedimentation, and filtration (see
previous discussion on these additional
data in III.A.2.a.(3.) above). Details on
the transfers can be found in the
Background Document for K021 wastes
in the RCRA docket.
(3) K02B, K.029, K095 and K096
Wastes.
K028—Spent catalyst from the
. hydrochlorinator reactor in the production
of l.l.l-trichloroethane.
K029—Waste from the product steam stripper
in the production of 1,1.1-trichloroethane.
K09S—Distillation bottoms from the
production of l.l.l-trichloroethane.
K096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of l.l.l-
trichloroethane.
Treatment standards for K028, K029,
K095, and K096 wastes were originally
scheduled to be promulgated as part of
the Second Third rule. Treatment
standards were only promulgated,
however, for the wastewater forms of
K028 and the nonwastewater forms of
K028, K029. K095 and K096. Since the
Agency did not promulgate standards
for the wastewater forms of K029, K095.
and K096 by their statutory deadline,
land disposal of these wastewaters are
currently subject to the "soft hammer"
provisions in 40 CFR 268.8.
Initially, the Agency stated that there
was no need to develop wastewater
standards for K029, K095, and K096
because it was unlikely that they were
being generated due to the recycling and
generation practices for these three
wastes. However, comments were
received that indicated that the
likelihood for their generation was
reasonably good. While the Agency
agreed with the commenters,
concentration-based treatment
standards were not promulgated
because none had been proposed.
In today's rule, the Agency is
proposing concentration-based
standards for organics in K029, K095 and
K096 wastewaters based on the transfer
of performance data from rotary kiln
incineration of K019 (heavy ends from
the distillation of ethylene dichloride in
ethylene dichloride production)
nonwastewaters. These treatment
standards for organics have been
developed similar to those promulgated
for K028 wastewaters. The Agency is
however, proposing to revoke the
reserved status for metal standards in
K029, K095 and K096 wastewaters. The
Agency has determined that based on
waste characterization data on the
corresponding nonwastewaters, it is
believed that these three wastes are
essentially all organic and would not be
expected to contain any BOAT list metal
constituents.
The Agency stated that it intended to
develop standards for metals in
nonwastewater forms of K028 and
propose them with the Third wastes
prior to promulgation by May 8,1990.
The Agency reserved standards based
on TCLP analyses for chromium and
nickel in the promulgated standards for
K028 nonwastewaters. While EPA
proposed standards based on
stabilization of K048 and K051
incinerator ash for K028
nonwastewaters as part of the Second
Third proposed rule, the Agency did not
promulgate these standards as proposed
because new data on the stabilization of
F024 incinerator ash were developed.
However these data were received too
late to be promulgated in the final rule
for Second Third wastes (54 FR 26617).
The Agency believes that these new
data for stabilized F024 ash more .closely
resemble what would be expected for
stabilized K028 ash. Thus, treatment
standards for metal constituents in K028
nonwastewaters are proposed today
based on the transfer of TCLP data from
stabilization of F024 wastes. These
-------
treatment standards for metals are
simultaneously being proposed for F024
nonwaatewaters in today's rule. The
Agency will consider all comments on
the standards for F024 as they also
relate to K028 nonwastewaters.
(3) U Wastes for Which EPA is
Proposing Concentration-Based
Standards,
UQ«—Chloroform
U074—1.4-Dichloro-2-butene
U075—1,1-Dichloroethane
U077—1,2-Dichloroethane
U076—l.l-Dichloroelhylene
U079—1,2-Dichloroethylene
U080—Methylene chloride
U083—t.Z-Dichloropropane
UOS*—1.3-Dichloropropene
U131—Hexachloroethane
U1B4—Pentachloroethane
U206—1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroe thane
U209—1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
U2IO—Telrachloroethylene
U211—Carbon tetrachJoride
U22&—1,1.1-Trichloroethane
U227—1.1,2-Trichloroethane
U228—Trichloroethylene
U243—Hexachloropropene
In developing the treatment standards
for these nineteen halogenated aliphatic
U wastes, the Agency reviewed
treatability and detection limit data
from several different incineration test
burns conducted by EPA for various F
and K wastes. These data represented a
myriad of different hazardous wastes
that were generated and treated at
several different incineration facilities.
The Agency determined that there
was substantial treatment data for many
of these halogenated aliphatics from the
incineration of K019 and F024. Data from
the test bums of both F024 and K019.
wastes included detection limit
information on the majority of the
halogenated aliphatic chemicals which
correspond to these U wastes. The
waste characterization data for the
untreated wastes showed
concentrations of these halogenated
aliphatic constituents ranging from very
low levels in some wastes, to high levels
in others. In general, the majority of the
measured values for halogenated
aliphatics in the incinerator residues
were approximately at the detection
limit for all of the constituents analyzed.
In the incinerator ash, the measured
values or detection limits ranged from
<0.005 mg/kg to <10 mg/kg. In the
scrubber water, the measured values or '
detection limits ranged from <0.005 ppm
to
-------
48396 Federal Register / V(A. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K028
CNonwastewaters] '
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel _
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TO.P (mg/l)
0.073
0.021
0.088
1 These standards do not replace the standards
for the organics in K028 nonwastewaters that were
promulgated with the Second Third wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K029
(Wastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Chloroform
1 ,2-Oichloroethane -
1.1-Dtchloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride....
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.033
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K073
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Carbon tetrachtoride
Chloroform
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachtoroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
6.2
6.2
28
6.2
6.2
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K073
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hexachloroettiane ....
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.008
0.008
0.033
0.008
0.008
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K095
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
1,1,1,2-1
1.1,2,2-1
Tetrachl
1,1,2-Tri
Trichlorc
Hsxachl
Pentach
'atrachloroethane
"etrachtoroethane :
oroethene
chloroethane
lethena
oroetiiane
kxoethane
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.007
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K096
CWastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
1.1.1.2-T
1.1,2.2-T
Tetrachk
1,1,2-Trw
Trichloro
1,3-Oich
Pentach
1,2,4-Trh
etrachloroethane
etrachloroethane
xoethene
ethene
orobenzene
oroethane
;htofObenzene
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.007
o.c«:3
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U044, U074, U076, U077, U078, U079,
U080, U083, U084, U131, U184, U208,
U209, U210, U211, U226, U227. U228,
AND U243
CNonwastewaters]
Waste
code
U044
U074
U074
U076
U077
U078
U079
U080
U083
U084
U084
U131
U184
U208
U209
U210
U211
U226
U227
U228
U243
Regulated constituent
Chloroform
trans-l ,4-Dtehkxo-2-butene...
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,1 -Dichkxoethane
1,2-Dichkxoemane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1.2-Dichloroetnylene ....
Methylene chloride
1 ,2-Dicriloropropane...
cis-1,3-Dichloroprop«ne
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachkxoethana
1.1,1 ,2-Tetractikxoethane —
1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachkxoethane
Tetrachkxoethylene
Carbon tetrachiondo
1 ,1 ,1-Trichtoroethane
1,1 .2-Trichtoroethane..
Trictiloroethylene
Hexacnkxopropene _....
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
cofnposrtion
(mg/kg)
6.2
30
30
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
31
15
15
15
30
31
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.6
37
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U044, U074. U076, U077, U078, U079,
U080, U083, U084, U131, U184, U208,
U209, U210, U211, U226, U227, U228.
and U243
[Wastewaters] >
Waste
code
UQ44
U074
U074
U076
U077
U078
U079
• U080
U083
U084
U084
U131
U184
U208
U209
U210
U211
U226
U227
U228
U243
Regulated constituent
Chloroform
trans-1 ,4-Oichloro-2-butene.-
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,1-Dichloroethane .-.
1 ,2-DJchloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene ....
1 ,2*Dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-Dfchloropropene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Hexachloroethane.. . .
Pentachtoroetnane
1 .1 .1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ....
Carbon tetrachloride
Hexachloropropene
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.007
0.034
0.034
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.037
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.034
0.037
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.04'
1 Note: Alternative standards for these U and P
Wastewaters are also proposed and are presenter) in
section III.A.7. as standards (ex tne cofresponjing
chemical in wastewater forms o< Multi-source Leacfi-
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in sectkn !II.A.1.h.(6.)(b.)
c. Halogenated Pesticides and
Chlorobenzenes. This subcalegor, of
halogenated organics consists of six
characteristic D wastes, nine K Bastes
from the production of various
halogenated pesticides and
chlorobenzenes, and twenty si: U and P
wastes. EPA grouped these wa 'e codes
together because the primary
constituents for which the wastt were
listed are halogenated organic
compounds that are (or have been)
primarily used as pesticides. While
other halogenated organics have bef
(or could be) used as pesticides, the
Agency has grouped these particular
halogenated organics together due to
their similarities in their common use as
pesticides, their ability to be analyzed,
and similarities in structure. Thus, for
purposes of BOAT, the Agency has
grouped all of these wastes into one
general treatability group identified as
"halogenated pesticides and
chlorobenzenes".
This subcategory has been further
divided into five subcategories based
primarily on similarities in chemical
structure for the purposes of transferring
treatability data. These subcategories
include: 1) Chlorinated Norbornane
anrf ISInrhnrnpnp norivativpa- ?1
-------
Federd RagUte* / VoL 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
Chlorobenzenes; 3)
Chlorophenoxycarboxylic Acids and
Derivatives; 4) Chlorinated Diphenyls:.
and 5) LJndane and
Hexachlorobutadiene. The individual
waste codes within each subcategory
are provided at the beginning of each
subheading in section III.A.2.c.(3.) of
today's preamble.
(1) Availability of Treatment Data for
These Wastes. The Agency has
determined that only a limited amount
of treatability data on halogenated
pesticides and chlorofaenzenes exist. In
section IILA.l.h,(6.) of today's preamble.
the Agency presented information on an
extensive June, 1989 teat burn for
multiple chemical wastes including
several halogenated pesticides. The data
obtained from this test bum were used
in conjunction with other existing
Incineration data to develop proposed
treatment standards for the pesticides
tested. The Agency is also proposing to
transfer these performance data to the
remaining untested pesticide wastes.
The feed wastes for this test burn
included three RCRA hazardous wastes
that contained constituents in the
halogenated pesticide and
chlorobenzene treatability group present
in concentrations of up to 8% by weight
These three wastes included: (1) a
Heptachlor process waste which
contained Chlordane, Heptachlor.
hexachlorobutadiene and
hexachlprocyclopentadiene; (2) a D014
(EP Toxic for Methoxychlor) waste; and
(3) a D016 (EP Toxic for 2.4-D) waste.
Specific details and additional
information on the test burn can be
found in the Onsite Engineering Report
of the Third Third Incineration
Treatability Test. July. 1989.
The Agency is proposing to transfer
concentration-based standards from
these compounds as well as from the
other existing data to the remaining D,
U, P, and K halogenated pesticide and
chlorobenzene waste codes. More
information on the development and
transfer of treatment standards for these
wastes can be found in the background
document for these wastes in the RCRA
docket,
(2) Treatment Standards for
Wastewaters. The treatment standards
for wastewater forms of the U wastes
presented in the tables following this
section, have been calculated based
primarily on the detection limits of these
constituents in scrubber waters from
incineration of nonwastewaters
containing halogenated pesticides.
However, additional data are available
for the treatment of these constituents in
wastewaters and alternative standards
based on these data are presented in
section IH.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. (See previous discussions on
these data and alternative standards in
section ffl.A.l.h.(6.) and IH.A.2.a.(3.)).
(3) Regulation of EP Toxic
Halogenated Pesticides The new data
• from EPA's June, 1989 testing of rotary
kiln incineration on multiple wastes,
including D014 and D016 wastes, (see
section IU.A.l.h.(6.)) indicate that all of
the halogenated pesticides that were
present in the feed can be incinerated to
detection limits (as measured using
analysis of total constituent
concentrations in both the ash and
scrubber water). As a result,
concentration-based standards that are
near the detection limits in their
respective media (i.e., wastewaters and
nonwastewaters) are being proposed
today for all of the halogenated
pesticides in the respective U. P. and K
wastes ,of this treatability group. The
Agency believes that the wastes tested
represent the most difficult to treat
wastes.
The Agency is proposing two options
for treatment standards for EP Toxic
halogenated pesticides wastes (D012,
D013. D014, D015, D016 and D017).
Based on the aforementioned data, the
Agency is proposing one option of
concentration-based treatment
standards based on the ability of
incineration to destroy these pesticides
to detection limits. (Note: These
proposed standards are based on the
analysis of total constituents rather than
analysis of EP or TCLP leachates.) The
Agency believes that this provides a
consistency in approach with the
proposed treatment standards for the
corresponding U, P and K wastes.
Because these data indicate that these
D pesticides can be incinerated to
detection limits, the Agency further
believes that compliance with this
standard can be demonstrated by
performing a total constituent analysis
of the ash samples for these pesticides
rather than performing the more
expensive and more time-consuming
extraction procedure for these
pesticides. One can then assume that
the total concentration of the pesticide
measured in the incinerator ash
corrected for the appropriate dilution
factor (which is part of the extraction
procedure protocol) provides a
reasonable surrogate for actual
measurement of the concentration in an
extract provided that the total
concentration is expected to be near the
detection limit.
As discussed in detail in section III.C.
of today's preamble, the Agency has
determined that it may have the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes. The Agency is also
proposing a second option of limiting the
treatment standard for D012, D013. D014,
D015, D016 and D017 wastes to their
respective characteristic levels. The
Agency believes that the total
constituent standards proposed in
option one are preferable in that it
assures the public that these chemicals
are being destroyed to the best levels
that are achievable. This comports with
the statutory policy of reducing the
uncertainties inherent in hazardous
waste land disposal, as well as specific
Congressional directives to destroy
hazardous organic constituents, see, e.g.,
130 Cong. Rec. S9179 (July 25,1984)
(statement of Sen. Chaffee), and results
in minimization of threats to human
health and the environment. EPA also
finds it anomalous that standards for the
same pesticides will be lower than the
characteristic level when the pesticides
are disposed in their U or P form, but
cannot be so limited when the pesticides
are discarded in the EP toxic form. This
result does not appear to further any
statutory policy. The Agency
specifically solicits comments on these
two options, and on the policy support
for choosing a level based on the
characteristic level.
The Agency points out to the
commenters that there are not very
many of these wastes being generated
and that although the treatment
standards are based on incineration for
these wastes, the use of other
technologies is permitted to achieve
these concentration-based standards. In
addition, the Agency refers commenters
to section III.A.l.g. of today's preamble
for a more complete discussion of other
general issues pertaining to all
characteristic wastes, including these D
pesticides.
(4) Discussion of Individual
Treatability Groups—(a) Chlorinated
Norbornane and Norbornene
Derivatives.
D012—EP Toxic for Endrin.
D015—EP Toxic for Toxaphene.
K032—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of Chlordane.
K033—Wastewater treatment sciubber
water from the chlorination of
cyclopentadiene in the production of
Chlordane.
K034—Filter solids from filtration of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the
production of Chlordane.
K041—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of Toxaphene.
K097—Vacuum stripper discharge from
the Chlordane chlorinator in the
production of Chlordane.
K098—Untreated process wastewater
from the production of Toxaphene.
-------
P004—Aldrin
P037—Dieldrin
P050—Endosulfan
P051—Endrin and metabolites
P059—Heptachlor
P060—Isodrin
P123—Toxaphene
U036—Chlordane
U130—Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
U142—Kepone '
The Agency has grouped these
eighteen waste codes together because
they all contain or represent
halogenated pesticides that have the
structural classification known as
chlorinated norbornane and norhomene
derivatives. This classification basically
consists of compounds having
multicyclical, fused-ring. hydrocarbon
structures (one of which being a six-
membered ring] that have varying
numbers of hydrogen atoms replaced by
chlorine, methyl groups or other simple
functional groups. Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene and Kepone, the
compounds for which U130 and U142
were listed, are exceptions to the
norfaornene classification since they do
not have a six-membered ring in their
structure. However, their structures are
somewhat similar to the norbornane and
norbornene derivatives, and thus, are
included in this subcategory of
halogenated pesticides.
The Agency has data on incineration
of Heptachlor, Chlordane, and
hexachlorocyclopentadiene that were
used in developing the standards for this
subgroup of halogenated pesh'cides. The
new data from EPA's June 1989 testing
of rotary kiln incineration indicate that
Heptachlor, Chlordane and
hexachlorocyclopentadiene can be
incinerated to detection limits (as
measured in both the ash and scrubber
water). As a result, concentration-based
standards based on these detection
limits (using analysis of total constituent
concentrations) are being proposed
today for P059, U036, and U130 wastes.
Standards for P004, PD37, P050, P051,
P060, P123 and U142 are being proposed
based on detection limits for the
corresponding constituents from
fourteen incineration treatment tests.
In a similar manner, concentration-
based standards have been developed
for the major hazardous constituents
anticipated to be present in K032, K033,
K034. K041. K097, and K088 wastes. The
organic constituents selected for
regulation in these K wastes are
specified in the treatment standards at
the end of this section. Details on the
selection of constituents and the transfer
of performance data for these wastes
are provided in the oackground
document for these halogenated
pesticide wastes.
As discussed earlier in this section.
the Agency is today proposing two sets
of concentration-based standards for
D012 and D015 characteristic wastes.
One set of standards is based on the
characteristic levels and the other set of
standards were developed from
incineration treatment data.
Endosulfan, the compound for which
PC60 was listed as a hazardous waste,
commonly exists as a mixture of two
isomers (i.e., Endosulfan I and
Endosulfan n). Both can be analyzed by
SW-648 Method 8060 for organochlorine
pesticides. In fact, analytical
laboratories typically report analysis for
each. Accordingly, the concentration-
based standards for P050 are proposed
for Endosulfan I and H. In addition,
Endosulfan can be converted to
Endosulfan sulfate in environmental
samples. The Agency anticipates that
Endosulfan sulfate, which is also on the
Priority Pollutant List used by the
Agency's Office of Water, will be
typically found in the presence of
Endosulfan.
In a similar manner, Heptachlor (P059)
can be commonly converted to
Heptachlor epoxide in certain
environmental conditions. Again
analytical laboratories typically report
results for Heptachlor and for
Heptachlor epoxide (which is also on
the Priority Pollutant List). Accordingly,
concentration-based standards for P059
are today proposed for Heptachlor and
Heptachlor epoxide.
POS1 is specifically listed in 40 CFR
261.33(e) as "Endrin and metabolites".
The most common metabolite of Endrin
is the Priority Pollutant, Endrin
aldehyde. Concentration-based
standards for P051 are thus proposed for
Endrin and Endrin aldehyde.
(b) Chlorobenzenes.
K042—Heavy ends or distillation
residues from the distillation of
tetrachlorobenzene in the production
of2.4,5-T.
K085—Distillation of fractionation
column bottoms from the production
of chlorobenzenes.
K105—Separated aqueous stream from
the reactor product washing step in
the production of chlorobenzenes.
U037—Chlorobenzene
U070—1,2-Dichlorobenzene
U071—1,3-Dichlorobenzene
U072—1,4-Dichlorobenzene
U127—Hexa chlorobenzene
U183—Pentachlorobenzene
U185—Pentachloronitrobenzene
U207—l,2A5-Tetrachlorobenzene
The Agency has grouped these three K
wastes and eight U wastes together
because they all contain or are
represented by halogenated organks
that have the structural classification
known as chlorobenzenes. These
chemicals consist of one benzene ring
with increasing chlorine substitution
and their associated isomers.
The Agency has data on the
incineration of all of the chlorobenzenes
with the exception of 1,3-
dichlorobenzene. More information on
these data can be found in the
background document for these wastes.
These data were used to develop
standards for all of the chlorobenzene
wastes in this treatabih'ty group.
Treatment standards for 1,3-
dichlorobenzene were developed from
examination of detection limit data for
this constituent from the fourteen
incineration treatment tests.
The data indicate that these chemicals
can be incinerated to at or near
detection limits for these chemicals,
which generally range in the treatment
residuals from < 0.005 ppm to <10 ppm
in the ash and from < 0.002 mg/1 to
<0.013 mg/1 in the scrubber water. As a
result, EPA is proposing concentration-
based standards based on these
detection limits (using analysis of total
constituent concentrations) for the
organic constituents in these waste
codes. These incineration data are also
the only available treatment data for
these wastes. More information on the
development of these standards can be
found in the background document for
these wastes in the RCRA Docket.
For K085 wastes the Agency
determined that the untreated wastes
often contained various concentrations
of PCBs. As indicated in the proposed
rule for Second Third wastes, there were
some indications that some K08S wastes
may contain greater than 50 ppm of
PCBs. However, the Agency could not
verify that these levels were always
exceeded. Nevertheless, the Agency has
decided to propose concentration-based
treatment standards for PCBs for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of K086. These standards are listed for
seven of the common mixtures of PCBs
known originally by the brand name of
Aroclor (i.e., the proposed standards are
listed for Aroclor 1016,1221,1232,1242,
1248,1254, and 1260). If K065 Wastes
exceed 50 ppm PCBs. they must be
incinerated in a TSCA permitted facility
(several of the commercial facilities that
are permitted for RCRA wastes are also
permitted for PCB contaminated wastes
under TSCA).
(c) Chlorophenoxycarboxylic Acids
and Derivatives.
D016-^EP Toxic for 2,4-D
D017—EP Toxic for 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
U240—2,4-D, sal's and esters
-------
These three waste codes have been
grouped together because they contain
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(commonly referred to as 2,4-D), 2,4,5-
tnchlorophenoxypropionic acid
(commonly referred to as 2,4,5-TP), or
salts and esters of 2,4-D. All of these
chemicals are classified as
chlorophenoxy carboxylic acids or
esters. Ths functional groups common to
these compounds are an aromatic ring, a
carbon-oxygen ester linkage, and •
several chlorine atoms (two or three) on
the aromatic ring.
The Agency has data on the
incineration of 2,4-D that were used in
developing the standards for D016 and
U240. The data indicate that 2.4-D can
be incinerated to detection limits in the
ash and in the scrubber water (based on
analysis of total constituent
concentrations). Detection limit data for
2,4,5-TP in fourteen Incineration teats
were used in developing treatment
standards for D017. The Agency is
proposing concentration-based
standards for these wastes based on
their respective detection limits.
According to 40 CFR 261.33(f), wastes
identified as U240 are listed for the
presence of 2.4-D or its various salts
and/or esters. Because 2,4-D salts and
esters are not analyzed as 2.4-D, the
Agency is today proposing "Incineration
as a Method of Treatment" for 2,4-D
salts and esters identified as U240
nonwastewaters. For the wastewater
forms of 2,4-D salts and esters. EPA is
proposing a treatment standard of "Wet
Air Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation.
Followed by Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment".
(See discussion on selecting these
technologies as BOAT for halogenated
organics in section ffi.A.2.a.(4.) above.)
These wastewater technologies are
appropriate for these constituents and
have been demonstrated and/or
promulgated for similar U and P waste
codes. The use of other technologies is
not precluded prior to or following the
use of these specified technologies
provided the other technologies do not
allow land disposal (i.e., land
treatment). For U240 wastes expected to
be simply 2.4-D. the Agency is also
proposing concentration-based
standards based on the analysis for only
2,4-D. Thus, where a facility can
reasonably assume that only 2,4-D is
being handled, only the concentration-
based treatment standard for 2,4-D
would be applied. However, should one
expect that salts or esters could be
formed during storage, treatment, or
disposal, the U240 wastes would have to
be treated according to the standard
methodology for salts and esters.
As discussed earlier in this section,
the Agency is today proposing two sets
of concentration-based standards for
D018 and D017 characteristic wastes.
One set of standards is based on the
characteristic levels and the other set of
standards were developed from
incineration treatment data.
Accuracy data for these compounds
from the test burn data indicate a highly
variable recovery of spiked ash samples.
This, coupled with the fact that U240 is
listed as 2,4-D, salts and esters, has led
the Agency to simultaneously propose
an alternative treatment standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for all three of these wastes! The
Agency is specifically soliciting
comment and data on the routine
achievability of these standards for
chlorophenoxy carboxylic acids and
esters. In particular, the Agency is
requesting QA/QC data as well as
detection limit data (as measured in ash
samples from the incineration of these
or similar wastes) for not only 2,4-D and
2,4.5-TP, but also the salts and esters of
2.4-D.
(d) Chlorinated Diphenyls.
D014—EP Toxic for Methoxychlor
U038—Chlorobenzilate
U060—ODD
U061—DDT
U132—Hexachlorophene
U247—Methoxychlor
These six waste codes have been
grouped together because they all
contain halogenated pesticides
classified as chlorinated diphenyl
compounds. Diphenyls are compounds
consisting of two benzene rings attached
to a single, common carbon atom.
(Diphenyls are not to be confused with
biphenyls which have the structure of
two benzene rings attached directly to
each other.) The chlorinated diphenyls
represented by these waste codes have
varying degrees of chlorine substitution
on the benzene rings and on the carbon
in the middle.
The Agency has data on the
incineration of Methoxychlor that were
used in developing the standards for
0014 and U247. The data indicate that
Methoxychlor can be incinerated to
detection limits in the ash and in the
scrubber water. Standards for the
remaining waste codes in this
treatability group were developed using
detection limit data from fourteen
incineration treatment tests. As a result,
concentration-based standards based on
these detection limits (using analysis of
total constituent concentrations) are
being proposed today for U038, U060,
U061, U132, and U247 wastes. As with
the other characteristic pesticide D
wastes, the standard for D014
(Methoxychlor) is being proposed as
two sets of concentration-based
standards. One set of standards is based
on the characteristic levels and the other
set of standards were developed from
incineration treatment data.
ODD and DDT, the compounds for
which U060 and U061 were respectively
listed, can both exist as one of two
isomers (i.e., o,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDD;
o,p'-DDT and p.p'-DDT respectively). All
of these isomers can be analyzed by
SW-848 Method 8080 for organochlorine
pesticides. Analytical results for DDD
and DDT are often reported separately
for each isomer. However, the
predominant isomer for both is the p,p'-
isomer. Because of this, the Agency is
proposing that the concentration-based
standards for U060 and U061 are based
on the analysis for both isomers. In
addition, DDD and DDE are common
breakdown products of DDT.
Accordingly, the Agency is today
proposing to regulate the two isomers of
DDD, DDE and DDT in U061 wastes.
However, the Agency is soliciting
comment on the need to regulate these
waste codes for all isomers of the
constituents and their breakdown
products, and is not precluded from
promulgating the standards for only the
p,p'- isomers.
(e) Lindane and
Hexachlorobutadiene.
D013—EP Toxic for Lindane
U128—Hexachlorobutadiene
U129—Lindane
Lindane (U129) is the gamma- isomer
of a class of compounds known as
hexachlorocyclohexanes (a cyclic six
membered hydrocarbon ring with a
chlorine substituted on each carbon)
and is often referred to as "gamma-
BHC" (Note: BHC is an abbreviation for
benzene hexachloride—which is a
misnomer because benzene is not part
of the structure). Hexachlorobutadiene
(U128) has been placed in this
subcategory because it has the same
number of chlorine atoms (six) and has
a hydocarbon structure consisting of
four carbon atoms linked by a
conjugated double bond system. Both of
these chemicals are thus chlorinated
aliphatics and both were typically used
as pesticides or in the production of
pesticides. The three wastes represented
by these chemicals have not been
grouped with the chlorinated aliphatics
due to the differences in use of the
compounds. (The chlorinated aliphatics
discussed in section IU.A.2.a. "re
typically used as solvents.)
The Agency has incineration data for
hexachlorobutadiene from the June, 1989
test burn. In addition to the data from
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 /Wednesday. November 22. 1980 / Proposed Rules
the June, 1989 test burn, the Agency has
detection limit data for
hexachlorobutadiene in ash samples of
K019. These K019 data consists of six
sample sets of <10 ppm in the ash and
<0.01mg/l in the scrubber water from
rotary kiln incineration. As a result,
concentration-based standards based on
detection limits for hexachlorobutadiene
(using analysis of total constituent
concentrations) are being proposed
today for the U128 and U129.
Lindane is the most common isomer of
hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC). Typical
commercial mixtures of Lindane were
manufactured such that three other
isomers were present in reasonably high
concentrations: alpha-, beta-, and delta-
BHC. Analytical results for
hexachlorocyclohexane are often
reported for all four of these isomers
(which are also Priority Pollutants).
Accordingly, the Agency is today
proposing concentration-based
standards for all four isomers for wastes
identified as U129. As with the other
characteristic pesticide D wastes, the
standard for D013 (Characteristic for
Lindane) is being proposed as two sets
of concentration-based standards. One
set of standards is based on the
characteristic levels and the other set of
standards were developed from
incineration treatment data.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
[NonwastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Chlordane „
Heptacnlor
Heptachtor epoxide
Maximum for
•nysmgrt
grab sample.
total
comooaKion
(mg/kg)
2.0
0.13
0.066
0.066
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Chlordane ._
Heptacnlor
Heptachlor epoxide _
Maximum for
•ny single
grab sample,
Jptal
cotnposilfori
(mg/l)
0.047
0.00039
0.00022
0.00022
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K033
[Nonwastewatare]
Regulated constituent
Hexacrtlofocyctooemadiene
Maximum
tor any
sampw,
total
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 43401
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K08S
CWastewatersI
Regulated constituent
Chtorobaozeoe,..,,,-,,... „ _..
o-Dicnlorobenzene _™
nvOicnlorobenzene
p-Dicniorobenzane .„„_„..„...._.,„...
1.2,4-Trfchiorobenzene
Peniacnkxobenzine
Hexaehtorobenztne .
A/odor 1016..™...,,
Arodor 1221,»
Aroctor 1 232,,,,
Arodor 1242™
Arodor 1248, . .
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260. ,
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.00038
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K097
tNonwastewatere]
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocydopemadiene
ChkxtUno,.., ,
Heptaehlor ,
HepUcNor epoxide...
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
2.0
0.13
0.066
0.066
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K097
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
HexacMorocydopentadiene
CNcrftne „„.
HeptacMor..™.. „
Heplachtor epoxide „
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/0
0.047
0.00039
0.00022
0.00022
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K098
CNonwatiewatars]
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
COfDOOSrtfOfl
(mg/kg)
0.13
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K098
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Toxapl
-
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.00039
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene _
Chtorot
o-Diehk
p-Dichl<
2,4,5-Ti
2.4,6-Tf
2-ChlOf
Phenol
xobenzene _
xobenzene
Ichlorophenol
ichlorophenol
ophenol
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
BenzerM
Chlorob
o-Dichlo
p-Dicnlo
2,4,5-Tn
2.4.6-Tri
2-CWorc
Phenol..
3
anzene
robenzene
robenzene ...................... .
chlorophenol —
chkxophenol _
phenol
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P004,
P037, P050, P051, P059, P060, P123.
U036. U037, U038. U060, U061. U070.
U071, U072, U127, U128, U129. U130,
U132. U142, U183, U185, U207. U240,
AND U247
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste
code
P004
P037
P050
P050
P050
P051
P051
P059
P059
P060
P123
Aldrin _.._.
Dieldrin
Endosuifan 1
EndosuKan II
Endosuifan sutfate.
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor _
Heptachtor epoxide
Isodrin
Toxaphene _
Maximum tot
any single
grab sample,
compoeMon
(mg/kg)
0.066
0.13
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.066
0.066
0.010
1.3
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P004,
P037, P050, P051. P059, P060, P123,
U036, U037, U038, U060, U061. U070,
U071. U072, U127, U128, U129, U130,
U132, U142, U183, U185, U207, U240,
AND U247— Continued
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste
code
U036
U037
U038
U060
U060
U061
U061
U061
U061
U061
U061
U070
U071
U072
U127
U128
U129
U129
U129
U129
U130
U132
U142
U183
U185
U207
U240
U247
Regulated constituent
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
o.p'-DDD
' p.p'-DDO ..
o.p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
O.p'-DDD .
p p'-DDD
o.p'-OOE.. .
p,p'-DOE
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dfchlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
detta-BHC
gamma-BHC (LJndane)
Hexachtorocyclopentadiene .
Kepone
Pentachtorobenzene
Perrtachtoronrtrobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlcrobenzene .
2,4-D
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
0 13
5.7
66
0 067
.1 0.087
0 087
.1 0.067
0.087
0.087
0.067
1 0.087
6.2
6.2
6.2
37
28
1 0.066
0.066
1 0.066
1 0.066
1 4.8
1.1
0.043
| 37
4.8
19
10
I Methoxychlor ; o is
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P004,
P037, P050, P05I, P059, P060, P123,
U036, U037, U038, U060, U061, U070,
U071.U072, U127, U128, U129, U130,
U132, U142, U183, U185, U207, U240,
AND U247
[Wastewaters]'
Waste
code
P004
P037
P050
P050
P050
P051
P051
P059
P059
P060
P123
U036
U037
U038
U060
U060
U061
U061
U061
Regulated constituent
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosuifan 1 '
Endosuifan II
Endosuifan sulfate .
Endrin _
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Isodrin. .
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Chkxobenze
Chlorobenzilate
o,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDD....
o,p'-ODT
p,p'-DDT
oj)'-DDO
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.00024
0,00052
0.00024
0.00052
0.00052
0.00052
0.00052
0.00022
0.00024
0.00020
0.014
0.00044
0.014
0.292
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
-------
48402 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P004,
P037, PQ50, P05I, P059, P060, P123,
U036, U037, U038, U060, U061, U070,
U071, U072. U127, U128, U129, U130,
U132, U142, U183, U185, U207, U240,
AND U247—Continued
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D012, D013, D014, D015, D016, AND
D017 BASED ON TREATMENT
[Wastewaters]
Waste
code
D012
D013
D014
Regulated constituent
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/l)
000052
0 00024
o.oooae
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D012. D013, 0014. D015, D016, AND
D017 BASED ON TREATMENT—Contin-
ued
[Wastewaters]
[Wastewaters]*
Waste
code
U061
U061
U061
U070
U071
U072
U127
U128
U129
U129
U129
U129
U130
U132
U142
U183
U185
U207
U240
U247
Regulated constituent
p.p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDE
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
HexacWorocydopentadiene ..
Hexachlorophene
Kepone
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachloroben-
zene
2,4-D
Methoxychlor
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.058
0.072
0.058
0.055
0.031
0.00024
0.00024
0.00024
0.00024
0.096
58
0.0011
0.096
0.096
0.023
0.013
0.00036
•Note: Alternative standards for these U and P
wastewaters are also proposed and are presented ir
section III.A.7. as standards for the correspondinc
chemical in wastewater forms of Multi-source Leaclv
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in section III.A.l.h.(6.)(b.).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D012, D013, D014, D015, D016, AND
D01 7 BASED ON TREATMENT
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste
code
D012
D013
0014
D015
D016
D017
Regulated constituent
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor.
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2.4,5-TP
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg) ,
0.13 (
0.066 '
0.18 |
1.3
. - !
ar
0015
D016
D017
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0014
0 013
9 e
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U240—SALTS AND ESTERS OF 2,4-D
[Nonwastewaters]
Incineration as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U240—SALTS AND ESTERS OF 2,4-D
[Wastewaters].
Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation, followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as methods of
treatment
d Halogenated Phenolics.
U039 — p-Chloro-m-cresol
U048— 2-Chlorophenol
U081— 2.4-Dichlorophenol
U082— 2,6-Dichlorophenol
EPA has grouped these four U wastes
together because all of the chemicals
represented by these waste codes are
mono- and di-substituted phenols. These
chemicals consist of a phenol (a
benzene with a hydroxyl group
attached) substituted with one or more
chlorine atoms and/or a methyl group
(LT039) attached to the benzene ring.
The Agency is proposing
concentration-based standards for these
halogenated phenolics based on
incineration treatment performance data
for 2,4- and 2,6-dichlorophenol. These
data were directly used to develop
treatment standards for U081 and U082.
Treatment standards for U039 and U048
were developed by examining the
detection limit data for these
constituents from the fourteen
incineration treatment tests. More
information on these data can be found
in the background document for these
wastes.
The treatment standards for
wastewater forms of the U wastes
presented in the tables following this
section, have been calculated based
primarily on the detection limits of these
constituents in scrubber waters from
incineration of 2,4- and 2,8-
dichlorophenol noriwastewaters.
However, additional data are available
for the treatment of these constituents in
wastewaters and alternative standards
based on these data are presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. (See previous discussions on
' these data and alternative standards in
section III.A.l.h.(6.) and III.A.2.a.(3.J).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U039, U048, U081, AND U082
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste
code
U039
U048
U081
U082
Regulated constituent
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Oichlorophenol .
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
14
5 7
14
14
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U039, U048, U081, AND U082
[Wastewaters] '
Waste
code
•U039
U048
U081
U082
Regulated constituent
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol .
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0062
0 056
0 052
0018
'Note: Alternative standards for these U and P
wastewaters are also proposed and are presented in
section llj.A.7. as standards for the corresponding
chemical in wastewater forms of Multi-source Leach-
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in section III.A.1.h.(6.)(b.).
e. Brominated Organics.
P017—Bromoacetone
U129—Methyl Bromide
U030—4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
U066—l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
U067—Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
U068—Dibromomethane
U225—Bromoform..
The chemicals represented by these
six U wastes and one P waste are all
hydrocarbons or oxygenated
hydrocarbons that contain the halogen.
bromine. The presence of bromine in the
structure complicates the evaluation of
'incineration for these wastes: The
primary complication is the release of
significant quantities of molecular
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. IOPO / Proposed
. bromine (Bra) from the incineration
chambers. Thus, these seven wastes
have been grouped together and
Identified as the brominated organics
Ireatability group.
While cyanogen bromide (U246) is
also an organic chemical containing
bromine, it is not grouped with these
other brominated organics due to its
Instability in water under alkaline
conditions. It breaks down relatively
quickly into soluble bromide and soluble
cyanide. Consequently, the soluble
cyanide must then be treated and thus,
the Agency has grouped U248 with the
cyanide wastes rather than with these
brominated organics. Standards for
U248 are proposed in section
IH,A.6,a.(4.) of today's notice.
EPA is proposing concentration-based
standards tor the six brominated organic
compounds amenable to quantification
in waste treatment residuals, namely
IKJ29, U030. U068. U067, U068 and U225.
The methodology used to develop these
standards differs from that used for
other organic U and P wastes.
Incineration data from an Office of
Toxic Substances bum of ethylene
dibroraide included analysis of ethylene
dibromide in the untreated waste as
well as the ash and scrubber water
treatment residuals, but did not include
analysis for any of the other brominated
organics. EPA used these data to
develop the proposed treatment
standards for U067 (EDB) wastes. At the
same time, the Agency is proposing to
directly transfer these standards to
U029, U030, U066, U068 and U225
wastes.
Bromoacetone (POI7) is relatively
unstable in water and therefore cannot
be reliably analyzed in wastewaters or
other residues where contact with water
might be expected. Based on this
relative instability of bromoacetone, the
resultant difficulty in analyzing
treatment residues for bromoacetone,
and the demonstration of incinerability
of ethylene dibromide (which is more
difficult to incinerate than
bromoacetone). the Agency is proposing
to establish "Incineration as a Method
of Treatment" as a treatment standard
for P017 nonwastewaters.
During the EPA-sponsored rotary kiln
incineration of the ethylene dibromide
wastes, the Agency determined that
certain operating conditions were
required in order to prevent the release
of toxic bromine gas. In order to oxidize
the bromine released in the
organobromine compound combustion
process to soluble bromide which can be
removed effectively with an air pollution
control device such as a scrubber, sulfur
was added to modify flame
stoichiometry to form soluble bromide
rather than molecular bromine gas.
These specific conditions are outlined in
the background document for these
wastes.
Federal regulations currently do not
limit the amount of bromine emitted to
the air. The Agency is specifically
soliciting comment and data on whether
these particular incinerator operating
conditions can or should be specified as
part of the incineration requirements for
these wastes. The Agency recognizes
that different incinerators have different
designs, and that the conditions
identified in the test bum may not be
reasonably extrapolated to other
incinerators.
As an alternative to specifying these
conditions, the Agency is also
considering establishing a maximum
bromide level in the feed to the
incinerators for these seven brominated
organic wastes and thereby establish a
blending requirement. However, the
Agency has not identified a maximum
level for bromide and thus has not
determined the resultant blending
requirements for these seven
brominated organics. Another
alternative to achieve the same results
may be to establish an overall maximum
loading of the concentrated brominated
organics in the incinerator feed stream.
The Agency is therefore soliciting
comment and data that would assist the
Agency in determining the viability of
these alternative standards for these
wastes. Specifically, the Agency solicits
supporting evidence on concentrations
of bromine in waste feeds that ha*ve
been successfully incinerated including
substantiation that emissions of bromine
gas do not pose significant risk to
human health and the environment This
information should include specific
design and operating conditions
established to prevent these emissions
and/or specific established restrictions
(either regulatory or company policy) on
the concentrations of total bromine hi
waste feeds. Prospective commenters
are referred to section m.A.l.i. for
explanation of the special procedures
that the Agency intends to utilize to
provide additional rapid notice and
comment on any new data and
information received prior to the closure
of the comment period and should
identify their interest in receiving notice
on data for brominated organics
specifically as ni.A.2.e.
The Agency is currently investigating
recent information suggesting that
concentrated brominated organics can
be processed through a specific thermal
unit designed to break off the bromine
for purposes of recovery of bromine.
Sufficient details of this process were
not available in time to describe it in
this proposal. While the Agency may not
be able to identify this process as BOAT
in time for promulgation of the final rule
^not precluded from establishing this'
as BOAT sometime in the future. Finally
the Agency reiterates that in-plant
recycling preceding disposal is nowhere
prohibited under RCRA.
The treatment standards for
wastewater forms of these U wastes
presented in the tables following this
section, have been calculated based on
the detection limits of these constituents
in scrubber waters from incineration of
the ethylenedibromide wastes.
However, additional are available for
the treatment of some of these
constituents in wastewaters (see
previous discussion in section
III.A.2.a.(3.) on the proposed
promulgation of standards based on
these additional data) and will probably
be used for the promulgation of the final
standards.
While the Agency currently lacks data
indicating the treatability of
bromoacetone (P017) in water, its
relative instability in water supports the
inference that it should easily be
destroyed with any chemical oxiilant
and most probably at ambient
temperature and air pressure. Since wet
ah- oxidation is typically operated at
relatively high temperatures and
pressures, the Agency believes that wet
air oxidation should provide a rnora
efficient oxidation than simple chemical
oxidation. In order to ensure complete
destruction, the Agency is therefore
proposing that wet air oxidation
represents BOAT for P017 wastawaters.
However, because bromoacetcne is
relatively unstable in water, the Agency
is also proposing chemical oxidation as
an alternative method of treatment.
The Agency also believes that
incineration, while not always practical
for wastewaters, will provide an
efficient destruction of P017
wastewaters. Since the Agency does not
want to preclude the use of incineration
for P017 wastawaters. it is also bping
proposed as an alternative treatment
technology.
In a similar manner, while the Agoncy
currently lacks data on the
biodegradability of bromoacetone ii:
wastewaters, biodegradation typically
results hi oxidation of crganics. Again.
due to the instability of this compound
in water, the Agency believes that
biodegradation can provide effective
removal of P017 from wastewaters. EPA
thus is also proposing biodegradation as
an alternative treatment method. Since
the Agency must specify treatment for
P017 wastewaters and currently has no
data or means of determining which of
-------
48404
Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
the wastewater treatment technologies
can provide the most effective treatment
and since the technologies can
theoretically provide efficient treatment
for this relatively unstable compound,
the Agency is proposing all four '
treatment technologies as BDAT.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U029, U030, U066, U067, U068, U225
CNonwastewaters]
Waste
code
U029
U030
U066
U067
U068
11225
Regulated constituent
Methyl Bromide
4-8romopheny onenyl ether..
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chkxopropane
Ethytene dibromide (EDB)
Dibromomethane
Bromoform
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
15
15
15
15
15
15
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U029, U030, U066, U067, U068, U225
(WastewatersJ'
Waste
code
U029
U030
U066
U067
U068
U225
Regulated constituent
Methyl Bromide
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether..
1,2-Oibromo-3-
chloropropane
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
Dibromoethane
Bromoform
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
16
16
16
16
16
16
1 Note: Alternative standards for these U and P
wastewaters are also proposed and are presented in
section III.A.7. as standards for the corresponding
chemical in wastewater forms of Multi-source Leactv
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in section !II.A.1.h.(6.)(b.).
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P017
CNonwastewaters]
Incineration as a method of treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P017
[Wastewaters]
Wet air oxidation: chemical oxidation:
btodegradation; or incineration a* • method of
treatment
/ Miscellaneous Halogenated
Organics. EPA has grouped all of the
remaining halogenated organics (i.e.,
twenty-six U wastes and ten P wastes)
together into a general category
identified as miscellaneous halogenated
organics. These U and P wastes
represent a wide range of chemicals
produced in a variety of individual
processes. In general, these
miscellaneous halogenated organics can
be further distinguished by similarities
in structure as were the previously
mentioned halogenated organic
treatability groups. To facilitate
developing appropriate treatability
standards, EPA thus divided this general
category into seven subcategories: 1)
chlorinated diphenyls; 2) chlorinated
polynuclear aromatics; 3) chlorinated
amines, amides, and nitriles; 4)
chlorinated methylbenzenes; 5)
halogenated aliphatics; 6) halogenated
aldehydes, ethers and esters: and 7)
halogenated organo-sulfur compounds.
EPA examined data from a total of
fourteen test burns that were performed
during the course of determining BDAT
standards for First Third and Second
Third wastes plus data generated in a
rotary kiln incinerator test burn EPA
performed in June, 1980. (See section
III.A.l.h.(6.) of today's preamble for a
more complete discussion of this test
burn.) These data include analysis of
untreated wastes and all residues,
including ash and scrubber water, for
virtually all the compounds which the
BDAT program regulates by means of
concentration-based standards (the
"BDAT List" compounds) including the
miscellaneous halogenated compounds
in this subcategory. However, for most
of these compounds the only data that
were available were detection limits.
In today's notice, EPA is proposing
concentration-based standards for
fourteen of these thirty-six
miscellaneous halogenated organic U
and P nonwastewaters based on a
transfer from other "surrogate"
halogenated constituents that were ,
determined to be similar in structure to
the compounds within each subcategory
of miscellaneous halogenated organics.
EPA believes that nonwastewater forms
of all thirty-six miscellaneous
halogenated U and P compounds can be
destroyed by incineration to detection
limits. However, the Agency does not
have specific data on the direct
incineration of the majority of these
miscellaneous halogenated U and P
wastes or their corresponding
constituents.
The treatment standards for
wastewater forms of these U and P
miscellaneous halogenated organics
presented in the tables following this
section, have been calculated based on
the detection limits of these constituents
or surrogate halogenated organics in
scrubber waters from incineration.
However, additional data are available
for the treatment of these constituents in
wastewaters and alternative standards
based on these data are presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. (See previous discussions on
these data and alternative standards in
section HI.A.l.h.(6.) and III.A.2.a.(3.)).
For twenty-two of these
miscellaneous halogenated organics
there are analytical complications that
preclude the establishment of
concentration-based treatment
standards. (See complete discussion of
analytical complications for U and P
wastes in section III.A.l.h.{2.) of today's
preamble.) In addition, the quality of the
data and resultant concentration-based
standard for U017 (benzal chloride) is
being re-examined to determine whether
the concentration-based standard is
valid. As a result EPA is specifying
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for nonwastewater forms of twenty-
three of these miscellaneous
halogenated organic wastes and "Wet
Air Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation,
Followed by Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment"
for the corresponding wastewater forms.
(See discussion on selecting these
technologies as BDAT for halogenated
organics in section III.A.2.a. (2.) and (4.)
above.) The specified technologies are
appropriate for these constituents and
have been demonstrated and/or
promulgated for similar halogenated
organic U and P waste codes. The
Agency reminds commenters that there
are very few (if any) of these twenty-
three wastes that are currently being
generated as originally listed and that in
practice, the standards will probably
only be necessary for residues from
previous disposal. The Agency believes
that these residues should be less
difficult to treat than the original waste
as generated.
(1) Chlorinated Diphenyls. There are
two miscellaneous halogenated organics
that are classified as chlorinated
diphenyls; 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (U073)
and4,4-methylene-bis-(2-chloroaniline)
(U158). Diphenyls are compounds
consisting of two benzene rings attached
to a single, common carbon atom.
(Diphenyls are not to be confused with
biphenyls which have the structure of
two benzene rings attached directly to
each other.) The chlorinated diphenyls
represented by these waste codes differ
from those previously mentioned in the
halogenated pesticide category (e.g.,
ODD, DDT. and Methoxychlor) because
these diphenyls contain fewer chlorine
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November
22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
atoms and also include methylene and
amine functional groups.
DDD, DDT, and Methoxychlor are.
believed to be more difficult to destroy
than the U073 and U158 because the
chlorines at the carbon bridge in DDD,
DDT, and Methoxychlor are believed to
stabilize the aromatic ring. The Agency
has data on the incineration of wastes
containing Methoxychlor and another
structurally similar halogenated organic
known as Pronamide (U192) that were
used in developing the standards for
U073 and U158 wastes. The Agency
believes that Pronamide, a halogenated
organo-nitrogen compound (3,5-dichloro
N-(l.l-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-
benzamide), is more difficult to
incinerate than these two chlorinated
diphenyls.
Both of the chemicals represented by
U073 and U158 are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
verified SVV-846 methods. EPA believes
these can both be incinerated to
detection limits in ash and scrubber
water based on data indicating that
DDD, DDT and methoxychlor can be
incinerated to detection levels.
Therefore EPA is proposing
concentration-based standards for U073
and U158 wastewaters and
nonwaatewaters.
(2) Chlorinated Polynuclear
Aromatics. Chloronaphazine (U026) and
2-chIoronaphthalene (U047) are both
classified as chlorinated polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. This means that
both chemicals contain fused aromatic
rings (i.e., polynuclear aromatics] with
one having only one attached chlorine
while the other has an attached
chlorinated amine functional group. The
Agency believes that both U028 and
U047 can be incinerated to detection
limits in ash and scrubber water
because of their similarity to Pronamide.
The Agency believes that Pronamide, a
halogenated organo-nitrogen compound
(3.5-dichIoro N-{l,l-dimethyl-2-
propynylj-benzamide), is more difficult
to incinerate than these chlorinated
polynuclear aromatics. Therefore, EPA
is proposing treatment standards for
U026 and U047 based on incineration as
BOAT.
Only U047 is amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
verified SW-S46 methods. While
chloronaphazine (U026) is amenable to
analysis by HPLC, EPA currently rejects
HPLC methods as the sole means of
establishing treatment standards for
reasons discussed in in.A.l.h.(2.). EPA is
therefore proposing concentration-based
standards for all forms of U047,
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for nonwastewater forms of U026, and
"Wet Air Oxidation or Chemical
Oxidation, Followed by Carbon
Adsorption; or Incineration as Methods
of Treatment". (See discussion on
selecting these technologies as BDAT
for all halogenated organics in section
III.A.2.a.(4.) and in the introductory
discussion for miscellaneous
halogenated organics above.)
(3) Chlorinated Amides, Amines, and
Nitrites.
P024—p-Chloroaniline
P027—3-Chloropropionitrile
P057—2-Fluoroacetamide
U049-4-Chloro-o-toluidine
hydrochloride
U097—Dimethylcarbomyl chloride
U192—Pronamide
U222—o-Toluidine hydrochloride
These seven miscellaneous
halogenated organics were grouped
together because they contain an amide,
amine, or nitrile group attached to a
relatively simple hydrocarbon structure.
Only p-chloroaniline (P024) and
Pronamide (U192) are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
verified SW-848 methods. EPA has data
on the incineration of Pronamide that
indicate Pronamide can be incinerated
to detection levels in the ash and the
scrubber water. Thus, concentration-
based standards for U192
nonwastewaters are proposed in today's
notice based directly on these data. The
Agency believes p-chloroaniline (P024)
resembles Pronamide closely enough
that incineration will also destroy p-
chloroaniline to detection limits, and is
therefore proposing concentration-based
standards for P024 based on a transfer
of these data.
While 2-fluoroacetamide (P057) is
amenable to analysis by HPLC, EPA
currently rejects HPLC methods as the
sole means of establishing treatment
standards for reasons discussed in
IH.A.l.h.(2.). In addition, no analytical
methods have been verified for 4-chloro-
o-toluidine hydrochloride (U049),
dimethylcarbomyl chloride (U097), or 3-
Chloropropionitrile (P027). Information
also indicates that o-Toluidine
hydrochloride (U222) is unstable in
water. EPA believes incineration is
effective for P027, P057, U049, U097 and
U222, because three are halogenated
aliphatics and expected to be less stable
than Pronamide (an aromatic molecule),
and the other two are polar aromatics,
similar in stability to Pronamide. Thus
EPA is proposing a standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for P027, P057, U049. U097 and U222,
based on the incineration data for
Pronamide.
For the wastewater forms of P027,
P057, U049, U097 and U222, EPA is
proposing a treatment standard of "Wet
Air Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation,
Followed by Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment".
(See discussion on selecting these
technologies as BDAT for halogenated
organics in section III.A.2.a.(4.) above.)
These wastewater technologies are
appropriate for these constituents and
have been demonstrated and/or
promulgated for similar halogenated U
and P waste codes.
(4) Chlorinated Methylbenzenes.
Benzyl chloride (P028) and benzal
chloride (U017) have been grouped
together because they both consist of a
toluene moiety with chlorines attached
to the methyl group. In section II.A.6.(d.)
of today's notice EPA is proposing
concentration-based standards for
benzal chloride in K015 wastes (still
bottoms from the distillation of benzyl
chloride) based on a transfer of K019
incineration data for p-dichlorobenzene.
Wastewater standards for benzal
chloride in K015 wastewaters were
promulgated with the First Third
Wastes. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing these treatment standards for
U017 wastewaters and nonwastewaters
based on a similar transfer.
Benzal chloride (U017) is relatively
unstable in water and the Agency is
concerned that the analysis for this
compound in treatment residuals may
not be reproducible. As an alternative to
the concentration-based standard for
U017 nonwastewaters. the Agency is
also proposing "Incineration as a
Method of Treatment" as BDAT.
Commenters on this approach should
submit QA/QC data that verify their
particular position of this matter. The
Agency points out that it currently has
no QA/QC data that support the
reproducibility of the benzal chloride
analysis for treatment residues, and that
the Agency prefers to establish a
method of treatment rather than a
concentration-based standard for U017
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
In a similar manner, benzyl chloride
(P028) is unstable in water. The Agency
is thus proposing a standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for P028 nonwastewaters. based on the
incineration data that indicates p-
dichlorobenzene and Pronamide can be
destroyed to detection levels in
incinerator ash. Both of these chemicals
are more stable than P028.
For the wastewater forms of U017 and
P028, EPA is also proposing a treatment
standard of "Wet Air Oxidation or
Chemical Oxidation, Followed by
Carbon Adsorption; or Incineration as
Methods of Treatment". (See discussion
on selecting these technologies as BDAT
for halogenated organics in section
-------
4MM
HLAJtaMCt ab«we) TLese wastewater
technologies are appropriate fbrthes*
constituents and have been
demonstrated anchor proswlsated for
similar U and P waste codes/
(5} HatogenatedAlipitatics.
U043—Vinyl chloride
U045—Cnloromethane
U075—Didriorodjfluoromethane
U121—Ftooratrichlorome thane
U138—lodomethane
This sabcategory of miscellaneous
halogenated organic* consists of five
chemicals that have been grouped
together because they have one or two
carbon atom* with at least one chlorine,
fluorine, or iodine attached. EPA
believes that 1,1.1-trichtoroethyfene and
carbon tetrachtoride, which also contain
one or two carbons with three or four
chlorines attached, represent the degree
of difficulty anticipated in incinerating
the simple halogenated atipfeaties
belonging to this subgroup. While the
carbon-fluoride bonds in U075 and U121
are known to be much stronger than the
carbon-chlorine bond in carbon
tetrachloride molecule, EPA believes
that the overall degree of difficulty of
incmeration,is simitar enough to justify
a transfer of these incineration data for
the purposes of developing treatment
standards for land disposal of these
wastes.
Thus, EPA concludes incineration will
reduce these wastes to detection limits
m ash and scrubber water and is
proposing concentration-based
standards accordingly. Since all five of
these compounds are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
verified SW-846 methods, EPA is=
proposing concentration-based
. standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of U043, UQ45.
U075, Ul21andUl3a
(6) Halogenated Aldehydes, Ethera '
and Esters.
P016—Bis-chloromethyl ether
P023—Chloroacetaldehyde
P058—Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
P093—Phosgene
U006—Ace tyl Chloride
U024—Bis 2-ehloroethoxyrmrtnane
U025—Dichloroethyl ether
U027—Bis-2-chloroisopropyl etlter
U033—Carbonyl fluoride
U034—Trichloroacetaldehyde
U04I—n-Chloro-2,3-epoxyproparw
U042—2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
U046—Chloroirtethyf methyl ether
U156—Methyl chtoirocarbonate
This subcategory of mrsceffaneous
halogenated organics consists of
fourteen chemicals grouped together
because ftey are relatively snnpte
oxygenated hydrocarbons with various
degrees of nafogermtion. The
oxygenated- hydrocarbons indude.
ethers, esters; and aldehydes;
Of these fourteen chemicals, only 6is
2-chloroethoxymethane (U024),
dichloroetbyl ether fU02SX bis-2-
chkjfoisoprepyl ether (U027), and 2-
chloroethyl vinyl ether (U042) are
amenable to quantification is treatment
residuals by verified SW-848 methods.
However, EPA's data on the detection
limits of 2,chloroethyl vinyl ether {U042}
m incinerator ash are so variable that
the resahant calculated treatment
standard results in a standard that is in
the low percent range. Since the data
show that incineration can achieve
detection limits fo? a variety of wastes,
and since the resultant high treatment
standard ccwld potentially allow a
waste with high concentration* of U04Z
to go untreated; the Agency baa chosen
to propose "Incineration as a Method of
Treatment" aa a treatment standard for
U042 nonwastewaters. The Agency
believes that this will ensure these
wastes wiU be treated to levels that
represent BOAT. For UQ24. U02& and
U027 (which are also amenable to
quantification) EPA is proposing
concenirationrbased standards based on
the ability of incineration technologies
to destroy Pronamide and ^^
chlorobenzene-to detection limits in. ash.
and scrubber water. The Agency
believe* that Pronamide (a halogenated
organo-nitrogen compound also-
identified as 33^fichlorQ ft-(UL-
dimethyI-2-propynyl)-benzamide) and
chlorobenzeae are more difficult to
incinerate than these balogenateda
because both have mote complex
structures and stronger bonding than
U024. U02S, and UOB7 wastes.
There are currently BO verified SW-
846 methods for the'constituents
represented by P05& U084, or U156. In
. addition, constituents represented by
P018. P023. P095. UOOft U033, U041. and
U048 are all unstable in water. As a
result, EPA is proposing "Incineration as
a Method of Treatment" as treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of
P016, PD23, PQSa P095, U008» U033, U034,
U041. U042. U046. and U158. Based on
the simplicity of structure, EPA believes
all of these compounds are easier to
incinerate than chlorobenzene and/or
Pronamide. This is particularly
substantiated by the aforementioned
relative instability of seven of these U
and P wastes. . •„
For the wastewater forms of PQlfi.
P023, P058,. P095, U006. U033, UQ34,
U(W1. U042, U04B, and U1S6, EPA is
proposing a treatmeat standard oi "Wet
Air Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation,
Followed by Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment"
(bee discussion on selecting these
technologies as BOAT for halogenated
organics in section nLA.2^44.) above.)
These wastewater technologies are
appropriate for these constituents and
have been demonstrated and/or
promulgated for similar U and P waste
codes.
(7) Chlorinated Organo-Sulfur.
P028—l-(o-ChlorophenyI) thiourea
Pllft—Trichloromethanethiol
U020—Benzenesulfonyl chloride
U062—Diallate
These four miscellaneous halogenated
organics have been grouped together
because they are chlorinated organo-
sulfur chemicals. The majority of the
prgano-sulfur compounds are discussed
in section. IILA.3. of today's preamble.
Note: The Agency is soliciting comment
on the potential need for control of
sulfur dioxide emissions from the
incineration of these wastes.
„ Tne Agency is proposing a standard of
^'Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
in nonwastewaters for all four of these
wastes. While P028 and U062 are
amenaite to-analysis by HPLC, EPA
currently rejects HPLC methods as the
sote means of establishing treatment
standards for reasons discussed in
"Analytical Considerations". In
addition, no verified SW-846 analytical
methods are available for the
constituents represented by Plia or
U020. The Agency bases this choice of
incineration as a method on the
incineration data that indicates 1.1,1-
trichloroethane as well as
tetrachloroethene, Pronamide. and
chlorobenzenes can all be destroyed to
detection levels in incinerator ash and
scrubber water.
For the wastewater forms of P026,
P118, U02Q and U<052, EPA is proposing a
treatment standard of "Wet Air
Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation,
Followed by Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment".
(See discussion on selecting these
technologies as BDAT for halogenated
organic in section m.A.2.a.(4,) above.)
These wastewater technologies are
appropriate for these constituents and
have been demonstrated and/or
promulgated for similar U and P waste
codes.
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
48407
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P024,
U017, U024, U025, U027, U043, U045
U047, U073, U075, U121. U138, U158.
AND U192
CNonwastewatersl
W«J!t
code
P024
U017
U024
U025
U027
U043
U045
U047
U073
U075
U121
U138
U158
U192
Regulated constituent
p-ChtoroanHine....
BeruaJ chloride
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) meth-
ane.
Ochkxo«thyl ether..
8
Waste
coda
P024
U017
U024
U02S
U027
U0*3
U045
U047
U073
U075
U121
U138
uisa
U192
Regulated constituent
p-CWoroanWrte —
Benzal chloride
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) meth-
ane.
Dfchkxoethyl ather.
Bfs-2-chtorofsopropyl ether™
Vinyl cMoride
Chtorofnethane ..„„........_„...
2-Chkxontphthaiena
3.3'-Oichlorobena&ie
Dichtorodrftuoromethane
Flucf olrichkxomethane
kxfomathane
4.4.Methyfene-bis-<2 chlor-
oaniKna).
Pronamkia._.«..«™.__......mm
Maa'mumfor
single grab
sample, total
composition
(mg/0
0.28
0.28
0.064
0.013
0.064
'0.033
0.023
0.073
0.022
0.14
0.13
0.23
0.74
0.039
i Nota: Astamative standards (or these U and P
wastawaters are also proposed and are presented in
section III.A.7. as standarda for the corresponding
chemical Sn wastewttar (orma ol Mum-source leech-
aia, See background on these alternative standards
m section III A.1.H (6.){b,).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P016.
P023. P026. P027. P028. P057. P058,
P095, P118, U006. U017, J020, U026.
U033, U034, U041, U042, U046. U049.
U062, U097, U156, AND U222
CNonwastewaters]
Incineration as a (Method of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P016,
P023, P026, P027. P028, P057, P058,
P095. P118, U006, U017, U020, U026,
U033, U034, U041, U042, U046, U049
U062.U097.U156, AND U222
[Wastewaters]
Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation, followed by
carbon adsorption: or incineration as methods of
treatment
3. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Additional Organic Wastes—a.
Introduction. In the previous section of
today's preamble (IH.A.2.),.the Agency
identified that many of the chemicals
represented by the U, P, and K wastes
fall under a general category of
chemicals known as halogeriated
organics. The majority of the remaining
organic U and P wastes have been
grouped together into seven additional
subcategories of "nonhalogenated"
organic wastes and a discussion of each
is presented in this section (III.A.3.) of
today's preamble. The seven major
subcategories of wastes are based
primarily on similarities in the structure
of these organic chemicals (i.e.,
elemental composition and the presence
of organic functional groups). These
subcategories are also based partially
on the industrial use (e.g., the wastes of
a pharmaceutical nature) and waste
generation patterns of the U and P
wastes. These major subcategories
include: aromatics and other
hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, phenolics, oxygenated
hydrocarbons and heterocyclics, organo-
nitrogen compounds, organo-sulfur
compounds, and wastes of a
pharmaceutical nature.
(1) Fuel Substitution as an Alternative
Treatment Method. BOAT standards for
the nonwastewater forms of these U and
P nonhalogenated organics are proposed
based primarily on performance data
from incineration of similar wastes.
Since many of the nonhalogenated
chemicals represented by these U and P
waste codes generally have reasonably
high BTU values (e.g., the aromatics and
the polynuclear aromatics) and since U
and P wastes are typically off-
specification or discarded products, they
might be expected to be well suited for
fuel substitution purposes. However,
despite this fuel value and the fact that
these compounds consist primarily of
hydrogen and carbon, many of these
wastes may be considered unacceptable
for fuel substitution due to their
relatively high toxicity and acid
formation capability (due incineration).
In addition, it appears that there is
sufficient incineration capacity to
accommodate these wastes, so that use
of fuel substitution capacity is not
needed to avoid granting a national
capacity variance for these wastes. It
also appears that only the oxygenated
hydrocarbons and heterocyclics
(seventeen of the eighty two U and P
nonhalogenated wastes) are likely
candidates for use as fuel substitutes.
The Agency does not believe that fuel
substitution is a viable alternative for
the majority (sixty five) of the specific U
and P waste codes identified in this
section.
In today's rule, the Agency is
proposing that incineration represents
BDAT for all of the nonhalogenated
organics presented in this section.
Where the Agency is proposing
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
as the nonwastewater treatment
standard for a particular organic waste
code, it has not included fuel
substitution as an alternative except for
seventeen of the oxygenated
hydrocarbon and heterocyclic wastes.
However, where the Agency has
proposed concentration-based
standards (i.e.. sixty one U and P
nonhalogenated wastes), thermal
destruction in fuel substitution units is
not precluded. The Agency points out
that all facilities incinerating these
wastes must comply with 40 CFR 264
Subpart O or 265 Subpart O.
(2) Additional Wastewater Treatment
Data. Additional wastewater treatment
data primarily from the Agency's Office
of Water have been recently analyzed
for incorporation into the treatment
standards for many of the U and P
wastes in this section. These data
include the treatment of wastewaters
that arejiot specifically listed as U or P
wastewaters, but do contain many of
the corresponding U or P constituents.
While these data were not available in
tune to incorporate into this discussion
or into the background document for
these wastes, these data are being
placed in the administrative record for
today's notice. Therefore, the Agency is
not precluded from using these data in
promulgating the standards for these
wastes. Further information on these
data can be found-in section
Alternative standards based on these
data are anticipated to be similar to
those presented in section III.A.7. of
today's notice for wastewater forms of
multi-source leachate. These standards
are presented on a constituent basis and
correspond to what may be promulgated
for the respective U or P wastewater.
Thus, the Agency is proposing these
-------
4J4fl§
Begbter / Vol. 54. No. 22* / Wednesday. Nmrember 22. 1S89 / ftopo^d
standard* aa atiexnative standards fix
all U and P nasfeewatez* ior which
concentration-based standards based oa
incinerator scrubber waters have been
proposed in the following seen'ema.
(3f Specifying Technologies for
Nonhalogenated- Wastewaten. Baaed on
analytical complications previously
discussed in section IIl.AJ.k(Z}t the
Agency is also proposing certain
methods of treatment as the treatment
standards for many of the
nonhalogenated U and P wastewaters.
In the following sections (IU.A.ab.
through h.) of the preamble the Agency
identifies eighty two specific
nonhalogenated organic U and P wastes
for which the Agency is proposing foor
treatment technologies as alternatiTe
BOAT treatment standards (1) Wet air
oxidation followed: by carbon
adsorption; £2) Chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsosptionr $)
Biadegradatiort followed by carbon
adsorption; or (4} Incineration of .
wastewaters. Since these technologies
are known tapeovide effective
treatment for the other nonhalogEBated
organic constrtaenfs within each
treatability group: {as identified in
III.A.3.) that can be analyzed, the
Agency is dierefore proposing these
multiple treatment technologies for all of
the eighty two U and P constituents feat
require specified methods of treatment.
Biodegradation has been- specified as
an alternative technology for these-
nonhalogenated otgenies in
wastewarers; because these- chemicafe
are generally thought of as mote easily .
biadegraded than the-halogenaied
orgam'cs due to the overall higher
toxicity of the halogeuaiteds' cenp&rak
to their nonhalogenated counterpart*
This is further supported by the fact that
there are certain forms of biota that
utilize the nitrogen or the sulfur
contained in many of these.
nonhalogenated organfcs far metabolic
purposes and that the hydrogen, carbon.
and oxygen contained in the majority o£
the structures of these chemical* serve
as a food source for many forms- of the
biota.
Carbon adsorption has- been specifies!
as part of the treatment train became
the eighty two nonhalogenated U and P
organics are believed to be adaorbabJe
when present in low concentrations,, aa
might be expected in an. effluent front
either wet air oxidation, chemical
oxidation, or biodegradatian. The
Agency further recognizes that while
difficulties can arise in specifying- ooly
one treatment method for these
wastewaters fas outlined in greater
detail in section HLA.Lh.(7.}), the
Agency must develop a treatment
standasd for these waste* te avofd the
hard hammer and at the saae tfcne;
somehow justify that these technologies
provide- significant treatment. None-af
these technologies have, been
specifically identified as better than the
others by the Agency, because of the
lade of data for these constituents (dne
to the identified' analytical
complications] 01 for any surrogate
parameters.
b. Aromatics and Other '
Hydrocarbons
U019—Benzene
U055—Cumene [isopropyl benzene}
UQ56—Cyclohexane
U186—1,3-Pentadiene
U220—Toluene (methyl benzene}
U239—Xylenes (dimethyj benzenes)
EPA grouped these waste codes.
together because the primary
constituents for which the waste was.
listed are either aromatic or alieyclic.
compounds. This group of chemicals,
except for cyclohexane- (U056J and 14-
Pentadiene (UlB&H. all contain one
benzene risg-.. T"m°np £IK)55^ toluene
(U220), andxylenes {U23&} consist of a
benzene ring with aliphatic side rJvtint,
Cyclohexane (U05&). a cycloalkaae.. has
been included in. this, group because of
its ability to, be converted by. catalytic
reforming into aromatic hydrocarbons.
Conversely, the addition of hydrogen
(hydrogens tion) ta an aromatic,
compound yields cyclic aliphatic
compounds, specifically Cyclohexane
derivatives, e.g«, the hydrogenation of
benzene yields puia Cyclohexane. 1,3-
pentadiene (U186) is a five carbon, chain.
with two, conjugated double bonds Cue.,
a diene) that provide a certain, degret of
aromaticity to the chemical, making u.
somewhat similar to the others in the
group. For the purpose of determining
BOAT, all of these wastes have been
grouped together into one treatability
group identified as. aroma tics and other
hydrocarbons. The proposed treatment
standards for thi& waste group are
presented expressed either as a
concentration-based standard or as a
method of treatment
C1J Wastes far Which EPA is
Proposing Concentration-Based
Standard/a* In developing the standards
for aromatics and other hydrocarbon
wastes, the Agency incorporated into its
analysis sane chemical variability by
reviewing, data from, several incineration
test bums conducted by EPA for various
F and K wastes. Analysiatof these data
identified extensive treatment and
detection. Dmit data for benzene (UtilS).
toluene (U22Q), and xylenes (U2391 from
the test bums of K001, K037. K048, K051,
K087, KlOt. and KlOZ wastes. These
data represent a myriad of different
hazardous wa*te types generated and
treated at several different facilities.
The waste characterization: data
indicates that for these three
constituents, concentrations in the
different waste*, varied- from very low
levels in some wastes to high levels in
others. For example, toluene
concentrations in the wastes ranged
from 17 ppm in K087 waste to 2,000 ppm
in K037 waste.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for U019, U220 and U239
wastes are thus proposed based on the
analysis of data on the performance of
incineration of: (1) K001 (bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
peniachlorophenolj; (2) K037
(wastewater treatment sludges from the
production of dwutfbton); (3) K048
(dissolved air flotation fDAF] float from
the petroleum refining industry); (4)
KQ51 (API separator sludge from the
petroleum, refining industry); (5) K087
(decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operati
-------
Federal
The Agency also reviewed
performance data on the treatment of
toluene and xylenes obtained from a
rotary kiln incinerator test burn EPA
performed in June, 1989. The feed also
included other RCRA hazardous wastes
that contained these constituents
yielding total concentrations of these
constituents at the percent level. (See
further discussion of this test burn in
section IH.A.lJi.(6.) of today's
preamble.)
The Agency believes that all of these
data represent a sufficient range of
concentrations of these aromatic
hydrocarbons in the untreated wastes
and are thus considered representative
of what the Agency would anticipate to
find present in the respective U wastes.
The Agency has reviewed both
characterization and performance data
from all seven test burns to develop
concentration-based treatment
standards for U019, U220. and U239 and
has determined, as explained in the
background document, that K001 is most
appropriate for the transfer to these U
wastes.
The Agency is regulating xylenes
(U239) by setting a single concentration-
based treatment standard which will
represent the sum of the concentrations
of o-xylene. m-xyjene, and p-xylene
present in the waste treatment residual.
The basis of concentration numbers
therefore will be the sum of the areas
under all peaks identified as o-xylene.
m-xylene or p-xylene in the
chromatographic spectrum. The
forthcoming first update to the third
edition of SW-848 includes Method 8280
(GC/MS for volatile organics using a
capillary column) which can quantify
the individual isomers of xylene.
Nevertheless, the Agency chooses to
regulate xylenes as a collective unit, •
rather than individually, to allow the
regulated community to use SW-848
Method 8240 because it is already
validated for xylenes, less cumbersome
and available in current editions of SW-
848. More information on the
development of treatment standards can
be found fn the Background Document
for Aromatic Compounds in the RCRA
docket.
(S) Wastes for Which EPA is
Proposing a Method of Treatment as
BOAT. The Agency does not believe
that concentration-based standards can
be established for U055, U056 and U186
wastes at this time. The major problem
in establishing concentration-based
standards for these wastes is that EPA
does not currently have a verified SW-
/ Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Propped Rule.
846 analytical method that can analyze
for the concentrations of cumene (U055),
cyclohexane (UOS8), or 1,3-pentadiene
(U186) in treatment residues. Aa a result
a concentration-based treatment
standard for these waste codes is
apparently not feasible and thus, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Incineration as a Method
of Treatment" for U055, U056 and U186
nonwastewaters. For U055, U056 and
U186 wastewaters, EPA is proposing
"Wet Air Oxidation or Chemical
Oxidation, Followed by Carbon
Adsorption; Biodegradation Followed by
Carbon Adsorption; or Incineration as a
Method of Treatment." These
wastewater technologies are
appropriate for these constituents and
have been demonstrated and/or
promulgated for similar U and P waste
codes (see preceding discussion in
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U019, U220, AND U239
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste
code
U019
U220
U239
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Toluene
Xyten«(8) _
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
36
00
33
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U019, U220, ANDU239
CWa»t9watar»] '
Waste
code
U019
U220
U239
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Toluene .
Xylene
-------
federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
on the performance of incineration of:
(1) F024 (various wastes from the
production of chlorinated aliphatics
such as distillation residues, heavy
ends, tars, and reactor clean-out
wastes); (2) K001 (bottom sediment
sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol): (3) K019 (heavy
ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichloride in ethylene dichloride
production); (4) K048 (dissolved air
flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum
refining industry); (5) K051 (API
separator sludge from the petroleum
refining industry); and (6) K087
(decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations) nonwastewaters.
Treatment standards for K001, K019,
K048, K051, and K087 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters were promulgated in
the First Third rule on August 8,1988.
Treatment standards for F024 wastes
were promulgated in the Second Third
rule on June 8,1989. These standards,
measured as concentrations found in the
ash and scrubber water, were based on
the performance of rotary kiln or
fluidized bed incineration.
EPA analyzed for various polynuclear
aromatic compounds in the incineration
residues (ash and scrubber water) from
these test burns as follows: (1) six data
sets for benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, and
indeno(l,2^-c,d)pyrene in F024; (2) six
data sets for benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene,
and naphthalene in K001: (3) six data
sets for naphthalene in K019; (4) six data
sets for benz(a)anthracene, chrysene,
and naphthalene for K048; (5) six data
sets for benz(a)anthracene, chrysene,
and naphthalene in K051; and (6) six
data sets for benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene,
indeno(1.2,3-c,d)pyrene and naphthalene
in K087. In general, the majority of the
measured values for polynuclear
aroma tics were below detection for the
six constituents analyzed.
The Agency has determined that the
waste characterization and incineration
performance data from F024, K001, K019,
K048. KO'51, and K087 wastes were
sufficient to develop concentration-
based treatment standards for U005,
U018. U022. U050, U063, U064. U120,
U137, U157, and U16S wastes. While
specific data were not available on all of
these polynuclear aromatic chemicals,
EPA is proposing concentration-based
standards for the remaining wastes
based on a transfer of performance data
from structurally similar polynuclear
aromatics where data do exist. More
information on the development of
treatment standards for these wastes
can be found in the Background
Document for Polynuclear Aromatic
Compounds in the RCRA docket
(2) Standards for U051 Waste.
Treatment standards for U051 (creosote)
wastes are proposed based on the
transfer of performance data from
incineration of K001 wastes. Treatment
standards for K001 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters were promulgated in
the First Third final rule on August 8,
1988. The standards for organics in K001
wastes were based on the performance
of rotary kiln incineration of K001
nonwastewaters. Treatment standards
for the teachable metal constituents in
K001 nonwastewaters were established
based on the performance of
stabilization. The metal constituents in
K001 wastewaters were based on
chemical precipitation.
The Agency is also proposing to
revise the concentration-based
treatment standards for K001 organics
due to a mathematical error that was
made in the calculation of the standards.
The revised standards are being
proposed along with the corrected
standards for U051. Additional
information on the revised standards
can be found in the amendment to the
K001 Background Document
U051 wastes differ from other U
wastes in-the polynuclear aromatic
group in that the waste,is not defined by
one chemical or constituent, but by a
group of chemicals defined by the
generic term of "creosote". Creosote is a
derivative of coal that contains a wide
range of constituents including cresols,
phenols, naphthalene,
benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
fluoranthene, chrysene, indeno(l,2,3-
cd)pyrene and acenaphthalene. The
presence of these polynuclear aromatics
is the main reason why this waste code
has been placed in this treatability
group.
The transfer of performance data from
K001 waste is particularly appropriate
for U051 because data on the
incineration of a KOOl-creosote waste
and a KOOl-pentachlorophenol waste
were used in the development of the
treatment standards for that waste.
Based on the similarities in
concentration of the major hazardous
organic constituents anticipated in
creosote (U051) to those in K001. and the
primary use of creosote as a wood
preservative (and hence the relationship
to K001) the Agency has decided to
propose to regulate the same
constituents in U051 as were regulated
inKOOl.
Incineration in a rotary kiln will
achieve a level of performance that
represents BOAT for the organics in
U051. Thus, EPA is proposing
concentration-based standards for six
organic constituents in U051. These are
naphthalene, pentachlorophenol,
phenanthrene, pyrene, toluene, and
xylenes. Since the performance data for
K001 indicate the presence of treatable
quantities of lead in the incinerator ash
and based on the anticipated similarities
of U051 wastes to K001 wastes, EPA is
also proposing treatment, standards for
lead. These standards are based on
stabilization as BOAT for U051
nonwastewaters and chemical-
precipitation as BOAT for U051
wastewaters.
EPA notes, however, that if U051 is
simply discarded before it is used, for
example because it is off-specification,
then it would be unlikely to have all of
the same contaminants as K001 wastes.
On the other hand, when U051 is spilled
at a wood preserving site, then it could
contain the same contaminants, in
particular pentachlorophenol and lead.
as K001 wastes due to the high potential
for cross-contaminated due to prior use
of pentachlorophenol at the site. Since
the Agency anticipates that most of the
U051 wastes come from spill residues at
wood preserving sites, EPA is
conservatively proposing standards that
include those constituents that are likely
to be present in this form of the waste.
In situations where a facility never used
pentachlorophenol or where the LJ051 is
only anticipated to be generated as an
off-spec product (and pentachlorophenol
was never used in the production
equipment), EPA anticipates that the
facility's waste analysis plan could be
revised so that only the constituents that
are likely to be present in that form of
the waste are monitored. (See also the
discussion in section III.A.l.f.(3.) on
waste analysis plans.)
(3) Wastes for Which EPA is
Proposing a Method of Treatment as
BOAT. The Agency has determined that
currently there are no calibration
reagents that are routinely available for
the measurement of benzo(c)acridine
(U016), l,2,7,8-dimethylbenzo(a)
anthracene (U064) and 7,12-
dimethylbenzo(a)anthracene in
treatment residuals. As a result, a
concentration-based standard for these
constituents is apparently not feasible.
See section III.A.l.h.(2.)(b.) of today's
preamble for a further discussion of the
Agency's approach in such instances.
Since 3004(m) allows the Agency to
establish either levels or methods of
treatment, the Agency is proposing a
standard of "Incineration as a Method
of Treatment" for U016, U064 and LJ094
nonwastewaters. For U016, U064. and
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1599 / Proposed Rules
48411
UO&4 wastewaters the Agency is
proposing "Wet Air Oxidation or
Chemical Oxidation Followed by
Carbon Adsorption; Biodegradation
Followed by Carbon Adsorption: or
Incineration as a Methods of
Treatment." The Agency believes that
these technologies are appropriate for
treatment of these constituents and have
been demonstrated and/or promulgated
for similar U and P waste codes (see
preceding discussion in lILA,3.a.(3.)).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U005, U018, U022, U050, U063. U120,
U137, U157. AND U165
[Norwaxtewaters]
Waste
coda
U005
uoia
U022
U050
U063
U120
U137
U157
U165
Regulated constituent
2-Acetylaminofluoren«—
Bera(a)anShracene..
8enzo(a}pyren«
Chrysene,..«.™..,«.™.........
Dioenzo(a,h)anthracene..
Fhxxanthene
lndeoo(lA3,-c.d)pyt«o«_
3-Melhytchtoanttxene
Naphthalene.... .........
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
(mg/kg)
13
3.6
3.8
3.6
13
3.6
3.6
33
5.9
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U005, U018, U022, UOSO, U063. U120,
U137, U157.ANDU165
[Woitewatsril »
Waste
Cod*
U005
U016
U02Z
UOSO
U063
U120
U137
U157
U165
Regulated constituent
S-Acstyiaminofluorano
Benzf.a)antnracen«..»
Benzo{a!pyrerw .„__...._„„....
Cntysena
D%*nzo{a,li)Anttvacsfl0
Fluoranthono _
lndoflo{1,2.3,-c.d}pyr»na
S-Methytehlosntrrtna
Naphlhalflri* r
Maximum (or
anysiigte
grab sample,
total
composition
(mgfl)
0.058
0.030
0.030
0.15
0.012
0.030
0.030
0.58
0.007
> Note: Attomafeva standards (or mesa U and P
wastewaters are also proposed and are presented in
section IIIA7. as standards (or the corresponding
chemical m wastewater loons of Multi-source Loach-
«t*. So« twckground on these iMemafrve standards
m sectkx) MlAi Ji(6.)(b.).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U051
AND K001
CNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Naphthalene
Pentachloropnaool „
Phenanthrene _....___....„....
Pyrerw —
Toluene „„„..
Xylene(s)
Maximum for
any stnyto
grab sample,
total
oofTiposrtrOn
(mg/fcg)
1.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
28
33
Lead _ '.
Maximum for
anyaingto
grab sample
TCLP (mg/l)
0.51
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS Fon U051
AND K001
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Naphthatene_. ._ „
'entachlorophenol — „
Phenanthrene „
=yrene _ _._.... __...._
Toluene „_.__.__, „.._._ ..„_
Xylenephenol
U186—Phenol
U201—Resourcinol
• EPA grouped these four P wastes and
five U wastes together because the
chemicals they represent are all
nonhalogenated organic compounds in
which one or more hydroxyl groups
(OH) are attached to the benzene ring
(i.e., phenolics). These compounds are
further divided into two subcategories
based on whether or not a nitro group
(NOi) is attached to the phenolic
compound
EPA selected one compound that is
representative of the treatability of both
subcategories for the purpose of
transferring standards. Dinoseb is a
representative of the nitrophenolics and
phenol is a representative of the other
phenolics. Because the representative
wastes are so similar to the other
wastes in this treatability group, the
Agency is proposing to transfer
treatment performance data to the other
waste codes they represent in each
subcategory with the exception of P034.
as discussed at the end of this section.
(1)P02O, P047, P048, U101, U170, U188,
and U201. The Agency has performance
data on the treatment of Dinoseb and
phenol obtained from a rotary kiln
incinerator test burn EPA performed in
June, 1989. The feed included three
hazardous wastes and fifteen
commercial chemical products
representing a number of treatability
groups. Dinoseb and phenol were
present in the waste feed at
concentrations of 8.9% and 1.4%,
respectively. (More information on the
test bum can be found in section
III.A.l.h.(6.) of today's preamble as well
as in the Onsite Engineering Report of
the Third Third Incineration Treatability
Test, July, 1989).
Additional treatment data exist for
phenol and p-cresol. The wastes for
which these data exist include: (1) K001
(bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol); (2) K019
(heavy ends from distillation of
dichloride in ethylene dichloride
production); (3) K022 (distillation bottom
tars from the production of-phenol/
acetone from cumene); (4) K087
(decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations); and (5) K102 (residue from
the use of activated carbon for
-------
48412
54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rutea
decolorization in the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organoarsenic compounds).
These data represent different waste
types containing phenol and p-cresol
that were treated by incineration. Six
sample sets were analyzed hi K001, nine
in K019, six in K022, and five samples in
K102. In general, phenol and p-cresol
were treated to the detection limits in
the ash and scrubber water. The
detection limits ranged from 0.50 ppm to
3.8 ppm for the ash, and 0.002 mg/1 to
0.023 mg/1 for the scrubber water. The
concentrations in the untreated waste
ranged from 4 ppm to 1000 ppm.
These data, along with the data from
the June, 1989 test burn, were used to
develop concentration-based standards
for nonwastewater forms of P020, P047,
P048, moi, U170, U188. and U201. These
incineration data are also the only
available treatment data for these
wastes.
The Agency is in the process of
conducting wastewater treatment tests
for wastewater forms of these wastes
using wet air oxidation, PACT
(powdered activated carbon treatment),
and carbon adsorption. These data are
available in the administrative record
for today's notice. Where the Agency
has actual wastewater treatment data, it
prefers to use that data rather than use
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. Today's concentration-based
wastewater standards are based on
incinerator scrubber water.
(2)P034. Because no calibration
standard exists for 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-
dinitrophenol (P034), the compound
cannot be routinely analyzed. When the
Agency is unable to set a concentration-
based treatment standard, the Agency
prefers to set a method of treatment
Thus, the Agency is proposing a
standard of "Incineration as a Method
of Treatment" for P034 nonwastewaters.
This is justified because of the structural
similarity between 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-
dinitrophenol and 2-sec-Butyl-4,8-
dinitrophenol (P020—Dinoseb), and
because the Agency has data on P020
demonstrating incineration can achieve
detection limits for these phenolics.
For P034 wastewaters the Agency is
proposing "Wet Air Oxidation or
Chemical Oxidation, Followed by.
Carbon Adsorption; Biodegradation
Followed by Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment."
The Agency believes that these
technologies are appropriate for
treatment of P034 and have been
demonstrated and/or promulgated for
similar phenolics (see also preceding
discussion in HI.A-3.a.(3.)).
(3) P047. According to 40 CFR
261.33(e), wastes identified as P047 are
listed for the presence of 4,6-
dinitrocresol and salts. Because these
salts are not analyzed as 4,6-
dinitrocresol, the Agency is today
proposing standards of "Incineration as
a Method of Treatment" for P047
nonwastewaters identified as "salts of
4,6-dinitrocresol" and "Wet Air
Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation,
Followed by Carbon Adsorption;
Biodegradation Followed by Carbon
Adsorption; or Incineration as Methods
of Treatment" for P047 wastewaters
identified as "salts of 4,6-dinitrocresol".
This is justified because of the structural
similarity between 4.6- dinitrocresol and
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (P020—
Dinoseb), and because the Agency has
data on P020. (See preceding discussion
in sections III.A.3.a.(3.) on specifying
treatment for wastewaters containing
nonhalogenated organics and the related
discussion of treatment standards for
U240 wastes (2,4-D, salts and esters) in
section IH.A.2.c.(4.)(c.).)
For P047 wastes expected to be simply
4,6-dinitrocresol, the Agency is also
proposing concentration-rbased
standards based on the analysis for only
4,6-dinitrocresol. Thus, where a facility
can reasonably assume that only 4,6-
dinitrocresol is being handled, only the
concentration-based treatment standard
for 4,6-dinitrocresol would be applied.
However, should one expect that salts
or esters could be formed during
storage, treatment or disposal, the P047
wastes would have to be treated by the
specified methods depending upon the
form of the waste.
(4) U052. U052 is listed as "cresols
(cresylic acid)". Cresylic acid is the
name given to a mixture of three
isomeric cresols (methyl phenols), in
which the meta-cresol predominates.
Thus, U052 typically contains various
levels of ortho-cresol, meta-cresol and
para-cresol. Analytical methods are
usually reported for o-cresol and a
combination of m- and p-cresol, because
m-cresol and p-cresol cannot be
distinguished by the analytical method.
Thus, the Agency is today proposing
concentration-based standards for UOS2
based on an analysis for o-cresol and
the mixture, of m-cresol and p-cresol.
Waste
code
P020
P047
P048
UOS2
U052
U101
U170
U188
U201
Regulated constituent
2-sec-Buty1-4,S-
dinitrophenol
4,6-dinHrocresol (inciner-
ation for salts)
2,4-dinitrophenol
o-Creso)
Cresol (m- and p-tsomers) ....
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Resourcinol
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
25
140
140
e c
3.2
14
65
62
1 8
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P020
P047, P048, U052, U101, U170, U188
AND U201
CNonwastewaters]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P020
P047, P048, U052, U101, U170, U188,
AND U201
tWastewaters]«
Waste
code
•
P020
P047
P048
UOS2
U052
U101
U170
U188
U201
Regulated constituent
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenoL
4,6-dinitrocresol (wet air/
carbon for salts)
2,4-dinitrophenol
o-Cresot
Cresol (m- and p- isomers)
2,4-Oimethyl phenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol _
Resourcinol
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composi-
tion (mg/l)
0.036
0 18
0 18
0.028
0 045
0 18
0 091
82
Note: Alternative standards for these U and P
wastewaters are also proposed and are presented in
section III.A.7. as standards for the corresponding
chemical in wastewater forms of Multi-source Leach-
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in section III.A.1.h.(6.)(b.).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P034
AND P047 (SALTS)
CNonwastewaters]
Incineration as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P034
AND P047 (SALTS)
CWastewaters]
Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption; biodegradation followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as methods of
treatment
-------
ft Oxygenated Hydrocarbons and
Heterocyclics
POOl—Warfarin «3S)
P003—Acroleln
POOS—Ally! alcohol
Poaa-Endothall
P102—Propargyl alcohol
U001—Acetaldehyde
U002—Acetont
U004—Acetophenone
U008—Acrylic acid
U031—n-Butsnol
U053—Crotonaldehyde
U057—Cyclohexanone
U085—l,2:3.4-D!epoxybutane
U108—1.4-Dioxane
UllZ—Ethyl acetate
UH3—Ethyl acrylate
U117—Ethyl ether
UllS—Ethyl methacrylate
UI22—Formaldehyde
U123—Formic acid
UI24—Furan
U125—Furfural
Ul2S-Cljcida!dehyde
UMO—Isobutanol
U147—Maleic anhydride
U154—Methanol
UI59—Methyl ethyl ketone
UIBI—Methyl isobutyl ketone
U162—Methyl methacrylate
U16&—1.4-Naphthoquinone
U182—Paraldehyde
U197—p-Benzoquinone
U213—Tetrahydrofuran
U248—Warfarin (<3SJ
EPA grouped these five P wastes and
twenty nine U wastes together because
the primary constituents for which the
wastes were listed are oxygenated
hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons
contain at least one oxygen atom
integrated into the chemical structure by
a single or double bond to a carbon. As
a result, this group includes functional
groups such as ketones. aldehydes, and
alcohols. These compounds are also
distinguished from other
nonhalogenated organics by the absence
of nitrogen, sulfur, and/or phosphorous
in their elemental composition.
(1) Wastes for Which Concentration-
Based Standards are Proposed as
BOAT. The Agency has identified
incineration or fuel substitution as an
applicable technology for treatment of
nonwastewater forms of P003
(wastewaters), LJ002, U004, U031. U057,
U108. U112. U117, U118, U14D. U159,
U161. U162. U166, and U197 wastes.
While the Agency has been unable to
obtain performance data based on
incineration or fuel substitution for these
particular U and P wastes, the Agency is
aware that many facilities generating
these wastes also incinerate them prior
to land disposal. Therefore, the Agency
believes incineration and fuel
substitution are BOAT for these U and P
wastes. As a result, EPA is proposing
concentration-based treatment
standards for these wastes based on the
transfer of available incineration
performance data on these constituents
(or structurally similar constituents) as
they appear in other RCRA hazardous
wastes. Detailed information for EPA's
rationale and the source of performance
data for each waste are provided in the
BDAT Background Document for U and
P Hydrocabon and Heterocyclic wastes.
The Agency notes that the primary
constituents for which U031, U112, and
U117 are listed as hazardous wastes in
the 40 CFR 261.33 (n-Butanol, ethyl
acetate, and ethyl ether respectively)
were not originally considered BDAT
last Constituents. The primary
constituents of these wastes are now
considered BDAT List Constituents
because EPA has identified several EPA
SW-848 Test Methods that may be able
to quantify them in wastewaters. The
identified EPA SW-848 Test Methods
are as follows: 8015 for U031 (GC/MS)
and 8240 for both U112 (direct
injection—GC/MS) and U117 (Purge and
Trap—GC/MS). As a result, the Agency
urges facilities that are unable to meet
the proposed concentration based
treatment standards to submit
comments addressing the use of these
EPA SW-846 test methods or test
methods that are used routinely by
them. The treatment standards for
wastewater forms of the U wastes
presented in the tables following this
section, have been calculated based
primarily on the detection limits of these
constituents in scrubber waters.
However, additional data are available
for the treatment of these constituents in
wastewaters and alternative standards
based on these data are presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. (See previous discussions on
these data and alternative standards in
section III.A.l.h.(8.) and IH.A.3.a.(2.)).
(2) Wastes for Which the Agency is
Proposing a Method of Treatment as
BDAT. The Agency had identified
incineration and fuel substitution as
BDAT for treatment of nonwastewaters
forms of POOl, P003. POOS, P088, P102,
U001, U008, U053. U085, U113, U122,
U123, U124, U125. U126, U147, U154.
U182, U213, and U248 wastes. For
various reasons outlined in the
background document for these wastes,
all of these chemicals except P003 and
U154 currently lack analytical methods
that can satisfactorily analyze for their
constituents of concern in complex
waste matrices. Thus, as discussed in
detail in section III.A.l.h.(2.) of today's
preamble, the Agency is proposing a
standard of "Incineration as a Method
of Treatment" for these U and P
nonwastewaters.
For wastewater forms of these wastp«.
the Agency is proposing "Wet Air
Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation,
Followed by Carbon Adsorption;
Biodegradation Followed by Carbon
Adsorption; or Incineration as a
Method of Treatment." The Agency
believes that these technologies are
appropriate for treatment of these
constituents and have been
demonstrated and/or promulgated for
similar U and P waste codes (see
preceding discussion in III.A.3.a.(3.)).
(3) Standards for P003 and U154
Wastes. EPA's limited data on the
detection limits of acrolein (POOS) in
incinerator ash are highly variable.
Since these data do show that
incineration can achieve detection limits
for acrolein in a variety of wastes, and
since a high treatment standard could
potentially allow a waste with high
concentrations of P003 to go untreated;
the Agency has chosen to propose both
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
P003 nonwastewaters. For methanol
(U154) EPA lacks characterization data
from incineration ash or scrubber water.
However, EPA believes that methanol
can be effectively treated by
incineration based on the information
that other alcohols of higher molecular
weight can be incinerated. As a result,
EPA is proposing "Incineration as a
Method of Treatment" for Ul 54
nonwastewaters and wastewaters. EPA
notes that it prefers promulgation of a
concentration-based standard for
reasons discussed in section III.A.l.a.
and therefore is soliciting comment and
data that could be used as additional
support for the establishment of an
achievable concentration-based
standard for acrolein and methanol in
P003 and U154 wastes, respectively.
The main reason that the Agency
lacks data on methanol is that it
typically utilizes data for volatile
compounds that are obtained through
the analysis of samples by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS). The mass spectrum of
methanol is difficult to distinguish from
other low molecular weight species.
Therefore the quantification of methanol
by GC/MS techniques is difficult and as
a result methanol is not routinely
analysed.
The Agency is aware of GC methods
that can analyze for methanol in
wastewaters; however, it currently has
no data for the analysis of
nonwastewaters using GC methods.
Additional data primarily from the
Agency's Office of Water are available
for the treatment of alcohols similar to
methanol in wastewaters. A
concentration-based standard for
-------
48414
Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday.
methanol in wastewater forms of multi-
source leachate has been calculated
using these data and is presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice. (See
previous discussions on these data and
alternative standards m section
III.A.l.h.(6.) and III.A.2.a.(3.}). The
Agency may promulgate this standard
for U154 wastewaters based on a
transfer of these data. The Agency
specifically solicits comment and data
that support the establishment of a
concentration-based standard for 17154
wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U002, U004, U031, U057, U108, U112
U117, U118, U140, U159, U161, Ut62.
U166, ANDU197
CNonwastewaters]
ga. 1989 / Proposed Rule,
Waste
cods
U002
U004
U031
U057
U108
U112
U117
U118
U140
U159
U161
U162
U166
U197
Regulated constituent
Acetone _..
Acstophenone
n-Butanol
Cyclohexanone
1,4-Cfoxane ._ _...__.._._
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether..
Ethyt methacryfate
Isotoutanoi _.. ..
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone _...
Methyl methacrylate _
1 .4-Naphthoquinone
p-Benzoquinone
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
n 14
96
26
1.9
280
5.6
140
160
170
200
33
160
1 9
180
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P003, U002, U004, U031rU057, UI08
U112. U117. U118, U140, U159, U161,
U162, U166, ANOU197
[Wastewaters]'
Waste
code
P003
U002
U004
U031
UOS7
U108
U112
U117
U118
U140
U159
U161
U162
U166
U197
Regulated constituent
Acrolein
Acetone
Acetophenone
n-Butanol
Cyclohexanone _
1 .4-Oioxane
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether..?.
Ethyl methacrylate
Isobutanol
Methyl ethyl Ketone
Methyt isobutyl ketone
Methyl methaciyfate
1 ,4-Naphthoquinono
p-Senzoquinone _
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
36
025
017
056
) 4
0 80
00052
0 28
047
1 4
0 14
0.02S
0.47
0.073
13
1 Note: Alternative standards for these U and P
was.'8wa<«? »e also proposed and are presented in
section III.A.7. as standards for the corresponding
chemical in wastewater forms of Mulfi-source Leactv
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in section
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P001
P003, POQ5, P068, P102, U001, U008*
U063. U085, U113, U122, U123, U124
U125, U126, IM47, U154, U182, U213,
ANDU248
CNonwastewatersJ
Incineration or fuel substitution as methods of
treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FO« P001,
P005, P088, P102, U001, U008, U053,
U085, U113, U122, U123, U124, U125,
U126, U147, U154, U182, U213, AND
U248
[Wastawelers]
Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption; biodegradation followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as methods of
treatment
/ Organo-Nitrogen Compounds. EPA
has grouped eleven P wastes and thirty
seven U wastes together into a single
general treatability category, identified
as organo-nitrogen compounds. These P
and U wastes represent a wide range of
chemicals produced in a variety of
individual processes. EPA's reasons for
grouping these organic chemicals
together is that they all contain nitrogen
and do not contain chlorine or any other
halogen. To facilitate transferring
appropriate treatability data. EPA
further divided this category into six
subgroups based on structure, giving
functional group similarities particular
priority. These subgroups are: fl)
Nitrogen Heterocydics; (2) Amines and
Amides; (3) Nitrogen-Bearing Diphenyls;
(4) Nitriles; (5) Nitro Compounds and (6)
Nitroso Compounds.
fl) Concentration-based Standards for
Organo-Nitrogens. In today's notice,
EPA is proposing concentration-based
standards for these U and P
nonwastewaters based on a transfer of
performance data from other
"surrogate" organo-nitrogen constituents
that were determined to be similar in
structure to the compounds within each
subcategory of organo-nitrogen
compounds. As a result, EPA believes
all of these U and P constituents can be
destroyed by incineration to detection
limits. However, the Agency does not
have specific data on the direct
incineration of the majority of these
specific U and P wastes or their
corresponding constituents.
The concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater forms of these
U and P organo-nitrogen compounds
presented in the tables, following this
section, have been calculated based
primarily on the detection limits of these
constituents (or surrogates) as measured
in scrubber waters from incineration of
nonwastewaters containing these
organo-nitrogen constituents. However,
additional data are available for the
treatment of these constituents in
wastewaters and alternative standards
based on these data are presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. (See previous discussions on
these data and alternative standards in
section III.A.l.h.(6.) and IH.A.2.a.(3.)).
(2) Technology-based Standards for
Organo-Nitrogens. The Agency has
determined that currently there are
considerable difficulties in analyzing
many of these organo-nitrogen
compounds. As a result, concentration-
based standards for these constituents
are apparently not feasible. See section
III.A.l.h.(2.)(b.) of today's preamble for a
further discussion of the Agency's
approach in such instances. Since
30O4(m) allows the Agency to establish
either levels or methods of treatment,
the Agency is proposing a standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for the nonwastewater forms and "Wet
Air Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation
Followed by Carbon Adsorption:
Biodegradation Followed by Carbon
Adsorption; or Incineration as a
Methods of Treatment" for wastewaters.
The Agency believes that these
technologies are appropriate for
treatment of these constituents and have
been demonstrated and/or promulgated
for similar U and P waste codes (see
preceding discussion for wastewaters in
The Agency reminds commenters that
there are very few (if any) of these
wastes that are currently being
generated as originally listed and that in
practice, the standards will probably
pnly be necessary for residues from
previous disposal The Agency believes
that these residues should be less
difficult to treat than the original waste
as generated. EPA also requests
comment on the choice of transfer data
for concentration-based standards and
on the validity of the subgroupings used
to assign standards.
(3) Potential Air Emission Concerns
with Organo-Nitrogens. Because the
Agency expects that the incineration of
these organo-nitrogen compounds may
adversely impact air quality due to the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48415
emission of nitrogen oxides, EPA is
considering the need to impose
additional air quality controls on the
incineration of these wastes, either
under RCRA or under the Clean Air Act.
For a more complete discussion of the
alternatives under consideration, see the
discussion of organo-sulfur compounds
later in this section.
(4) Discussion of Individual
Treatability Croups—(a) Nitrogen
Heterocyclic Compounds.
P008—4-Aminopyridine
P018—Bnicine
P054—Aziridine
P067—2-Nfelhylaziridine
Umi—Amitrole
U148—Malsic Hydrazide
U179—N-Nitrosopiperidlne
U180—N-Nitioaopyrrolidine
U191—2-PicolIne
U19&—Pyridlne
This subgroup consists of ten wastes
grouped together because they contain a
ring of carbon atoms which also
includes a nitrogen atom. Three have
aromatic rings, six have rings made of
single bonds. Only N-nitrosopiperidine
(U179), N-nitrosopyrrolidine (U180), and
pyridine (U196) are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
SW-846 methods. Therefore. EPA is
proposing concentration-based
standards for only these three wastes in
this treatability subcategory. EPA
believes incineration will reduce U179.
U180 and U196 to detection limits in ash
and scrubber water because of the
Agency's incineration data that indicate
destruction to detection levels of
Pronamide, The Agency believes that
Pronamide, a halogenated organo-
nitrogen compound (3.5-dichloro N-{1,1-
dimethyl-2-propynyl)-benzamide), is
more difficult to incinerate than these
ten nitrogen-containing heterocycles.
Based on this, the Agency is also
proposing specified methods of
treatment for both wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of the seven
members of the nitrogen heterocyclic
subcategory which are not amenable to
quantification in waste treatment
residual matrices. P054, P067, U011 and
U048 are amenable only to analysis by
HPLC. (Note: EPA rejects HPLC methods
for waste treatment residual matrices
for reasons discussed in section
III.A.l.h.(20(a.).) For P008, P018, and
U191 there are no verified SW-846
analytical methods available. The
specified methods proposed as
wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment standards for all organo-
nitrogen U and P wastes are presented
in section III.A.3.f.(3.).
fbj Amine and Amide Compounds.
P046—alpha. alpha-DImethylphenethylamine
POM—feocyanfc acid, ethyl ester
U007—Acrylamide
U012—Aniline
U092—DimethylamJne
UllO—Dipropylamine
U167—1-Naphthylamine
U188—2-Naphthylamine
U194—n-Propylamine
U238—Ethyl carbamate
This'subgroup consists of ten wastes
grouped together because they contain
either an amide or an amine group. Two
are fused aromatic rings, four contain
single benzene rings, three are amine
groups .attached to aliphatic carbon
chains and three have amide groups
attached to ether bonds or to double
carbon bonds. Four of these wastes are
amenable to quantification'in waste
treatment residual matrices by current
SW-846 methods: acrylamide (U007),
aniline (U012). 1-naphthylamine (U167),
and 2-naphthylamine (U168); however,
the Agency does not have adequate
analytical data characterizing
incinerator ash and scrubber water to
set concentration-based standards
based on detection limits for U007.
Therefore, EPA is proposing
concentration-based treatment'
standards only for U012. U167 and U168
nonwastewaters. These standards are
based on data showing how 4-
nitrophenol can be incinerated to
detection limits in ash and scrubber
water. EPA believes that 4-nitrophenol
is more difficult to incinerate than the
amines and amides identified as in this
treatability group.
In a similar manner, for P046, P064,
U092, UllO, U194, and U238 (the six
members of the amines and amides
subcategory not amenable to
quantification)—plus U007 which can be
quantified but for which no analytical
data is available—EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on
incineration as BDAT. U007 and U238
have amide groups and thus are easier
to incinerate than 4-nitrophenol, which
has been proven to be treated to
detection levels by incineration. P064
has an amide-like structure with an
attached nitrile group, where the
nitrogen has a double bond to a
carbonyl group which appears to be
more amenable to destruction by
incineration than 4-nitrophenol or
pronamide. P046. U092, UllO, and U194,
have amine groups which are more
easily destroyed by incineration than
nitrp-groups.
Six wastes in this treatability group
are not amenable to quantification for
the following reasons: (1) calibration
reagents are not commercially available
for P048 and P064; (2) U238 is only
quantifiable by HPLC methods (Note:
EPA rejects HPLC methods for waste
treatment residual matrices for reasons
discussed in section III.A.l.h.(2.)(a.).);
and (3) for U092, UllO and U194 there
are no verified SW-846 analytical
methods available. The specified
methods proposed as wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards for
all organo-nitrogen U and P wastes are
presented in section III.A.3.f.(3.).
(c) AminatedDiphenyls and
Biphenyls.
U014—Auramine
U021—Benzidine
U091—3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine
U093—p-Dimethylaminoazobenzidine
U09S—3,3'-Diraethylbenzidine
U238—Trypan Blue
This subgroup consists of six wastes
grouped together because they contain
two benzene rings joined by a single
bond or bridged by a single carbon or by
a nitrogen-nitrogen double bond. Each
biphenyl has at least one amine
functional group. Trypan blue has a
complex structure including a binuclear
double benzene ring on each phenyl
with NaCsS moieties on each double
benzene ring.
Although three of these wastes are
amenable to quantification in treatment
residuals by SW-846 methods (U091,
U093 and U095), EPA is only proposing
concentration-based standards for U093
alone because the Agency encountered
problems with analytical data in
determining detection limits for U091
and U095. The concentration based
treatment standards for U093
wastewaters and nonwastewaters are
proposed based on incineration to
detection limits transferred from data
showing that methoxychlor (a
chlorinated diphenyl believed to be
more difficult to incinerate) and
Pronamide can be destroyed to
detection limits in incinerator ash and
scrubber water.
EPA believes U014, U021, U091, U095
and U236 can be effectively incinerated
for the same reason as U093. For these
remaining five members of the aminated
diphenyls and biphenyls subcategory, in
addition to U091 and U095. EPA is
proposing treatment standards based on
incineration as BDAT. Three wastes,
however, are not amenable to
quantification for the following reasons:
(1) U014 and U236 are only quantifiable
by HPLC methods (Note: EPA rejects
HPLC methods for waste treatment
residual matrices for reasons discussed
insection'III.A.l.h.(2.)(a.).); and (2) U021
is unstable in water (see background
discussion in IH.A.l.n.(2.)(c'.). The
specified methods proposed as
wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment standards for all organo-
nitrogen U and P wastes are presented
in section III.A.3.f.(3.).
-------
4841ft
FedenI Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1389 / Proposed Rulea
• (d) Nitriles.
P069-*fcthjtllactonHrile
P101—Propaiwnitrile
U003—Acetonitrile
U009—Acrylonitrile
U149—Malononitrile
U152—Methacrylonitrile
This subgroup consists of six wastes
grouped together because they contain
nitrile groups, which consist of a
nitrogen carbon triple bond. All are
straight-chain aliphatics; two have a
carbon-carbon double bond in the chain
and one has two attached nitrile groups.
EPA believes incineration will treat
all'six of these nitriles to detection limits
in ash and scrubber water based on
data showing that incineration treats
1,1,1-trichloroethylene and Pronamide to
detection limits. The Agency believes
both Pronamide and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane are more difficult to
incinerate than these »ix compounds. .
Four of these are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
SW-846 methods: P101, U003> U009 and
U152. Two of these nitriles are not
amenable to quantification for the
following reasons: [1} calibration
reagents are not commercially available
for P069 (see baekgronnd discussion in
III.A.l.h.(2.Kb.}; and (2) for U149 wastes
there are no verified SW-646 analytical
methods available. The specified
methods proposed as wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards for
all organo-nitrogen U and P wastes are
presented in section IH.A.3.f.[3.).
(e) Nitro Compounds.
P077—p-Nitroaniline
U105—2,4-Dinitrototaene
U106—2,6-Dihitrotohiene
U169—Nitrobenzene
U171—2-Nitropropane
U181—5-Nitro-o-toluidine
U234—sym-Trinitrobenzene
This subgroup consists of seven
wastes grouped together because they
contain at least one nitro functional
group: a nitrogen atom attached to two
oxygen atoms. Seven have single
benzene rings and one has a three-
carbon aliphatic chain.
Five of these wastes are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
SW-846 methods: P077, U105, U106,
U169, and U181. Concentration-based
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of U105 are
proposed based directly on incineration
data for 2,4-dinitrotoluene.
Concentration-based standards for
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of U169, U181, P077 and U106 are
proposed based on incineration to
detection limits in ash and scrubber
water of 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 4-
nitrophenol, and nitrobenzene. All three
of these are structural representatives of
this subcategory of organo-nttrogens
identified simply as the Nitro
Subcategory.
In a similar manner, the Agency is •
proposing incineration as the basis for
treatment standards for U234 and UlTl.
These two members of the Nitro
Subcategory that are not amenable to
quantification in waste treatment
residuals because there are no verified
SW-846 analytical methods available.
therefore, the Agency is proposing
specified methods of treatment for P084,
U173. U17B, U177, and U178. The
specified methods proposed as
wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment standards for all organo-
nitrogen U and P wastes are presented
in section m.A.3.f.(3.].
(f) Nitroso Compounds.
P082—N-Nitrosodimethylamine
P084—N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
Ulll—Di-n-propylnrtrosoamine
U172—N-Nitrowwli-n-butlvanrine
U173—N-Nitroso-di-n-ethanolanrine
U174—N-Nitro«odietfayiamine
U178—N4«troeo-N-ethylurea
U177—N-Nitroeo-N-methyiurea
U178—N-Nitroso- N-methylurethane
This subgroup consists of nine wastes
grouped together because they contain a
nitroso functional group: a nitrogen
double bonded to an oxygen. In all nine
of these U and P chemicals, the nitroso
group is attached to another nitrogen
molecule within a relatively small
aliphatic structure. Poor chemicals also
contain oxygen in functional groups
such as amides, ethers and ketones.
Four of these are amenable to
quantification in treatment residuals by
SW-846 methods: P062, Ulll, U172 and
U174. EPA believes that all nine of these
nitroso compounds are less difficult to
incinerate than Pronamide and is
therefore proposing concentration-based
treatment standards based on detection
limits for P082, Ulll, U17Z and U174 and
is proposing specified methods of
treatment for PD84, U173, U176, U177,
and U17B. These five members of the
Nitroso Sabcategory are not amenable
to quantification in waste treatment
residual matrices because there are no
verified SW-846 analytical methods
available. The specified methods
proposed as wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards for .
all organo-nitrogen U and P wastes are
presented in section HLA.3J43.).
Waste
code
U179
U180
U196
U012
U167
U16S
U093
P101
U003
U009
U152
P077
U105
U106
U169
U181
P062
U111
U172
U174
Regulated constituent
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Pyridine
Aniline
1 -Naphthytamine
2-Naphthylamine
P-
Dimethylaminoazoben-
zene.
Propanenrtrile
Acetonitrile
Acryfonitrite _.
MethacTytonitrite
p-NHroBn«no. _ |
2,4-Oinifrotoluer>e.... \
2.6-Otnttrotoluene_ :
Nitrobenzene _ . . '
5-Nitroo-tolutdine '
N-N&rosodimethylamine '
Di-n-propytnrtrosoamine
N-NitBMO-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamme
Maximum for
any s'ngfe
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
220
220
16
14
15
15
29
360
0 35
0 28
84
28
140
28
14
56
56
14
54
28
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U179, U180, U196. U012, U167, U168
U093, P101, U003, U009, U152, P077,
U105, U106, U169, U181, P082, U111,
U172.ANDU174
CNonwastawatersJ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U179, U180, U196, U012, U167. U168,
•U093, P101, U003, U009, U152, P077,
U105, U106, U169, U181, P082, U111,
U172, AND U174
CWastewaters ]'
Waste
code
U179
U180
U196
U012
U167
U168
U093
P101
U003
U009
U152
P077
U105
U106
U169
U181
P082
U111
U172
U174
Regulated constituent
N-NHrosOfXpendme ,
N-Nitrosopyrrobdine
Pyridine
Aniline
1 -Naphthytamine
P-
Dimethylarninoazobenzi
dine.
Propaoenrtrite
Acetonitrile.-..
Acrytontete .
Mathacrylonrtrile ..
2,4-Oinitrotoluene
2,6-Otratrototoene
Nitrobenzene _ ... .
5-N1tro-o-toluidine
N-NHrosodimettiytamme
Di-n-propytnrfrosoamine,
N-N*o«CKj)-n-t)utytamne
N-Nttrosodiethylamine
Maximum for
any single
grao sample,
: lotal
composition
img/l)
1 3
! 3
0031
0033
037
. i ! 8
0 74
064
0.42'
0 64
047
- 025
0 17
0.051
0.033
' 067
0065
....) 067
...., 0.67
* Note: Alternative standards lor these U and P
wastewatan are also proposed and are presented in
section III.A.7. as standards lor the corresponding
chemical in wastewater forms of Multi-source Leach-
ate. See background on tfwse alternative standards
-------
Fadetd Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1969 / Proposed Rule*
wiMctooIIA1.hp.Kli).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P008,
P018. P046, P054, P064, P067, P069,
P0a4, U007, U011, U014, U021, U091.
U092, U095, U110, U148, U149, U171,
U173, Ut76, U177, U178. U191, U194,
0234, U236. AND U238
CNonwastewatersl
Incineration as a Method o< Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P008,
P018, P046, P054, P064. P067, P069.
P084, U007, U01t, U014. U021, U091,
U092, U095, U110. U148. U149, U171,
U173, U176, U177, U178, U191, U194,
U234, U236, AND U238
Wastowaters]
Wtt Aif Oxidation or Chemical Oxidation Followed by
Cwfcon Adsorption; Biodegration Followed by
Carton Attaxpton;«Incsnototion a»U«thods oi
Treatment
g. Organo-Sulfur Compounds.
P00Z— t-A«rj) 2-lhionrea
P014— Benzene Ihlol (Thiophenof)
P02S- Carbon dtaulfide
PW5— Thlofanox
PM9— 2.4-Dithiobiuret
P068— Methomyl
P07Q— Aldlcatb
P0?2— l-Naphthyl-2-thfourea fBantn)
POW-N.PhenyltWomrea
Ptl6— Thioatmicarbazitte
UI14 — Ethylene bia-dithiocarbamic acid
UH6— Ethylene thloorea
U1S3— Methane thiol
Ult9— Elhyl methane sntfonale
U193— 1.3-Propane sultone
U2I&— Thioacetamide
U2«4— Thiram
The chemicals in the Organo-Sulfur
instability group are all basically
hydrocarbons that contain, sulfur. Some
also contain nitrogen and/or oxygen in
their structure. EPA i» proposing
treatment standards as specified
methods Tor all eighteen of these organo-
sulfur compounds. While several of
these prgano-sulfurs are amenable to
quantification in waste treatment
residual matrices by current SW-848
analytical methods, the Agency has not
obtained any data characterizing either
treated or untreated organo-sulfur
wastes. In addition, the Agency has not
determined a surrogate compound from
which to transfer concentration-based
standards.
The other members of the Organo-
Sulfur treatability group are not
amenable to quantification in waste
treatment residual matrices because
there are no verified SW-846 analytical
methods available. The specified
methods proposed as wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standard! for
all organosnlfur I) and P wastes are the
same as those for all of the ozgano-
nitragen subcategories. These
technologies are presented in section
III.A.3.f.(3.) as they relate to organo-
nitrogens.
The Agency also points out that many
of these compounds have very offensive
or strong odors associated with them. In
fact, the Agency attempted to include
benzene thiol (Thiophenoi-P014) and
carbon disulfide (P022) as
representatives of this treatability group
in its massive test burn [see discussion
of this burn in section m.A.l.h.(8.J(a.J),
however permitting problems arose (due
to the odors specifically associated with
these compounds) that could not be
solved in a reasonable time frame. This
jeopardized the completion of the test
bum. so the Agency had to drop these
chemicals from the list of chemicals to-
be burned. However, the Agency does
believe that these odor problems could
have been resolved with appropriate
technical precautions (given the Agency
had had more time). These odor
problems also present a interesting
reason for specifying technologies rather
than concentration-based standards, i.e.,
the less handling of these compounds,
the better. (Note: In case-the reader has
had no experience with these
compounds, methane thiol (U153) has
the distinct odor of rotten cabbage.}
EPA believes that these compounds
are all amenable to treatment by
incineration, because they resemble
aliphatic, aromatic and other organic
compounds that have been successfully
treated by incineration. EPA requests
comments on the choice of incineration
as the method of treatment for
organosulfur wastes. Specifically, the
Agency solicits supporting evidence on
concentrations of sulfur in waste feeds
that have been successfully incinerated.
This information should include specific
design and operating conditions
established for incineration of these
specific organo-sulfur compounds and/
or specific established restrictions
(either regulatory or company policy) on
the concentrations of total sulfur in
waste feeds. Prospective commenters
are referred to section Ul.A,l.i. for
explanation of the special procedures
that the Agency intends to utilize to
provide additional rapid notice and
comment on any new data and
information received prior to the closure
of the comment period and should
identify their interest in receiving notice
on these data as "Organosulfur Wastes
The Agency is concerned, however,
with the potential nitrogen and sulfur
emissions generated from the
incineration of these wastes. The
formation of nitrogen or sulfur oxides in
the process of incinerating any of these
compounds may require additional
controls in order to meet air quality
requirements pursuant to Section Ida,
110, and 111 of the Clean Air Act or New
Source Review under the CAA's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program. Therefore, EPA requests
comment on incinerator design and
operation. EPA particularly seeks
operating data addressing nitrogen and
sulfur oxide generation and control in
burning wastes containing nitrogen or
sulfur, information on combustion units
equipped with nitrogen or sulfur oxide
controls such as selective noncatalytic
reduction or selective catalytic
reduction, and information concerning
the availability of facilities that can
incinerate these wastes while meeting
applicable air quality requirements for
sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions,
(This information also bears on the issue
of availability of sufficient treatment
capacity for purposes of RCRA section
3004f».) EPA also solicits comment on
the advisability of invoking the omnibus
permitting requirements of RCRA
(section 3005|c),,final sentence) for all
sources burning these wastes, or
restricting the treatment of these wastes
to combustion units that have
appropriate air poHntion controls, in
order to reduce the adverse human
health and environmental effects of
burning these wastes. See also Section
V.D. in today's notice for further
discussion of regulatory control
mechanisms available under the Clean
Air Act.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P002, P014, P022. P045, P049, P066,
P070. P072, P093, P116, U114, U116,
U119, U153, U193, U218, U219, AND
U244
[ NonwastewatersJ
Incineration as a mettled o< treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P002, P014, P022, P045, P049, P066,
P070. P072. P093, P116, U114, U116,
U119, U153, U193, U218, U219, AND
U244
[Wastewaters]
Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption; bipdegradation followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as methods of
treatment
-------
40418
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rulea
h. Wastes of a "Pharmaceutical"
Nature.
P007—Muscimol (5-Aminoethyl 3-isoxazolol]
P042—Epinephrine
P07S—Nicotine and salts
P10&—Strychnine and salts
U010—Mitomycin C
U015—Azaserine
U035—Chlorambucil
U059—Daunomycin
U089—Diethyl stilbestrol
U090—Dihydrosafrole
U141—Isosafrole
U143—Lasiocarptne
U150—Melphalan
U155—Methapyrilene
U163—N-Methyl N-nitro N-nitroguanidine
U164—Methylthiouracil
U187—Phenacetin
U200—Reserpine
U202—Saccharin and salts
U203—Safrole
U206—Streptozotocin
U237—Uracil mustard
EPA has grouped these four P wastes
and eighteen U wastes together into a
single general treatability group,
identified as "Pharmaceutical" Wastes.
These U and P wastes are complex
organic chemicals, many of which are
typically generated by the
pharmaceutical industry as discarded
raw materials, byproducts or off-
specification products. While some of
these compounds may not be
specifically identified as "drugs" and a
few are not specifically generated by the
pharmaceutical industry, EPA's main
reasons for grouping these 22 waste
codes together is the relative similarities
in structures within this treatability
group versus the compounds in the other
treatability groups (i.e., all of twenty
two of these chemicals are relatively
large complex heavily substituted
molecules). Eighteen of the twenty two
compounds have aromatic rings, nine of
which also contain nitrogen or sulfur
incorporated into the ring. Six of these
wastes include aromatic rings that are
fused into polynuclear aromatic
structures. All have multiple double
bonds and all include oxygen, nitrogen
or sulfur atoms.
The Agency has data on incineration
of Isosafrole that were used in
developing the standards for this
treatability subgroup of
"pharmaceutical" wastes. The new data
from EPA's June, 1989 testing of rotary
kiln incineration indicate that Isosafrole
can be incinerated to detection limits as
measured in both the ash and scrubber
water. Given the size and complexity of
these waste molecules, EPA believes
they can all be incinerated to the limit of
detection in ash and scrubber water and
is therefore proposing wastewater and
nonwastewater standards based on
incineration as BDAT.
Four of these wastes, Isosafrole
(U141), Methapyrilene (U155),
Phenacetin (U187), and Safrole (U203)
are amenable to quantification in
treatment residuals by SW-848 methods.
EPA is transferring the incineration
performance data for Isosafrole to all
four of these wastes and thus is
proposing concentration-based
standards. Although Strychnine (P108) is
also amenable to quantification (by
Method 8270 of SW-846), EPA is
proposing incineration as a treatment
standard in order not to stimulate
generation of this acutely toxic chemical
for use as a calibration reagent.
The Agency is proposing specified
methods of treatment for the seventeen
remaining "pharmaceutical" wastes
which are not amenable to
quantification in waste treatment
residual matrices. All of these are large
molecules with significant branching,
less stable than similar polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons and chlorinated
aromatic pesticides known to be
effectively treated by incineration.
These seventeen chemicals are not
amenable to quantification for the
following reasons: (1) P007, P075, U010,
U015, U035, U059, U089, U143, U150,
U184, U200, U202 and U206 are only
quantifiable by HPLC methods (Note:
EPA rejects HPLC methods for waste
treatment residual matrices for reasons
discussed in section IH.A.l.h.(2.)(a.).); (2)
calibration reagents are not
commercially available for U090 and
U237 (see background discussion in
in.A.l.h.(2.)(b.); and (3) for P042 or U163
wastes there are no verified SW-846
analytical methods available. The
specified methods proposed as
wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment standards for all
"pharmaceutical" U and P wastes are
the same as those for all of the organo-
nitrogen subcategories. These
technologies are presented in section
IU.A.3.f.(3.) as they relate to organo-
nitrogens.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U141, U155, U187 AND U203
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste
code
U141
U1S5
U187
U203
Regulated constituent
Isosafrole
Methapyrilene
Phenacetin
Safrole
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
2 6
69
1A
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
U141.U155. U187ANDU203
[Wastewaters]
Waste
code
U141
U155
U187
U203
Regulated Constituent
Isosafrole
Methapyrilene
Phenacetin
Safrole
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/1)
0 076
0 15
0 36
1 3
•Note: Alternative standards for these U an P
*asjewaters are also proposed and are presented in
section III.A.7. as standards for the corresponding
chemical m wastewater forms of Mum-source Leach-
ate. See background on these alternative standards
in section III.A.1.h.(6.)(b.).
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P007,
P042, P075, P108, U010, U015, U035,
U059, U089, U090, U143, U150, U163,
U164, U200, U202, U206, AND U237
CNonwastewaters]
Incineration as a method of treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P007,
P042. P075, P108, U010, U015, U035,
U059, U089, U090, U143, U150, U163,
U164, U200. U202, U206, AND U237
CWastewaters]
Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption; biodegradation followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as methods of
treatment
4. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Ignitable, Corrosive, and Reactive
Wastes—a. Introduction. This section of
-------
Federal Register / Vrf. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November. 22. 1989 / Proposed
48419
today's preamble presents a discussion
of the proposed treatment standards for
fgnitable (D001), corroshre (D002), and
reactive (D003) characteristic wastes.
This section also presents proposed
treatment standards for certain U and P
wastes that either have the potential to
be reactive, particularly in the
concentrated form, or are structurally
similar to one another. Discussion of the
general issues related to all
characteristic wastes and an overview
of the major options that the Agency
considered in proposing treatment
standards for all characteristic wastes
are presented in sections HF.A.l.g. and
I1I.C. of today's preamble.
Ignitable and reactive wastes are
already subject to some restrictions on
placement in surface impoundments,
waste piles, land treatment units, and
landfills according to 40 CFR 264.229.
264.258. 264.281, 264.312, 265.229, 285.258.
265.281, and 285.312. Additional
requirements for disposing lab packs
containing ignitable and reactive wastes
in landfills are established in 40 CFR
264.318. Preamble section IEA.4.f.
presents a discussion of the impact that
today's proposed treatment standards
will have on these provisions. When
today's proposed rule is promulgated,
these wastes are subject to the land
disposal restrictions {40 CFR 288)
including waste analysis, record
keeping, and treatment standards.
(1) Treatment of All Characteristic
Properties. The use of a specified
treatment method for a particular
characteristic waste does not
necessarily ensure that the residues
from this treatment are no longer a
characteristic hazardous waste. In other
words, treatment for a given
characteristic may not, under today's
proposal, completely satisfy the
requirements to treat other
characteristics in the waste or any new
characteristics appearing in the
treatment residue. For example, ash
residues from the 5ncineran'on"of an
ignitable waste will no longer be
ignitable. but may exhibit the
characteristic of EP toxicity for metals
(due to the metals concentrating in the
ash) even though the waste may not
have been EP toxic prior to incineration;
this residue may therefore require
further treatment.
The Agency expects that residues
from treating many corrosive or reactive
wastes may exhibit EP toxicity for
metals. As discussed in preamble
section III.C., the Agency is therefore
requiring'that no characteristic wastes
or their treatment residues may be land
disposed unless the treatment standard
for the particular characteristic is above
the characteristic level or the residue
has complied with the applicable
specified method. Proposed treatment
standards for EP toxic metal wastes
(DQ04-D011) are presented in section
III.A.5. of today's preamble.
Because of the nature of some
subcategories of these DQ01, D002, or
D003 wastes, the Agency is not
distinguishing wastewater versus
nonwastewater standards in aQ cases.
Sometimes this is because there is no
way to physically distinguish one from
the other (e.g. D001 compressed gases
are neither wastewaters nor
nonwastewaters], or sometimes it is
prudent to apply the same technology to
both wastewaters and nonwastewafers.
In other cases, only nonwastewater
standards or only wastewater standards
are proposed for aubcategories of these
characteristic wastes. The Agency
solicits comment on the potential for
generation of forms of these wastes
where no standards axe specified for
that particular form or where the.
commenter believes that there is a
different technology that should be
specified.
(2) Treatment Below Characteristic
Levels. The Agency is proposing two
options for treatment standards for
wastes in the DOO1 Ignitable Liquids,
D002 Acid, D002 Alkaline, D002 Other
Corrosives, D003- Reactive Cyanide, and
D003 Reactive Sulfides treatability
groups. As discussed in detail in section
III.C. of today's preamble, the Agency
has initially determined that it has the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes or at least to make
failure te treat to the lower level a
violation of section 30Q4(m]. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing such standards
in particular for wastes in the D001
Ignitable Liquids. D002 Acid. D002
Alkaline, D002 Other Corrosives, D003
Reactive Cyanide and D009 Reactive
Sulfides Subcategories. (The specific
standards are presented in the
respective discussions of the treatability
subcategories below.) The Agency is
soliciting comment on the option of
treating to reach the characteristic level
(i.e., removing the characteristic).
These particular subcategories of
D001, D002, and D003 wastes are
defined by specific testing requirements
or narrative standards (i.e., reactive
cyanides and reactive sulfides). Thus,
the Agency is also proposing a second
option of limiting these treatment
standards to the respective
characteristic levels for these D001,
D002, or DOO3 subcategories only (i.e.,
other subcategories of these wastes do
not have specific testing requirements or
guidance). The Agency specifically
solicits comments on these two options.
(3) Deactivation as a Treatment
Standard. The Agency is proposing a
general treatment standard of
"Deactivation as a Method of
Treatment" for several subcategories of
D001. D002. and D003 wastes (i.e.. D001
Ignifable Reactives. D001 Oxidizers,
D002 Other Corrosives, D003 Explosives.
D003 Water Reactives, and D003 Other
Reactives). The Agency has determined
that within each of these subcategories
there appear to be a further variety of
different waste groups, each with a
certain degree of uniqueness with
reaped to hazard and handling
requirements. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the actual method of
"Deactivation" chosen for each waste
may be specific to that waste and may
be best determined by the generator or
the treater most knowledgeable as to the
waste's unique hazards and handling
requirements.
Further, the Agency currently has no
information that suggests that one
particular technology may be generally
applicable to all the wastes within each
particular characteristic subcategory,
nor that there is one particular
technology that can be identified as
"Best".
Nat*: This does not preclude the Agency
from making snch a determination in the
future should additional information and data
become available.
However, information does suggest that
all of these wastes can be treated by
some form of deactivation (e.g., open
detonation, thermal destruction,
specialized incineration, chemical .
oxidation, chemical reduction, and
controlled reaction with water) and that
there apparently are no wastes that
require land disposal without treatment
to remove these particular
characteristics (i.e., ignitable reactivity,
oxidizing potential, explosivity. water
reactivity, and other corrosivity or
reactivity).
The Agency considered proposing a
"No Land Disposal" standard to these
subcategories of wastes; however, some
commenters to previous land disposal
restriction rales have raised concerns
over the effect of these standards. (Note:
This concern should be moot, in that,
today's notice proposes to revoke all
"No Land Disposal" standards that were
previously promulgated.) There may be
similar concerns that the proposed
"Deactivation as a Method of
Treatment" is also not a treatment
standard per se. As a result, the Agency
is proposing an alternative of specifying
a treatment standard identified as
-------
48420
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 /Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed
"Thermal Destruction, Specialized
Incineration, Chemical Oxidation,
Chemical Reduction, and Controlled
Reaction with Water as Methods of
Treatment" for all wastes in the
characteristic subcategories identified
as D001 Ignitable Reactives, D001
Oxidizers, D002 Other Corrosives, D003
Explosives, D003 Water Reactives, and
D003 Other Reactives. The Agency is
specifically soliciting comment and data
on these technologies (or other
technologies) that could assist the
Agency in promulgating these as an
alternative standard for these particular
subcategories of characteristic wastes.
The Agency believes, however, the
proposed standard of "Deactivation as a
Method of Treatment" provides a
needed flexibility in choice of protective
treatment technology for the anticipated
uniqueness of these wastes at specific
sites, while at the same time allowing
safe handling procedures for the waste
because of their overall "reactive"
nature. The Agency believes this is an
appropriate approach for these wastes
since the hazardous characteristic is
based on imminent hazard (e.g., violent
reactions and ignition) rather than on
other criteria such as levels of
hazardous constituents.
The Agency considered another
option, that of specifying one technology
(e.g., open detonation) for all the wastes
that could be included in each
subcategory and deal with cases where
a waste could not be treated by that
technology through the variance
procedures of 40 CFR 268.44. The
Agency does not prefer this option
because of the time and resources that
are necessary to process a large number
of petitions for a variance from the
treatment standard.
Furthermore, there are no known
analytical methods to measure the
characteristics for which the majority of
these wastes are identified, nor a test
that distinguishes the reactive chemical
from the deactivated chemical in the
treatment residues. The Agency solicits
comment and data on the proposed
overall approach for setting treatment
standards for these subcategories of
characteristic wastes.
B. Ignitable Characteristic
Wastes. According to 40 CFR 281.21,
there are four criteria for identifying a
waste as D001 Ignitable. Paraphrasing
these criteria, a waste is a D001
Ignitable if: (1) it is a liquid with a flash
point less than 140 °F; (2) it is an
ignitable compressed gas; (3) it is not a
liquid and is capable of causing fire
through friction, absorption of moisture,
or spontaneous chemical changes and
when ignited burns vigorously and
persistently; or (4) it is an oxidizer. EPA
has determined that these four criteria
translate directly into four major D001
Subcategories. If a waste is classified as
D001 because it fits under more than one
D001 subcategory, the waste must be
treated by the specified treatment
method that is the treatment standard
for each applicable subcategory.
(1) Ignitable Liquids Subcategory. The
first D001 subcategory is described as
the Ignitable Liquids Subcategory and
refers to those D001 wastes that exhibit
the properties listed in § 261.21(a)(l).
Data indicate that'the majority of all
D001 wastes generated fall into this
subcategory and are typically described
as solvents, paint thinners,
contaminated oils, and various organic
hydrocarbons.
These wastes are typically classified
as nonwastewaters due to their high
organic content (usually greater than 1%
TOG). The major organic constituents in
these wastes are volatile flammable
hydrocarbons or oxygenated
hydrocarbons that provide the
characteristic of ignitability to the waste
(i.e., a flash point of less than 140 '¥].
Some of these organics are water
soluble and can theoretically be
biodegraded in some wastewater
treatment systems. Typically these
constituents must be diluted to
significantly lower concentrations in the
wastewater in order for microorganisms
to degrade them. Also, the
biodegradation processes often require
an aeration step. During the dilution and
aeration steps, significant amounts of
these volatile organic compounds
(yOCs) can be emitted to the air. While
biodegradation processes may be
applicable for certain D001 Ignitable
Liquids, the Agency believes this
process is not as protective as thermal
destruction technologies.
Thermal destruction technologies such
as incineration and reuse as a fuel will
completely remove the characteristic of
low flash point by completely destroying
the VOCs, thereby rendering the waste
nonignitable. Based on the fact that
these techniques remove the
characteristic of ignitability
permanently and completely, EPA is
proposing a treatment standard of
"Incineration, Fuel Substitution, or
Recovery as Methods of Treatment" for
D001 in the Ignitable Liquids
subcategory. This standard will
establish incineration, fuel substitution,
or recovery as mandatory processes for
handling D001 Ignitable Liquids.
The Agency has data showing that the
majority of D001 Ignitable Liquids are
already treated by incineration, reused
as a fuel substitute due to their high BTU
content or recovered for reuse through
processes such as distillation. The
Agency does not want to preclude
anyone from using distillation or other
recovery techniques for these wastes. At
the same 'time, the Agency does not
believe that most of these wastes are
necessarily recoverable by processes
such as distillation. While recovery
options may be preferable over
incineration or fuel substitution for some
of the D001 wastes in this subcategory,
the end result is the same. The choice
between incineration, fuel substitution,
or recovery may then be made by the
generator or treater, based on
economics and on the ability of the
particular recovery system to handle the
waste. (Additional discussion on fuel
substitution as a treatment method for
these wastes is contained in the
discussion of national capacity
variances in section III.B.)
Some D001 Ignitable Liquids have
been shown to contain organic
constituents that are also constituents in
F001-F005 solvents. The Agency studied
the option of transferring the standards
for these constituents from the
corresponding F001-F005 standards
promulgated in the November 7,1986
final rule (51FR 40B42). However, the
Agency believes that this option would
create an unnecessary burden on the
regulated community in several ways.
The majority of D001 wastes in the
Ignitable Liquids subcategory probably
do not contain these constituents. It
seems an unreasonable burden to
require generators of D001 wastes to
conduct the significant amount of testing
and certification required under the land
disposal restrictions, when it is likely
that constituents are not present. Also,
the F001-F005 standards are based on
analysis of an extract obtained from use
of the TCLP, not on analysis of the total
concentration in a representative
sample of the waste. Therefore, the
Agency prefers to deal with this
difference in required testing in a future
rulemaking, by establishing treatment
standards based on analysis of total
constituent concentrations to replace the
F001-F005 standards; the new standards
could then be transferred to the
appropriate wastes in the Ignitable
Liquids subcategory. The Agency has
not investigated all the technical issues
associated with transferring data based
on analysis of the TCLP extract to
constituents measured by a total waste
analysis. Therefore, the Agency is not
proposing concentration-based D001
treatment standards based on a transfer
of F001-F005 data at this time, although
it may reevaluate this decision in the
future.
The Agency is currently unable to
determine whether any D001 wastes in
-------
Federal Regiater / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rule8
48421
Ihis subcategory conform to the
definition of waste waters (i.e.,
containing less than 1% TOG and 195
TSS) as initially generated. The Agency
believes, however, if wastewater forms
. are generated, the treatment standard
proposed for nonwastewaters apply to
these wastewaters as well, since the end
result will be the removal of the
fgnitability characteristic and
destruction of the hazardous
constituents.
(2) Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory. The second subcategory is
classified as the Ignitable Compressed
Gases subcategory and refers to those
D001 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in § 281.21(a)(3) and meet the
definitions in 49 CFR 173.300. The
Agency has very limited information on
the generation and characterization of
D001 wastes in this subcategory, but
suspects that while these wastes may be
generated, it is unlikely that they require
placement in any type of land disposal
unit. The Agency believes that there are
no gas cylinders containing compressed
ignitable gases placed in surface
impoundments, and that it is physically
impossible to dispose them by means of
deep well injection. Some cylinders
containing D001 ignitable gases may be
placed in waste piles: however, such
placement of a container in a storage
unit is not land disposal under section
3004(k). In addition, these types of
cylinders are usually returned to
distribution facilities to be refilled. The
Agency does not intend to prevent
short-term storage of cylinders prior to
refilling.
The Agency considered several
options for proposing treatment
standards for compressed ignitable
gases. The preferred option is that of
recovery by direct reuse, since typically,
the cylinders are directly refilled. A
second option is incineration by venting
the gas into an incinerator. There may
be cases when it is preferable to vent
the gas into an appropriate adsorbent
material (provided that air emissions
can be controlled), and then incinerate
the adsorbed gas/adsorbent material
combination to permanently remove the
characteristic, because this would
reduce the risk of explosion. The
Agency is not proposing to specify fuel
substitution as a method because it
knows too little about these wastes.
EPA will reconsider this question if
additional data adequately
characterizing these wastes are
submitted.
Today, the Agency is proposing a
treatment standard of "Recovery or
Incineration of Vented Ignitable Gases"
for these wastes. This treatment
standard will apply to all forms of the
Ignitable Compressed Gases, since the
definitions of wastewater and
nonwastewater do not apply to this
group of wastes (see section III.A.l.g of
today's preamble).
(3) Ignitable Reactives Subcategory.
The third subcategory is classified as
the Ignitable Reactives subcategory and
refers to those D001 wastes that exhibit
the properties listed in § 261.21(a)(2).
D001 wastes in the Ignitable Reactives
subcategory are primarily inorganic
solids or wastes containing reactive
materials. These include materials such
as reactive alkali metals or metalloids
(such as sodium and potassium) and
calcium carbide slags. All of these are
very reactive with water and will
generate gases that can ignite due to
heat generated from the reaction with
water. Other ignitable solids in this
subcategory include metals such as
magnesium and aluminum that, when
finely divided, can vigorously react with
the oxygen in the air when ignited.
There appears to be an overlap
between wastes in this D001
. subcategory and certain D003
(characteristic of reactivity) wastes. A
close examination of the definitions in
§ 261.21(a)(2) for ignitable wastes and
§5 261.23(a) (2). (3) and (6) for reactive
wastes reveals the distinction between
these two groups. The key difference is
in the definition of ignitable wastes
which states: "* * * when ignited,
burns vigorously and persistently." This
phrase implies that the hazard is due
primarily to the ignition potential rather
than to the extreme reactivity.
D001 Ignitable Reactives are
generated on a sporadic basis and
generally in low volumes. They typically
are not placed in surface impoundments
because they often react with water,
thus creating a fire hazard. Current
management practices for some of these
wastes, such as calcium carbide slag,
involve placing the wastes in specially
designed units for the purpose of
controlled deactivation with water. EPA
has determined previously that such
deactivation does not constitute land
disposal. See 51 FR at 40577 (Nov. 7,
1988) and 52 FR 21011 (June 4.1987).
Thus, this treatment practice is
permissible. Where residues from
deactivation in land disposal units (such
as waste piles) leave an EP toxic residue
on the land (within the meaning of
section 3004(k)). a different method of
deactivation may be necessary. EPA
solicits comment on this point, including
comment regarding implications for
availability of adequate treatment
capacity pursuant to the section
3004(h)(2) determination.
Other D001 Ignitable Reactives, such
as those containing reactive alkali
metals (sodium or potassium) are
sometimes open-detonated. The Agency
also has data indicating that these
wastes are sometimes chemically
deactivated.
Radioactive zirconium fines that are
pyrophoric under 40 CFR 26l.21(a}(2)
(i.e., that cause fire through friction)
have been included in this D001
subcategory. The Department of Energy
submitted data that appears to indicate
that this waste can be stabilized to
remove the reactivity characteristic.
Stabilization is not usually considered to
be a method of deactivation, and EPA is
concerned that this treatment may be a
form of impermissible dilution rather
than a chemical reaction (i.e., oxidation)
that removes the reactivity
characteristic. The Agency solicits
comment and additional data on
whether stabilization is appropriate for
radioactive zirconium fines.
Furthermore, the Agency requests
comment on whether stabilization is an
appropriate deactivation treatment for
all zirconium fine wastes, as well as for
the other reactive metals.
The Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Deactivation as a Method
of Treatment" for wastes in the D001
Ignitable Reactive subcategory. The
Agency believes this is an appropriate
approach for these wastes since the
hazardous characteristic is based on
imminent hazard (i.e., ignition and
violent reaction) rather than on other
criteria such as levels of hazardous
constituents, and that technologies exist
that can completely remove this
characteristic. A more complete
discussion of the implications of this
standard is presented in section
UI.A.4.a.(2.) above, as well as an
alternative proposed standard for
wastes in this subcategory.
(4) Oxidizers Subcategory. The fourth
subcategory is classified as the
Oxidizers subcategory and refers to
those D001 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed in § 261.21(a)(4) and
meet the definitions in 49 CFR 173.151.
D001 wastes in the Oxidizers
subcategory are primarily inorganic, and
include such things as waste peroxides,
perchlorates, and permanganates. The
Agency has very limited information on
the generation and characterization of
D001 wastes in this subcategory. It is
possible that certain aqueous solutions
of these oxidizers may be useful in the
treatment of other hazardous wastes.
These wastes must, however, be used as
treatment reagents in tanks and not in
surface Impoundments due to the
potential release of heat and volatile
-------
Renter / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed
organics during the oxidation/reduction
reactions (see 40 CFR 264.229 and
265.229).
The Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Deactivation as a Method
of Treatment" for wastes in the D001
Oxidizers Subcategory. The Agency
believes this is an appropriate approach
for these wastes since the hazardous
characteristic is based on imminent
hazard (i.e., oxidizers can react violently
with organics or other materials and
result in the rapid generation of fires)
rather than on other criteria such as
levels of hazardous constituents, and
that technologies exist that can
completely remove this characteristic. A
more complete discussion of the
implications of this standard is
presented in section III.A.4.a.(2.) above,
as well as an alternative proposed
standard for wastes in this subcategory.
(5) Need to Treat Rather Than Dilute
Ignitable Wastes. In section OLD.
below, EPA discusses the issue of
dilution to remove a characteristic and
proposes that a prohibited form of
dilution that is used to remove a
characteristic from a prohibited
hazardous waste would be a violation of
the dilution prohibition in section 268.3.
In this section the Agency addresses
policy concerns that lead to the
conclusion that dilution is not
automatically a legitimate mode of
treatment,of ignitable wastes (and
therefore is not a prohibited form of
dilution for purposes of the section 268.3
dilution prohibition).
On first impression, one might assume
that it does not matter how the
ignitability characteristic is removed so
long as the waste ends up non-ignitable.
Igni lability, however, reflects presence
of volatile organic compounds (VOC),
which are ozone precursors. If ignitable
wastes are diluted. VOC will ordinarily
be emitted in concentrations far
exceeding those emitted by treatment
processes in which these volatiles are
destroyed. Control of VOC is a
legitimate concern under RCRA (section
3004 (m)) specifically calls for
minimizing threats to the environment
as well as to human health, and the
Agency has specifically called attention
to control of VOC in the 1987 proposed
rule implementing RCRA section 3004
(n)). Volatile emissions from dilution
also may pose a reignition hazard.
Dilution of ignitable wastes also fails to
utilize the wastes' energy value,
contravening a fundamental RCRA goal
of encouraging recovery of energy from
wastes (RCRA section 1002 (d)). EPA
also believes that allowing dilution of
D001 wastes will create an incentive for
generators to miscode the listed.
prohibited solvent wastes (P001-F005)
as D001 wastes, frustrating the
treatment requirements for those
wastes.
Accordingly, the Agency believes that
dilution should not be a legitimate
method for treating ignitable wastes.
Commenters on this point should
address policy reasons for allowing
dilution as treatment, or identify
circumstances when dilution may occur
as a legitimate adjunct to treatment.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE LIQUIDS 261.21(a)(1)
Incineration; Fuel Substitution; or Recovery as
Methods of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE COMPRESSED GASES
261.21(a)(3)
Incineration of Vented' Ignitable Gases; or Recovery
as Metnods of Treatment
Ignitabte gases may be vented directly Into an
incinerator or vented into a suitable adsorbent prior
to incineration. Although the gases, once vented, are
no longer compressed in a cylinder the Agency doe*
not consider that treatment has occumxiart* the
ignitable gas has been incinerated. Adsorption of the
ignrtabie gas into either a solid or liquid adsorbent is
typicatty a reversible physical process. Thus, the
ignitable chemical has not been destroyed.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE REACTIVES 261.21(a)(2)
Deactivation as a Method of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0001
OXIDIZERS 261.21(aM4)
Deactivation as * Method of Treatment
C. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes.
Paraphrasing the criteria for defining a
waste as a D002 Corrosive waste (40
CFR 261.22), a waste can be a D002
waste if it is aqueous and has a pH less
than or equal to 2, or greater than or
equal to 12.5; or it is a liquid and
corrodes steel at a specified rate and
temperature. EPA determined that these
criteria translated into three
subcategories for D002 wastes, the Acid
Subcategory, the Alkaline Subcategory,
and the Other Corrosives Subcategory.
(1) D002 AcidandAlkaline
Subcategory. The Acid Snbcategory and
the Alkaline Subcategory, refer to those
D002 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in 40 CFR 261.22(a)(l) and are
distinguishable by the approporiate pH
specifications. The Acid subcategory is
defined as those wastes with a pH of
less than or equal to 2.0, and the
Alkaline Subcategory is defined as those
with a pH of greater than or equal to
12.5. Also by definition, D002 wastes in
these two subcategories only include
wastes which are considered to be
"aqueous", due to the fact that standard
pH measurements can only be
performed in the presence of significant
amounts of water (i.e., pH is the
measure of the concentration of
hydronium ions in water).
D002 wastes in the Acid subcategory
typically include concentrated spent
acids, acidic wastewaters, and spent
add strippers and cleaners. Wastes in
the Alkaline subcategory typically
include concentrated spent bases,
alkaline wastewaters, and spent
alkaline strippers and cleaners. D002
wastes represent a significant portion of
all hazardous wastes generated by
almost every industry.
The Agency believes that many D002
wastes in both the Acid and Alkaline
subcategories are .already being treated
by chemical neutralization. These
subcategories have been defined as
hazardous due to their extremes in pH:
therefore, any chemical neutralization
technology will completely remove the
extremes of pH and thereby render the
waste noncorrosive. The choice of
neutralizing reagents are dependent
upon the subcategory of the waste, i.e.,
the acid wastes will require bases for
neutralization and alkaline wastes will
require acids.
Based on this, EPA is proposing a
treatment standard of "Base
Neutralization to pH 6-9 and Insoluble
Salts" for the D002 Acidic Subcategory.
Likewise, EPA is proposing a treatment
standard of "Acid Neutralization to pH 6
- 9 and Insoluble Salts" for the D002
Alkaline Subcategory.
Neutralization with chemicals is not
the same as simple dilution to achieve a
neutral pH. While dilution will change
the pH (i.e., the concentration of the
hydronium ions), neutralization with
chemicals involves a chemical reaction.
Dilution is merely the addition of
significant quantities of water in order
to arrive at a neutral pH with the anions
associated with the acid (or base)
remaining in solution. Neutralization
with acids or bases involves a reaction
which utilizes a chemical change to
achieve neutral pH with the anions
either remaining in solution or
precipitating as a sludge.
The Agency is proposing a range of
pH 6 to 9 instead of the characteristic
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November
22. 1989 / Proposed Rulea 48423
range of pH 2-12.5 for several reasons.
First, hydronium Ions from acids
solubilize metals from clay liners,
impacting their ability to act as barriers
to migration. Moreover, acid wastes
between pH 2 and 6 can increase the
mobility of many hazardous constituents
in groundwater relative to wastes in the
pH range of 6 to 9. Another reason the
Agency Is proposing this range because
this matches the buffering of natural
aquatic systems based on carbonate/
bicarbonate pH relationship (i.e., pH 5.5
and 8.5 are carbonate/bicarbonate pH
levels indicating what is referred to as
the acidity and alkalinity (respectively)
of an aqueous environmental sample).
The Agency notes, however, that the
pH range of 6 to 9 may not be
appropriate for deep well injection into
certain formations. A different pH range
may be specified in permits to ensure
that injected fluid flows properly
through the injection zone without
plugging. Moreover, deep well injection
zones are not near surface aquatic
ecosystems. The Agency does not want
to create anomalous results in the
context of injected wastes and solicits
comments on whether any pH range
specified in an underground injection
control permit should supercede the
proposed treatment standard range of
pH6to9.
The Agency prefers neutralization of
corrosive wastes over simple dilution
because dilution simply creates a larger
volume of wastes but does not treat or
remove hazardous constituents hi the
wastes. Moreover, neutralization is
more conservative of natural resources
and more protective of aquatic
ecosystems. An example of how
neutralization conserves natural
resources (i.e., water) is shown in the
following scenario. Dilution of one
gallon of the most frequently used
industrial acid, concentrated sulfuric
acid, to a pH of just above 2 requires
3.600 gallons of water. Dilution to
completely neutralize the concentrated
sulfuric acid to a level that is expected
to have no ecological impact on fresh
water systems would require 380,000,000
gallons of water. On the other hand, one
gallon of this acid can be neutralized to
pH 7 with only 12 pounds of caustic
(sodium hydroxide) or only 11 pounds of
lime (calcium hydroxide). Treatment to
achieve pH 2 actually requires slightly
less caustic or lime; however, the
amount is not substantially less than the
amount required to neutralize to pH 7.
The Agency recognizes, however, that
dilution in order to facilitate treatment
may be necessary (i.e., the added water
serves as a heat sink that is necessary to
control very exothermic reactions or
toxic air emissions). Dilution in order to
facilitate treatment is not prohibited
(see sections m.A.l.g. and III.H. for
further discussion of dilution-of
characteristic wastes).
When selecting neutralization
reagents, it is important to consider the
solubility of the salts produced as a
result of neutralization. This is
illustrated by the following scenario.
Chemical neutralization of one gallon of
concentrated sulfuric acid with caustic
(sodium hydroxide) results in 22 pounds
of dissolved salts (in the form of sodium
sulfate) that, if improperly managed,
could adversely impact fresh water
ecosystems. However, chemical
neutralization with lime (calcium
hydroxide) results in 19 pounds of
relatively insoluble, nontoxic sludge
which would have to be land disposed
or otherwise recovered. (This solid
waste could potentially be recycled or
reused depending upon other
constituents such as metals that may
co-precipitate along with the solids.) In
fact, data from the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) indicates that sodium
sulfate is the chemical being discharged
in largest volumes to surface water.
Therefore, the Agency prefers to
neutralize D002 wastes such that
relatively nontoxic solid wastes are
generated rather than wastewater
discharges with high dissolved solid
contents that could potentially have
adverse impacts on fresh water
ecosystems. This is further illustrated by
the discharge of soluble nitrate (from
either neutralization or dilution of nitric
acid, the second largest acid used in
industry) and soluble phosphate (from
phosphoric acid). Both of these ions are
considered nutrients to aquatic
ecosystems and at low levels contribute
to the overall growth of fresh water
ecosystems. However, the discharge of .
excessive amounts (or slugs of
concentrations) of these ions could
expedite algal growth and adversely
impact the balance of the ecosystems.
It is important to point out that when
neutralizing some concentrated acids
such as nitric acid, the point that the
acid enters the treatment reactor should
be under the surface of water to avoid
possible toxic gas generation (i.e., NOx).
Some facilities generate waste streams
which fluctuate from the Acid
subcategory to the Alkaline subcategory
depending upon what process is used on
a given day. These facilities might be
able to utilize these fluctuations in pH
as a means of performing cm-site
neutralization.
(2) Recoverable Acids. Recovery
options have been demonstrated for a
variety of corrosive wastes. The Agency
prefers recovery as a treatment
standard, in that it results in no
discharge of acidic constituents into the
environment and conserves resources.
The legislative history of the land
disposal restriction provisions also
indicates that recovery is the preferred
management alternative. The Agency
lacks waste characterization data which
indicates the. wastes that are most
amenable to recovery, therefore, the
Agency is establishing for this
subcategory "Recovery as a Method" as
the treatment standard. The choice
between neutralization and recovery
may be made by the generator or the
centralized treatment operation,
according to the applicability and
performance of a given type of acid/
base recovery system.
By establishing these treatment
standards, the Agency is leaving open
the opportunity to the regulated
community to apply for a variance from
the treatment standard to account for
D002 wastes which cannot be effectively
neutralized or recovered (40 CFR 268.44).
Such a situation could occur for small
quantities of corrosive materials that
contain extremely toxic or otherwise
hazardous chemicals that may cause an
unnecessary risk during neutralization.
The Agency promulgated regulations
for liquid hazardous wastes having a pH
of less than or equal to 2.0 in the
California list final rule (52 FR 25760,
July 8,1987) by codifying this statutory
pH level into 40 CFR 268.32. This
regulation, however, is not adequate to
address the universe of D002 wastes.
The California list restrictions apply
only to liquid corrosive wastes without
specifically identifying them as D002
wastes. Furthermore, the California list
final rule did not specify neutralization
as a required treatment standard; in
fact, the waste may be merely rendered
nonliquid prior to land disposal and still
satisfy the California list requirements.
Therefore, the Agency is today
proposing treatment standards for D002
wastes that will supercede the
California list regulations because they
are more specific. (Note the discussion
in section III.M., however, regarding
continued applicability of the California
list prohibitions during the periods of a
national capacity variance.)
(3) Other D002 Corrosives. The third
major subcategory is classified as the
Other Corrosives subcategory and is
defined as those D002 wastes that
exhibit corrosivity to steel as defined in
§ 261.22(a)(2). They often are
nonaqueous corrosive wastes such as
certain organic liquids, but can
represent inorganic chemicals as well.
-------
48424 Federal
/ Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Ruie.
Wastes in the Other D002 Corrosives
subcategory are generated on a sporadic
basis and generally in low volumes. The
Agency suspects that these wastes are
often identified as corrosive without
performing the specified testing with
steel (i.e., the corrosivity of th~e waste
may be assumed due the presence of
known corrosive constituents). This may
also be due, in part, to the high cost of
testing and to the difficulties in
identifying laboratories that are
experienced in steel corrosion testing.
The physical and chemical
characteristics of this group of wastes
vary greatly. The wastes may be
aqueous or they may be primarily
organic. In addition, a large variety of
corrosive chemicals may appear as
constituents in this type of corrosive
waste. Depending on the concentration
of these corrosive chemicals, they may
corrode SAE1020 steel. Examples of
chemicals that may contribute to
corrosivity include ferric chloride,
benzene sulfonyl chloride,
benzotrichloride, acetyl chloride, formic
acid, hydrofluoric acid, some catalysts,
various resins, metal cleaners, and
etchants. Highly concentrated acids that
have no water content may also be
included in this subcategory, since pH
measurements are not possible on these
wastes.
Wastes in the Other Corrosives
subcategory are often treated by
deactivating the corrosive constituents
of the waste with an appropriate
chemical reagent. Wastes that contain
high concentrations of corrosive
organics are often incinerated, however.
Due to the great variety of potential
corrosive organics, the Agency does not
believe that it should establish
concentration-based standards based on
incineration for these D002 wastes.
Removal and recovery of either organic
or inorganic corrosive constituents may
also be applicable technologies, since
recovery could extract the corrosive
constituents until the waste itself is no
longer corrosive to steel.
EPA is proposing a treatment
standard of "Deactivation: SAE 1020
Steel Corrosion Rate <6.35 mm/yr" for
D002 wastes in the Other Corrosives
subcategory. The Agency believes this is
an appropriate approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic is based on imminent
hazard (i.e., the corrosivity to steel may
cause rupture of a tank or container,
thus releasing the contents either
suddenly or through leaks) rather than
on other criteria such as levels of
hazardous constituents, and that
technologies exist that can completely
remove this characteristic, A more
complete discussion of the implications
of this standard is presented in section
IU.A.4.a.(2.) above, as well as an
alternative proposed standard for
wastes in this subcategory.
The Agency is soliciting comments
and data on the physical and chemical
characterization of all three
subcategories of D002 wastes, as well as
on the applicability of chemical
deactivation and recovery. Facilities
with D002 wastes that are not amenable
to neutralization or deactivation
techniques should submit data on the
characteristics of their wastes and
technically justify why they are not
amenable to neutralization or
deactivation early in the comment
period for this proposal.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D002
Acio SUBCATEGORY 261.22(a)(1)
Neutralization with Bases to: 6
-------
Fcdarat Hegater / Vol 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed
(IJReactiva Cyanides. D603 wastes in
the Reactive Cyanides subcategory are
by definition those cyanide-bearing
wastes that generate toxic gases
(assumed to be hydrogen cyanide) when
exposed to pH conditions between 2 and
12.5. in a sufficient quantity to present a
danger to human health and the
environment. The Reactive Cyanide
ivastes typically are generated by the
electroplating and metal finishing
industries, and include mixed cyanide
salts, cyanide solutions, and cyanide-
bearing sludges. Most of the volume of
all D003 wastes that are generated can
be identified as the Reactive Cyanides
subcategory. Reactive cyanide wastes
are not typically placed directly in most
types of land disposal units without
treatment; however, it is possible that
some ate placed in surface
impoundments.
Reactive Cyanide wastes are already
subject to special requirements prior to
disposal in landfills, surface
impoundments, and waste piles under
existing regulations. Also, as of July 8.
1987 (the statutory deadline for the
California list prohibitions^, liquid
hazardous wastes having a free cyanide
concentration in excess of 1.000 mg/kg
(ppm) were prohibited from land
disposal. These existing regulations and
prohibitions are insufficient however, to
apply to the Reactive Cyanides
subcategory. The statute did not
specifically Identify the California list
cyanides as D003 wastes, and
furthermore, it did not specify a required
method of treatment, nor did it establish
the 1.000 mg/kg prohibition level as a
"treatment standard".
The Agency is proposing to transfer
concentration-based treatment
standards for total and amenable
cyanides from treatment standards
developed in the Second Third final rule
(54 FR 28594. June 23.1989] for P03tf
nonwastewaters. to the Reactive-
Cyanides subcategory. The Agency-
believes that D003 wastes resemble P030
rather than the cyanide-containing FOOO-
F009 wastes because D003 wastes are
described as "reactive" cyanides and
P030 Is listed as "soluble" cyanides.
Soluble cyanides are most Kkety to be
reactive because they are dissolved.
Reactive Cyanides are thns- expected to
be easily treated by treatment
technologies such as alkah'ne
chiorination and wet air oxidation to •
meet today's proposed treatment
standard for total cyanide of 110 mg/kg-
and amenable cyanide of a! mg/kg.
(Note: The treatment standards- for P030
were developed based on-a transfer
from data on the treatment oPan F011
waste containing low levels of jron and
high levels of simple, «ohibte cyanides
(i.e.. low levels- of complexed cyanides)
However, the principle of relating P030
wastes, Le., "soluble" cyanides, to D003
"reactive" cyanides remain* essentially
the same.)
The Agency is also proposing; that if
data are submitted in public comments
that clearly indicate that D003 wastes in
the Reactive Cyanides subcategosy more
closely resemble F006 wastes containing
high concentrations of iron or other
complexed cyanide, the Agency will
promulgate the higher FOQ6 treatment
standards for cyanides that were
established in the Second Third rule
which reflect the presence of iron
cyanide complexes. The Agency
believes that F008 wastes containing-
high concentrations of iron represent
wastes that are more difficult to- treat
. than those containing only reactive
cyanides (or those containing-tow
concentrations of iron). Thus, if D003
Reactive Cyanides are shown to be
more similar to F006, they will be
subject to a total cyanide level of 59O
mg/kg and an amenable cyam'de level of
30 mg/kg.
The Agency will not promtdgate the
higher (i.e.. F006) treatment standards
for D003 Reactive Cyanides unless the
data clearly indicate that the wastes are
not merely mislabeled F006. F007, F008,
F009, F010, F011, F012, F019 as P cyanide
wastes. The Agency suspects that some
generators are currently misclasaifying
these wastes as D003. The Agency
believes that this is primarily an issue
for enforcement. However, by
promulgating the lower treatment
standards (transferred from P03O) far
D003 Reactive Cyanides, proper
identification of the F and P cyanide
wastes will be encouraged. Of greater
importance is the feet that the Agency
believes that soluble cyanide wastes
(e.g.. P030) and wastes containing low
iron (e.g., some Foil) are more likely to
be similar to D003 Reactive Cyamdesv
so that the lower cyanide standards are
achievable aad therefore would apply.
(See also section. IILA,8.(a) of today's
preamble for a further discussian of
proposed cyanide treatment standards
for other wastes and a proposed
clarification, of the analytical
methodology for compliance with tfee
promulgated standards.)
(21 Reactive Sulfides Subcategory*
D003 wastes in the Reactive Sulfides.
subcategory are by definition those
sulfide-bearing wastes that generate
toxic gases (assumed to be HjS) when
exposed to a pH between Z and I2.S, in
a sufficient quantity to present a danger
to human health and the environment.
The Agency is in the process of
developing a- quantitative threshold for
toxkrge* generated from reactive sulfide
wastes. Tfce interim value the Agency is
considering is 500 mg of HzS generated
per kilogram of waste. Although this
number is only an- interim guideline, for
the purpose of BOAT determinations the
Agency is proposing to use this number
to identify the wastes in this
subcategory (given the need for an
objective means of determining the
subcategory's applicability.
Reactive sulfides may be treated and
chemically converted to relatively inert
sulfur, to insoluble metallic sulfide salts.
or to soluble sulfates that can be
removed or recovered. Some data
indicate that these wastes can be
treated by alkaline chiorination.
specialty incineration, or other chemical
deactivation techniques. The Agency
believes that some of these wastes may
also be contaminated with organic
sulfides known as mercaptans. These
malodorous chemicals are believed to
complicate the treatment of these
reactive sulfide wastes. It is believed
that these wastes have posed particular
treatment problems for the petroleum
refining induStry and the paper and pulp
industry.
The Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Alkaline ChJormation,
Chemical Oxidation, or Incineration
Followed by Precipitation to Insoluble
Sulfates" for the Reactive Suifide
subcategory. (Note: While alkaline
chlorination is a form of chemical
oxidation, the Agency did not want to
specifically preclude the use of any
particular oxidant) The treatment
standard is expressed as a required
method of treatment rather than as a
concentration-based standard because
the Agency has no< approved a standard
analytical method for tesang either
sulfides or "reactive" sulfides in
hazardous wastes or in treatment
residues (however, as noted above, the
Agency is working to develop a
quantitative threshold for reactive
sulfides). The Agency solicits waste
characterization and treatment data that
could potentially be used to develop
concentration-based treatment
standards for these wastes.
(3) Explosives subcctegory: D003,
wastes in the Explosives subcategory
are by definition those wastes that are
capable of detonation or explosive
reaction, under various conditions, or are
forbidden. Class A, or Class B
explosives (according to 49 CFR 173.52,
173.53, and 173.88 respectively). These
wastes have typically been identified as
being generated by the explosives
industry and by the U.S. Department of
Defense. While these wastes are not
-------
generated as frequently as the Reactive
Cyanides, they are generated more often
than all other Reactive subcategories.
Explosives are already subject to special
requirements prior to disposal in
landfills, surface impoundments, and
waste piles under existing regulations.
These explosive wastes are not typically
placed in most types of land disposal
units; rather, they are treated by either
open burning, open detonation, or
incineration in specially designed units.
Such treatment is expected to
permanently remove the explosive
characteristic of this D003 waste.
Incineration also appears to be an
applicable technology, so long as the
incineration units must be specially
designed and fitted with explosion-proof
equipment. Such units are not typically
found at commercial incineration
facilities. The Agency is aware that
these types of units are currently used
- by the Department of Defense to treat
explosive wastes, and there appears to
be a decrease in reliance on open
detonation. Due to the large number of
explosive formulations and the
difference in applicable treatments (see
Department of the Army Technical
Manual TM9-1300-214, Military
Explosives) the Agency is proposing a
general standard of "Deactivation as a
Method of Treatment" for the D003
Explosives subcategory. By establishing
this standard, the Agency is allowing
the regulated community to use that
treatment technology (e.g., incineration,
chemical deactivation) that best fits the
type of explosive waste. The Agency
believes this is an appropriate approach
for these wastes since the hazardous
characteristic is based on imminent
hazard (i.e., explosivity) rather than on.
other criteria such as levels of
hazardous constituents, and that
technologies exist that can completely
remove this characteristic. A more
complete discussion of the implications
of this standard is presented in section
III.A.4.a.(2.) above, as well as an
alternative proposed standard for
wastes in this subcategory. (See also the
Background Document for Characteristic
Wastes for more information on
explosive waste characterization.)
(4) Water Reactive and Other
Reactives Subcategories. D003 wastes in
the Water Reactive or Other Reactives
subcategories can be either organic or
inorganic. Water Reactive D003 wastes
are either very reactive with water, or
oan generate toxic or explosive gases
with water. These reactions are usually
very vigorous and therefore difficult to
control. Wastes in both of these
subcategories are generated on a
sporadic basis and generally in low
volumes. These wastes are not typically
placed in land disposal units nor are
they placed in surface impoundments
due to their violent reactivity.
The Agency has information that
suggest that some water reactives are
being open detonation. It is theorized
that the reactive organic constituents
are destroyed by the explosion, and the
reactive inorganic constituents form less
hazardous oxides or react with other
chemicals in the explosion (such as
moisture from the air).
In today's notice, the Agency is
proposing a general standard of
"Deactivation as the Method of
Treatment" for the D003 Water
Reactives and Other Reactives
subcategories. The Agency believes this
is an appropriate approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic is based on imminent
hazard (i.e.. potential violent reactions
with water) rather than on other criteria
such as levels of hazardous constituents,
and that technologies exist that can
completely remove these reactive
characteristics. A more complete
discussion of the implications of this
standard is presented in section
III.A.4.a.(2.) above, as well as an
alternative proposed standard for
wastes in these subcategories.
(5) Treatment of Reactive Wastes
Does Not Automatically Include
Dilution. As discussed with respect to
ignitable wastes, EPA is proposing to
classify dilution that removes a
prohibited waste's characteristic as
impermissible in certain circumstances
(see section ffl.D. below). This part of
the preamble addresses why dilution of
reactive wastes should not
automatically be considered to be a
legitimate form of treatment
For reactive wastes that contain
cyanide or sulfides, the dilution
prohibition should clearly apply for the
same reason that it applies to any toxic
waste. Indeed, the legislative history to
the treatment standard provision states
specifically that cyanides should be
destroyed. 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178-79
(July 25,1984) (statement of Sen.
Chafee). With respect to other reactive
wastes, most cannot be diluted without
violent reaction so that dilution is not a
viable management alternative in any
event. It thus is the Agency's view that
dilution is not automatically a
permissible means of treating reactive
hazardous wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
REACTIVE CYANIDES 26l.23(a)(5)
CNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)..
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
110
9.1
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
REACTIVE CYANIDES 26l.23(a)(5)
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum lor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)..
1.9
0.10
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
REACTIVE SULFIDES 261.23(a)(5)
. Alkaline chtorination, chemical oxidation or
incineration followed by precipitation to insoluble
sutfates as methods of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
EXPLOSIVES, WATER REACTIVES, AND
OTHER REACTIVES 26l.23(a)(6),
261.23(a)(2) THROUGH (4), AND
261.23(a)(1) RESPECTIVELY
Deaetivation as a method o( treatment
e. Effect of Treatment Standards on
Disposal Provisions in 40 CFR 264 and
265 for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
Management practices have been
established for ignitable and reactive
wastes in surface impoundments, w^ste
piles, land treatment units, and landfills
(see 40 CFR 284.229, 264.256. 264.281,
and 264.312, as well as 265.229. 265.256
265.281. and 265.312). When finalized,
the treatment standards proposed today
for ignitable (D001) and reactive (D003J
wastes will supersede the above-
mentioned provisions and exclusions for
permissible land disposal of these waste
outlined in Part 264 and 265: therefore,
the Agency is proposing to amend these
sections to reflect the new regulations in
Part 268. Facilities handling ignitable
and reactive wastes will have to comply
with the promulgated treatment
-------
Faderal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 I Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rufca
43407
standard* for these waalra kt order to
land dispose-them.
f. UandP Wastes That are
Potentially Reactive. These wastes were
grouped together because they are either
highly reactive or explosive, or they are
polymers that tend to be highly reactive.
These wastes pose a significant risk
during handling due to their reactivity;
this is reflected in the fact that there are
no standard SW-848 methods for
analyzing reactivity. Because of the
difficulties in handling and analyzing
these wastes, the Agency is proposing
treatment standards expressed as
required methods of treatment (thus
eliminating the need to analyze
treatment residues).
The Agency investigated several
options for developing treatment
standards for these wastes, including
incineration, open burning, open
detonation, and chemical deactivation.
Most of these wastes are currently
managed by incineration. Other wastes
Included in this group can be recovered
or recycled.
For the purpose of BOAT
determinations, the Agency has
identified four subcategories according
to similarities in treatment, chemical
composition, and structure. These
groups are: {!) Incinerable Reactive
Organics and Hydrazine Derivatives; (2)
Incinerable Inorganics; (3) Fluorine-
Compounds: and, (4) Recoverable
Me tallies. The discussion of the
treatment standards applicable to each
subcategoty are as follows.
(1) Incinerable Reactive Organics and
Hydrazine Derivatives.
P009—Ammonium picrate
PMl—Nilroglycerfn
P112—Tetcanitromethane
U023—Benzotrichloride
U086—a.a-Dimelhyl benzyl hydroperoxide
U103—Dimethyl sutfate
U160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
P068—Methyl hydrazine
U065—N.N-Diethylhydrazine
U098—1.1-Dimethylhydrazine
U099—1.2-Dimethylhydrazine
U109—l,2-Diphenylhydra3ine
U133—Hydrazfne
Incineration represents BDAT for the
wastes in this treatability group. Data
indicate that these wastes are currently
incinerated by commercial, as well as
military facilities. The Agency does not
believe, however, that concentration-
based treatment standards based on
incineration can be established for these
wastes at this time. The major problems
in establishing concentration-based
standards for these wastes are: (1) EPA
does not currently have an analytical
method for measuring many of these
wastes in treatment residues; and (2)
where the Agency does have methods,
there are no data available on the
treatment of these rhomirailq fa cases,
when there is no verified analytical
method for a particular waste, EPA tries
to find an appropriate measurable
surrogate or indicator compound;
however, no constituent has been
identified in these wastes that could be
used as a surrogate or indicator
compound. (See section IH.A.l.h.(2} for a
detailed discussion of analytical
problems.)
One of the specific problems-
encountered in analysis of P06* P112,
U023, U096, U069v and U103 is- thai these
wastes break down quickly in water
(hydrolyze) and that the analysis of
wastewater forma of these- wastes- is
very difficult as well as often hazardous
due to the intensity of the reaction; See
further discussion on the impact- of
instability in water on the development
of treatment standards in section
III.A.l.h.(2.)(c.) of today's notice. In
addition, the Agency lacks data on what
effects the hydrolysis products would
have on the environment Besides,
verified analytical methods-do not
currently exist for the quantification of
these hydrolysis products in treatment
residues. *•
Another analytical problem is created
because PQS1 wastes are only
quantifiable by HPLC methods (Note:
EPA rejects HPLC methods for waste
treatment residual matrices for reasons
discussed in section IILA.2.h42.)(a.}.) In
addition., there are no verified SW-846
analytical methods for measuring P009
and U133 in treatment residues-.
These analytical problems preclude
setting concentration-based treatment
standards. The Agency is thus proposing
"Thermal Destruction'* (e.g.,
incineration) as a required method of
treatment for the nonwastewater forms
of these U and P wastes. Although there
is an SW-846 method for U109, the
Agency is not proposing a numerical
standard for this waste since it is very
similar to P068, U086. U098,1109% and
U133 (all are hydrazine compounds-) and
it is the Agency's belief that thermal
destruction will be effective treatment
for this waste.
The Agency is proposing "Carbon
Adsorption" as a required method of
treatment for the wastewater forms of
this group of U and P wastes.
Wastewater forms of these wastes can
easily be adsorbed due to the branched
and ionic nature of their structures.
After adsorption (and before disposal)
the contaminated carbon must be
incinerated (in compliance with the
proposed treatment standard for
nonwastewaters).
Data indicate that some of these
wastes (i.e.. P068) can be treated by
ozone/nltraviolef light oxidation. For
complete-removal and desfraction of
these wastes from wvstewaters,
however, ozone/ultraviolet light
oxidation must be followed by carbon
adsorption in order to meet the
treatment standard when it is
promulgated.
The Agency is unaware of any
alternative treatment or recycling
technologies that have been examined
specifically for these U and P wastes
and is, therefore, soliciting data and
comments on such technologies. In any
case, today's proposed treatment
standard does not preclude recycling
(provided the recycling does not involve
burning as fuel or is not a use
constituting disposal; see § 261.33, first
sentence-).
(2) Incinerable Inorganics.
P006—Aluminum phosphide
P096—Phosphine
P105—Sodium azide
P122—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
U135—Hydrogen sulfide
U189—Phosphorus sulfide
U249—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
These wastes were grouped together
because they consist of compounds
containing only inorganics such as
sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorous, and
metals. Data indicate that these wastes
are currently being incinerated by some
commercial facilities. The Agency does
not believe, however, that numerical
treatment standards based on
incineration can be established for these
wastes at this time. The major problem
in establishing concentration-based
standards for these wastes is that EPA
does not currently have an analytical
method for measuring these wastes in
treatment residues. In cases when there
is no analytical method for a particular
waste, EPA tries to find an appropriate
measurable surrogate or indicator
compound; however, no constituent has
been identified in these wastes that
could be used as a surrogate or indicator
compound for nonwastewaters. See
section III.A.l.h.(2.) for a detailed
discussion of analytical^problems.
One of the specific problems
encountered in analysis of P006 and
P105 is that these wastes break down
quickly in water (hydrolyze), making the
analysis of wastewater forms of these
wastes very difficult. In addition. SW-
846 analytical methods do not exist for
P105 and U189. In today's rule the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Thermal Destruction" for
the nonwastewater forms of these
wastes. While these wastes are
inorganic, thermal destruction will
convert these reactive and acutely toxic
-------
48428 Federal Register / VoL 54, No ^ ; Wedneaday
22. 198g /
Rulefj
materials to less toxic, nonreactive
inorganic oxides. However, these
wastes will probably contain high
concentrations of sulfur and
phosphorous when discarded as off-spec
products, making their treatment more
difficult. Incineration of these wastes
will require the use of air pollution
control equipment capable of controlling
the emissions of phosphorous and sulfur
to acceptable levels (see the discussion
of this issue as it relates to organo-
nitrogens and organo-sulfur U and P
wastes in section IU.A.3.g.).
For wastewater forms of P006, P096,
P122, U135, U189, and U249, the Agency
is proposing a standard of "Chemical
Oxidation Followed by Precipitation as
Insoluble Salts". For the wastewater
forms of P105, the Agency is proposing
'Chemical Oxidation" as a method of
treatment because the sodium azide
forms sodium ions in solution rather
than forming salts.
The Agency is currently unaware of
any alternative treatment-or recycling
technologies that have been examined
specifically for these wastes and solicits
data and comments on these. The
proposed rule, in any case, does not
preclude recycling (provided the
recycling does not involve burning as
fuel or is not a use constituting disposal;
see § 261.33, first sentence).
(3) Fluorine Compounds.
P056—Fluorine
U134—Hydrofluoric Acid
These wastes were grouped together
because of their physical form and
because they contain fluorine. Both of
these chemicals may be generated as
gases (although U134 is often generated
as an aqueous acid). Both of these
chemicals are also highly reactive and
highly corrosive.
The Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Solubilization in Water
Followed by Precipitation as Calcium
Fluoride" as a method for the
nonwastewater form of these wastes,
based on the chemical properties of
aqueous fluoride ions and the
insolubility of calcium fluoride. The
Agency is also proposing that recovery
as an alternative specified method. The
Agency is requesting comments and
data on these options.
The Agency has recently collected
data for the wastewater forms of these
wastes (see BOAT Background
Document for Wastewaters Containing
BOAT List Constituents in the RCRA
Docket). Based on these data, the
Agency is proposing a concentration-
based treatment standard of 35 mg/1.
(4) Recoverable Metallics.
P015—Beryllium dust
P073—Nickel carbonyl
P087—Osmium tetroxide
The Agency has identified the wastes
in this group as metal wastes that have
a high potential for recovery. Because
there are so little data on these wastes,
characterization is very difficult. All the
wastes in this group contain metallic
elements (i.e., beryllium, osmium, and
nickel) that can be recovered due to
their high economic value. Information
available to the Agency indicates that
recovery of these metallic elements from
these waste is feasible and is currently
practiced. The Agency is proposing a
standard of "Recovery as a Method of
Treatment" for both nonwastewater and
wastewater forms of these wastes. At
this time the Agency is not aware of any
treatment alternative applicable to these
wastes and is soliciting comments and
information that may help to identify
alternative treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P009. P068, P081, P112, U023, U086,
U096, U098, U099, U103. U109, U133
AND U160
[Nonwastewaters]
Thermal Destruction as a Method of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P009. P068, P081, P112, U023, U086,
U096, U098, U099, U103, U109, U133.
AND U160
CWastewaters]
Incineration or Carbon Adsorption as Methods of
Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P006, P096; P105, P122, U135, U189,
AND U249
[Wastewaters]
Chemical Oxidation Followed by Precipitation aa
Insoluble Salts as a Method of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P006, P096, P105, P122, U135, U189,
AND U249
[Nonwaitewaters]
Thermal Destruction as a Method of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P015, P073, AND P087
Recovery as a Method of Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P056 AND U134
[Nonwastewaters]
pitation as
Calcium Fuoride; or Recovery as Methods of
Treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P056AND134
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Fluoride
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/I)
5. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Metal Wastes—a. Introduction. Metal
wastes are hazardous wastes containing
metallic compounds such as metallic
salts, organometallics, and bimetallic
compounds. Certain K, U, and P wastes
were listed specifically for the presence
of metallic compounds. Additionally, a
waste can be identified as an EP toxic
characteristic waste based on the
concentration of one of eight different
metals (see 40 CFR 261.24). Paraphrasing
the criteria in 40 CFR 281.24, a waste
exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity
if the extract from the EPA-specified
extraction procedure (EP) contains
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium, or silver at a
concentration equal to or greater than
the levels presented in Table I—
Maximum Concentration of
Contaminants for Characteristic of EP
Toxicity.
(1) General Characterization of Metal
Wastes. There are also patterns
encountered in characterizing metal
compounds that had to be dealt with in
order to propose treatment standards for
these wastes. Some waste
characterization data was gathered by
EPA in the National Survey of
Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recovery Facilities (the TSDR Survey);
however, the major source of waste
characterization data was the National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
(the Generator Survey). The Generator
Survey was statistically designed to
represent a cross-section of all major
hazardous waste generators. Results of
this survey have been used to develop
today's proposed treatability groups and
corresponding treatment standards
whenever possible. (However, one
problem encountered was that the U
and P wastes are generated
sporadically, thus, characterization data
on the U and P forms of these metal
wastes are limited.)
Results of the Generator Survey
Indicate that many metalbearing wastes
often exhibit another characteristic such
as reactivity, or contain concentrations
of other metals above their
characteristic levels. For example, P065
(mercury fulminate) exhibits the
characteristic of reactivity which must
be removed prior to land disposal.
Another example is that of P114
(thaiiium selenite), where proposed
treatment standards address both total
thallium and total selenium. If metal
wastes exhibit multiple characteristics,
treatment must address each
characteristic (including the
characteristic of EP toxicity for each
metal where a waste is EP toxic for a
number of metal constituents), in
addition to the primary metal
constituent Generally, this requirement
presents no problem in that most metals
are amenable to conventional metal
hydroxide or sulfide precipitation and
stabilization. There are problems,
however, associated with arsenic,
barium, selenium, and mercury. These
metals are discussed separately in
subsequent sections due to their unique
chemistries.
There are certain analytical
difficulties associated with metal
compounds that EPA had to deal with in
order to propose treatment standards for
these wastes. Analytical methods are
capable of measuring the concentration
of a specific toxic metal in a waste.
There is no way, however, to measure
the concentration of a specific metallic
compound (e.g., a metal salt). For
example, given a mixture of chromium
nitrate and chromium sulfate, analytical
methods will measure chromium but will
not determine whether it is in the sulfate
or nitrate form. Further complications in
identifying the specific metallic
compound arise because many of these
compounds will dissociate in water.
Therefore, treatment standards for
metallic compounds are based on a
quantitative analysis for the metal
constituent only, and not on the metallic
salt. The Agency bn'ieves that by
regulating the metal, the primary toxic
hazard associated with these metallic
compounds will be controlled. For
example, the Agency believes that by
regulating total chromium in U032
(calcium chromate), the hazards
associated with that waste will be
addressed. The Agency requests
comment on whether it is appropriate to
regulate only the toxic metal
constituents hi these wastes.
(2) Development of Treatment
Standards for Metals. Most metal
wastes are generated in inorganic
matrices such as inorganic solutions,
wastewater treatment sludges, or
incinerator ash-type residues. These
wastes are typically amenable to
conventional treatment such as metal
hydroxide or sulfide precipitation and
stabilization. Metal wastes may be
present, however, in complex matrices
such as contaminated soil or have
significant quantities of organic
constituents. Stabilization techniques
may not always be effective treatment
for these organometallic wastes;
therefore, incineration is typically
required to destroy the organic
constituents prior to recovery or
stabilization.
In today's notice, the Agency is
proposing treatment standards for many
of the D, F, K, U, or P wastes expressed
as concentrations of specific metals.
Performance data are available from
treatment of various F and K wastes
which contain these metals.
Characterization data on many of these
metal wastes are limited, and therefore,
the Agency is proposing treatment
standards for many metal-bearing
wastes based on a transfer of
performance data from other wastes
containing these metals having similar
waste characteristics. The Agency is
soliciting comment on these transfers for
metal wastes.
The Agency is proposing treatment
standards for the characteristic metals
expressed as concentration-based
standards or as required methods of
treatment Consistent with the
discussion in preamble section III.C., the
Agency is, in some cases, proposing
concentration-based treatment
standards lower than the characteristic
levels. In other cases, the Agency is
specifying a method of treatment. EPA
could possibly develop concentration-
based treatment standards, however, if
commenters submit data supporting
such an action. The preamble sections
that follow contain summaries of the
Agency's initial conclusions. More
detailed information is contained in the
Background Document for each metal.
(3) Relationship to California List
Prohibitions. There is regulatory overlap
between the statutory levels in effect for
California list metals and the treatment"
standards for characteristic metal
wastes being proposed today. The
Agency has stated in previous
rulemakings (see 52 FR 25773 (July 7,
1987); and 53 FR 31187 (August 17,1989))
that in cases where there is regulatory
overlap, the more waste-specific
treatment standard applies.
The Agency is today proposing
treatment standards for characteristic
EP toxic metal wastes. The proposed
concentration-based wastewater and/or
nonwastewater treatment standards.
when promulgated, will supercede the
California list statutory levels for these
metals because they are more specific.
The California list statutory levels will
continue to apply to the land disposal of
liquid hazardous wastes containing
nickel and thallium (except for those F,
K, U, or P listed wastes for which
treatment standards for nickel and/or
thallium are promulgated) because these
toxic metals are currently not covered
by the EP toxicity test. (See also section
III.M. below dealing with the issue of
continued applicability of California list
prohibitions including during national
capacity variance periods.)
b. Arsenic and Selenium
3004—EP toxic for arsenic
D010—EP toxic for selenium
K031—By-product salts generated in the
production of MSMA and cacodylic
acid.
K084—Wastewater treatment sludges
generated during the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.
K101—Distillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based
compounds in the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.
K102—Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the
production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organo-arsenic compounds.
P010—Arsenic acid
P011—Arsenic (V) oxide
P012—Arsenic (III) oxide
P036—Dichlorophenylarsine
P038—Diethylarsine
P103—Selenourea
P114 Thallium selenite
U136 Cacodylic acid
U204—Selenious acid
U205—Selenium disulfide
These wastes are grouped together
because they all contain either arsenic
or selenium as the primary hazardous
constituent. The Agency considers
arsenic and selenium to be in the same
general treatability group due to
similarities in their chemical behavior.
-------
Although arsenic and selenium exhibit
positive valence state*, they show little
tendency to exist as solitary cationic
species in aqueous matrices. Arsenic
and selenium typically exist in aqueous
conditions as oxo-anions (e.g., arsenic
appears primarily as anionic arsenite
(AsO2") or arsenate (AsOr*)). This
behavior is important, in that selection
and performance of treatment
technologies for.other metals are based
primarily on the cationic behavior of the
metals in aqueous conditions. Thus,
treatment technologies for both
wastewaters ard nonwastewaters
containing arsenic and selenium are
often different compared to wastes
containing only other metal constituents.
The treatment standards presented in
today's preamble for all arsenic and
selenium wastes are based on a limited
amount of treatment data. In this notice
the Agency is soliciting data on the
characterization and treatment of
wastes containing arsenic or selenium.
Copies of any additional data pertaining
to these proposed treatment standards
that may be submitted during the public
comment period can be specifically
requested in writing by identifying the
request for data as "Additional data on
treatment of arsenic and selenium-
Section III.A.5.b.". See section IILA.1.L
of today's preamble for additional
information on procedures for
requesting additional data on specific
standards.
(1) Identification ofBDA T for
Wastewaters. When evaluating
treatment technologies to establish
wastewater treatment standards for
arsenic and selenium wastes, the
Agency believes that it must consider
not only the efficiency of removal of
these metals from the wastewater, but
also the physical and chemical state of
the arsenic and the selenium that ends
up in the wastewater treatment
residues. Wastewater treatment for
most metals is typically based on -
precipitation with anionic species such
as hydroxide or sulfide.
Soluble arsenic species have been
reported to be removed from
wastewaters by using lime (calcium
hydroxide) as a precipitant, resulting in
arsenic precipitation as a calcium salt
(calcium arsenate) rather than as a
hydroxide as is typical for most other
metals. Sulfide precipitation using
sodium sulfide or hydrogen sulfide as
rea»ents has also been reported as being
partially effective for wastewaters
containing arsenic in the form of
arsonates, but relatively ineffective for
arsenites. The removal of arsenic
through the addition of a sulfide is
believed to be the result of a chemical
reaction of the arsenate anions with the
suifide anions thereby converting the
arsenate form to a relatively insoluble
arsenic sulfide. While calcium arsenate
is slightly soluble in water, arsenic
sulfide is practically insoluble in water.
Although lime may be effective in
precipitating arsenic from wastewaters,
sulfide precipitation should result in a
precipitate that is less soluble in water
than the calcium salt.
To further complicate matters, while
arsenic sulfide is relatively insoluble in
water under acid conditions,
information indicates that the
teachability (i.e., solubility) of the
arsenic sulfide increases under alkaline
conditions. Therefore, the decrease in
solubility of arsenic sulfide versus the
calcium arsenate must be balanced
against the potential for leachability of
the resulting wastewater treatment
sludges during co-disposal with alkaline
wastes or materials. This potential for
increased leachability under these
conditions is a legitimate concern, in
that some operators of hazardous
landfills co-dispose all "metal" wastes
and it is typical practice to add excess
lime to prevent migration of the other
metals prior to disposal.
The Agency solicits comment on
whether it should specify the use of
sulfide as the precipitating reagent for
all wastewaters containing arsenic as
part of the treatment standard. In a
similar manner, the Agency solicits
comment on whether it should establish
disposal requirements under 40 CFR
parts 264 and 265 for all arsenic and
selenium wastewaters that would
require sulfide precipitation followed by
segregation of the treatment residuals
from alkaline materials (in either
monofflls or separate subcells within a
landfill). Such a requirement would be a
type of management standard designed
to prevent co-disposal of incompatible
wastes. By soliciting comment, EPA
notes that these proposed requirements
may be promulgated as additional
requirements to meeting the proposed
concentration-based standards.
Some arsenic and selenium
wastewaters, such as those from wood
preserving operations, may require more
extensive treatment trains in order to
treat hexavalent chromium, other
metals, and organics which could
possibly interfere with the treatment of
the arsenic or selenium. A reduction
step for hexavalent chromium and an
oxidation step (with reagents such as
hydrogen peroxide or hypochloritej may
be necessary to treat the organics. In
addition, complexed organometalHcs
which may be present will probably
have to be oxidized or otherwise
removed prior to conversion of the
metals to their proper valence state for
further metal treatment by precipitation.
However, the Agency currently lacks
data that indicate that the proposed
concentration-based standards cannot
be achieved for these types of wastes
and anticipates that pretreatment steps
such as hexavalent chromium reduction
and chemical oxidation of organics
could remove these potential
interferences. This is further supported
by the fact" that quantitative analytical
methods for arsenic and selenium in
waste samples include such
pretreatment steps to remove the
interferences during analysis. The
Agency specifically solicits comments
on the applicability of these and other
pretreatment technologies for arsenic
and selenium wastewaters and data that
indicate the achievability of the
concentration-based standards
proposed in the following sections.
(a) Proposed Standards for Arsenic-
Containing Wastewaters. The Agency
has data on precipitation of arsenic from
wastewaters identified as D004 from the
veterinary pharmaceutical industry
using lime followed by manganese
sulfate and ferric in a three stage
alkaKne process. The Agency believes
that these data represent a matrix that is
very difficult to treat since it consists of
a mixture of organic and inorganic
compounds, including organo-arsenirals
and inorganic arsenic compounds in
concentrations up to 1,600 ppm. The
data show that this three stage alkaline
precipitation process provides effective
treatment and removal of arsenic from
these wastewaters because it reduces
the concentration of arsenic in the
wastewater to levels below the
characteristic level of 5.0 mg/1.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing two
options for treatment standards for D004
wastewaters.
Based on these treatment data, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/1 arsenic for a!l
D004 wastewaters. The Agency believes
that these wastes represent the most
difficult to treat wastewaters. As
discussed in detail in section III.C. of
today's preamble, the Agency has
initially determined that it has the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes or at least to make
failure to treat to the lower level a
violation of section 3004(m). The Agency
is also proposing a second option of
limiting the treatment standard for D004
wastewaters to the characteristic level
of 5.0 mg/1. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on these two options.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48431
The constituents for which P010. P011,
and P012 wastes are listed are all
inorganic forms of arsenic. The
constituents for which P036. P038, and
U138 wastes are listed are all organic
forms of arsenic. K031 and K084 are
typically generated as process wastes
that contain mixtures of both organic
and inorganic forms of arsenic. While all
of these wastes are typically generated
as nonwastewaters, the Agency expects
that wastewater forms of these wastes
may be generated fr&m incidental spills
or from the treatment process itself and
thus would require treatment standards.
The Agency expects that untreated
wastewaters will be more dilute than
the untreated D004 wastewaters that
were used to develop the treatment
standards, and thus would be expected
to be less difficult to treat. Further,
while K031, KQ84, P038. P038, and U136
wastes all contain organic forms of
arsenic, the Agency believes that they
can be chemically oxidized (using
peroxides, permanganates, persulfates,
or perchlorates) to destroy the
organometallic bond prior to
precipitation.
The Agency is proposing to transfer
the D004 performance data and
concentration-based treatment standard
of 0,79 mg/1 for K031. K084. P010, P011.
P012. P036. P038, and U136 wastewaters.
This is a reasonable approach given
that: (1) The D004 wastewater that was
tested by the Agency contained organo-
arsenicals similar in structure to (or
more complex than) those contained in
K031. K084. P036. P038, and U136; (2) the
D004 wastewater also contained
inorganic arsenic compounds similar to
those contained in K031. K084, P010,
P011. and P012; (3) the untreated
wastewater forms of these wastes are
expected to be more dilute than the
untreated D004 wastewater; and (4) the
performance data demonstrate that the
arsenic in the 0004 wastewater can
effectively be removed.
Additional wastewater treatment data
primarily from the Agency's Office of
Water have been recently analyzed for
incorporation into the treatment
standards for arsenic wastewaters.
These data include the treatment of
wastewaters that are not specifically
listed as RCRA hazardous wastes, but
do contain many of the corresponding U,
P. and metal constituents. While these
data were not available in time to
incorporate into this discussion or into
the background document for these
wastes, these data are being placed in
the administrative record for today's
notice. Therefore, the Agency is not
precluded from using these data in
promulgating the standards for these
wastes. Further information on these
data can be found in section III.A.l.h.
(6.).
An alternative standard for arsenic
based on these data are presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. This standard is based on
single step chemical precipitation
process. Thus, the Agency is proposing
these standards as alternative standards
for wastewaters for which
concentration-based standards based on
incinerator scrubber waters have been
proposed in the following sections.
(b) Proposed Standards for Selenium-
Containing Wastewaters. The Agency
has no specific treatment data on RCRA
hazardous wastewaters containing
selenium. However, based on the
similarities in chemical behavior of
arsenic and selenium, the Agency is
proposing to extrapolate the
performance data for arsenic contained
in D004 wastewaters to the selenium
contained in D010 wastewaters and is
thus proposing two options for treatment
standards for D010 wastewaters.
Based on these treatment data, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/1 selenium for all
D010 wastewaters. This is based on a
level of treatment achieved for
wastewaters that are representing the
most difficult to treat. As discussed in
detail in section III.C. of today's
preamble, the Agency has initially
determined that it has the authority to
establish treatment standards below the
characteristic level for these wastes or
at least to make failure to treat to the
lower level a violation of Section
3004(m). The Agency is also proposing a
second option of limiting the treatment
standard for D010 wastewaters to the
characteristic level of 1.0 mg/1. The
Agency solicits comments regarding the
transfer of these performance data to
D010 wastewaters and is specifically
soliciting additional treatment data for
wastewaters containing treatable levels
of selenium that would classify the
wastewaters as D010 prior to treatment.
Similar to the preceding discussion
and the discussion for U and P arsenic
wastewaters, the Agency is also
proposing to transfer the D004
performance data for arsenic to the
selenium in P103, P114, U204, and U205
wastewaters. Thus, the treatment
standard for these wastewaters is
proposed as 0.79 mg/1 selenium.
Additional wastewater treatment data
primarily from the Agency's Office of
Water have been recently analyzed for
incorporation into the treatment
standards for selenium wastewaters.
These data include the treatment of
wastewaters that are not specifically
listed as RCRA hazardous wastes, but
do contain many of the corresponding U,
P, and metal constituents. While these
data were not available in time to
incorporate into this discussion or into
the background document for these
wastes, these data are being placed in
the administrative record for today's
notice. Therefore, the Agency is not
precluded from using these data in
promulgating the standards for these
wastes. Further information on these
data can be found in section
An alternative standard for selenium
based on these data are presented in
section III.A.7. of today's notice for
wastewater forms of multi-source
leachate. This standard is also based on
single step chemical precipitation
process. Thus, the Agency is proposing
these standards as alternative standards
for wastewaters for which
concentration-based standards based on
incinerator scrubber waters have been
proposed in the following sections.
(2) Identification of BOAT for
Nonwastewaters. The success of
conventional stabilization processes for
hazardous wastes containing metals is
due partly to the ability of the alkaline
cementitious reagents to chemically
bind the cationic metal species. The
Agency attempted pozzolanic
stabilization of K031 nonwastewaters
that contained relatively high
concentrations of arsenic (133,000 ppm).
The resultant data indicate that in some
cases arsenic teachability from the
treated residues was 10% higher than
that from the untreated wastes. The
increase in arsenic teachability after
stabilization is probably due to the
anionic character of the arsenic
complexes that may be present in the
waste, the inapplicability of
stabilization processes to anionic metal
species, and to the probable increase in
solubility of some forms of arsenic at
higher pH. This increase in leachability
appears to indicate that the arsenic is
not being chemically bound by the
conventional stabilization reagents that
were chosen for examination.
Some data indicate that cementitious
or pozzolanic stabilization of wastes
containing low concentrations of arsenit;
can be performed. These stabilization
data using cement, lime, and other
proprietary binder mixtures are
inconclusive in demonstrating
stabilization of arsenic. Although the
amount of leachable arsenic is
sometimes reduced, the results are not
reproducible and, in some cases, can be
attributed to dilution with the binders
(high binder to waste ratios). While the
-------
48432 FHteal
/ Vol 54> No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 /
Agency has not fully investigated these
potential problems in solidification for
high concentrations of selenium, the
Agency believes, based on selenium's
chemical similarities to arsenic, that
these same complications will occur.
Some data also indicate that asphalt
stabilization of inorganic, low level
arsenic waste can be performed, and
may be especially appropriate for
stabilizing arsenic in waste matrices
containing other metals, because
cementitious stabilization may increase
the arsenic leachability. The two major
concerns the Agency has regarding the
application of this technology to arsenic
and selenium wastes are: (1) the
possibility that hazardous organic
constituents (such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons) that may be
present in the asphalt itself will leach;
and (2) the lack of performance data on
this technology for arsenic and selenium
wastes. An analysis of a TCLP extract
from a sample of asphalt binder showed
no sign of leaching organics, seemingly
eliminating one of these concerns.
Additional information regarding
performance of this technology on
arsenic and selenium wastes still
remains necessary. The Agency
therefore solicits comment and data on
this technology.
No attempt was made by the Agency
to differentiate between low level and
high level arsenic or selenium wastes in
the development of the proposed
nonwastewater standards. The Agency
does not have the data to properly make
a distinction between a high level and a
low level subgroup, or to determine
applicable treatment for wastes in each
subgroup. However, the Agency
recognizes that a high level and a low
level treatability group may exist and
that treatment technologies for wastes
in each group may be different.
Therefore, the Agency is requesting data
and comments identifying applicable
treatment technologies for these
potential subgroups. If no data is
received, the standards proposed in
today's rule will apply to all forms of
nonwastewaters containing arsenic and
selenium, regardless of the
concentration of these metals in the
waste.
As an alternative to cementitious
stabilization for arsenic and selenium
wastes, the Agency has identified
vitrification as a stabilization
technology that is applicable to
nonwastewaters. Vitrification is a
technology that uses high temperatures
(1200 °C to 1500 °C) generated by
electrodes or direct flame to melt a
mixture of glass formers and waste
materials into a molten slag which then
cools and incorporates the metals and
other materials into this glass/slag
matrix. The waste materials are usually
added after the glass is liquefied. This
technology can be applied to wastes
containing organic as well as inorganic
forms of arsenic since it operates at
temperatures that will destroy the
organics present in the wastes. When
the glass/slag matrix cools and
solidifies, it forms a relatively
impermeable mass. (See the Arsenic/
Selenium Background Document for
additional discussion of this
technology).
Vitrification uses high operating
temperatures that may cause the arsenic
and selenium in the waste to volatilize.
The glass melting furnaces, however, are
designed so that any volatiles will
condense in the cooler areas at the top
of the furnace that falls back down into
the molten glass, thus being further
treated. Additional information
indicates that precalculation of
materials containing arsenate (ferric or
calcium) at temperatures dose to 400 *C
has been found to reduce potential
losses of arsenic due to vaporization
during vitrification. After these arsenate
materials have been calcined as a
pretreatment step, they were dissolved
in an iron silicate slag at temperatures
up to 1290 *C without volatilization of
arsenic oxides. Therefore, this appears
to demonstrate that for certain arsenic
wastes volatilization resulting from the
vitrification treatment process should
not be an air pollution problem.
Vitrification has been used successfully
by the nuclear industry for the disposal
of low level radioactive waste
containing metallic elements. The
Agency is soliciting comments and data
on this stabilization technique for
arsenic and selenium wastes. Of
particular interest is data for those
wastes that are known to contain
organo-complexes of these metals.
Arsenic and selenium are produced as
a by-product of copper and gold mining
operations. The Agency believes that for
some wastes, recovery of arsenic and
selenium is feasible using high
temperature metal recovery technologies
used by mining operations, provided the
metal has been first chemically
converted to an easily recoverable form.
Information available to the Agency
indicates that recovery of elemental
selenium out of certain types of scrap
material and other type of wastes is
currently practiced in the United States.
The Agency is requesting comments and
data on the applicability of these, and
any other, recovery technologies for
wastes containing arsenic or selenium.
While recovery options may be
preferable over vitrification or
stabilization for some of these wastes,
the choice of treatment options must be
made by the generator or treater based
on the ability of the particular recovery
system to handle the waste.
(a) Proposed Standards for Arsenic-
Containing Nonwastewaters. Data
available to the Agency indicate that
vitrification can incorporate arsenic in
concentrations up to 23.5% into a glass/
slag matrix with a maximum
leachability of arsenic at 1.8 mg/1 (using
the EP toxicity protocol). In all, these
data consist of 14 separate data points.
with arsenic concentration in the
untreated wastes ranging from 0.3% to
23.5% and leachate concentrations
ranging from 0.007 mg/1 to 1.8 mg/1. The
Agency is specifying that the EP toxicity
test be performed to measure
compliance with today's proposed
nonwastewater standards. The EP
should be used rather than the TCLP
because all of the performance data
from vitrification upon which EPA is
relying used the EP to evaluate the
technology's performance. However, a
facility is not precluded from
demonstrating the statistical
equivalency of the TCLP to EP test for
these wastes. The Agency views the
continued use of the EP test as a
measure of compliance with treatment
standards as unfortunate. We strongly
encourage the submission of TCLP
performance data for arsenic that will
eliminate the need for a separate
analytical protocol for this metal. In
addition, as noted in other rulemakings.
EPA views the TCLP as the most
appropriate protocol for measuring the
effectiveness of stabilization as BOAT).
All of these data indicate that the
vitrification can achieve stabilization of
arsenic to leachate levels below the
characteristic level (5.0 mg/1). However.
using the analytical recovery data
transferred from the Agency's analysis
of K102 incinerator ash (which had the
appearance of a slag) and a variability
factor of Z&, a concentration-based
treatment standard for arsenic of 5.6
mg/1 in the leachate (measured by the
EP toxicity test) was calculated.
The Agency is also proposing to
transfer the concentration-based
treatment standard of 5.6 mg/1 arsenic to
K031, K064. POio, poll, P012, P036, POSft
and U136 nonwastewaters. We believe
that the performance of the vitrification
technology, and analytic variability of
treatment residues, also will not change
for different arsenic-containing wastes.
Thus, we think this transfer is
legitimate.
(b) Proposed Standards for Selenium-
Containing Nonwastewaters. The
-------
F«d*ral R«gM« / Vol. 5* No, 224 / Wednesday. Mcreember 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
4*133
Agency h»» no treatment data on EJO10
nonwastewatersv However, baaed on the
similarities in chemical behavior of
arsenic and selenium, the Agency is
extrapolating the performance data for
vitrification of arsenic to D010
nonwaatewaters and thus is proposing
the same concentration-based standard*
5.6 mg/1 selenium a* measured in die
leachate generated by the EP toxicity
test. In a similar manner, the Agency is
proposing to transfer this concentration-
based treatment standard of 5.8 mg/1
selenium to P103, P114, U204, and U205
nonwastewaten. The Agency solicits
comment on the transfer of these
performance data to DO10
nonwastewaters, and requests data on
any treatment or recovery technologies
applicable to these nonwastewaters.
Because thia treatment standard (5.6
mg/1) is above the level of teachable
selenium that defines the waste as D010
(1.0 mg/1), DO10 wastes- that are
generated at a level between 5.6 mg/1
and 1.0 mg/1 are considered to meet the
treatment standard, bat are still
considered hazardous wastes °"d.
therefore, must be land disposed in a
subd tie C facility.
(3) Revisions lo KI01 and KlQZ
Treatment Standards. In the First Third
final rule (53 FR 31170, August 17.1989).
the Agency established two
subcategories of K101 and KlQZ
nonwastewatera based on the
concentration of arsenic in the waste. A.
low arsenic subcategory was
established for waste containing less
than 1% arsenic, and a high arsenic
subcategory for waste containing 1% or
greater. EPA believed thia distinction
establishing a subcategory foe high
arsenic K101 and KlQZ nonwastewatera
was necessary to ensure that facilities
did not burn arsenic-containing wastes
that could potentially create a gigniBrflnt
risk due to stack emissions of arsenic.
Treatment standards for die organic*
contained in these wastes were
developed based on incineration of K101
and K102 nonwastewaters in the low
arsenic subcategory. The corresponding
nonwastewater standards, included the
regulation of certain metals based on
stabilization. However, EPA did not
establish a nonwastewater treatment
standard for arsenic because the data
did not indicate treatment for the
arsenic.
In today's notice the Agency ia
proposing to change the nonwastewater
standards for K101 and K102
promulgated in the First Third final rule
by eliminating, the law and high level
arsenic subcategories and by replacing
the existing standard? with a
concentration-bated treatment standard
for arsenic of 5.6 mg/I {measured in the
EP extract) based on the performance of
vitrification. The Agency believes that
the organic constituent* present in these
wastes (for which treatment standards
were based upon mtrineration) will be
destroyed by the high temperatures at
which vitrification operates
(temperatures comparable to
incineration). Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to remove the organic
standards for K101 andK102
nonwastewaters. In addition, EPA is
proposing to eliminate the existing metal
standards for nonwastewatera because
they were based on performance of a
different stabilization technology.
The Agency is also proposing new
wastewater treatment standards for
K101 and K102 in today's rale.
Standards for KlOl and KlQZ
waste-waters were promulgated in the
First Third rule {53 FR 3117ft. Angust 17,
1988) and were applicable to all forms of
KlOl and K102 wastewaten {i.ew they
did not distinguish between high arsenic
or low arsenic subcategories}. These
promulgated standards were based on
the same D004 wastewater treatment
data used in today's proposal to-
establish arsenic standards for other K,
U, and P wastes. In the process of
Devaluating the D004 wastewater
treatment data for today's proposed
rule, however, EPA discovered an error
in the calculation of the promulgated
KlOl and K102 wastewater standards
for the metal constituents. The Agency
is proposing today to correct this error
by amending the wastewater standards
foe the metal constituents (arsenic,
cadmium, lead, and mercury) in KlOl
and K102. Therefore, a new treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/1 for arsenic, 0.24
mg/1 for cadmium, 0.17 mg/1 for lead.
and 0.82 mg/1 for mercury is- being
proposed. These proposed standards are
based on the same D004 data but using a
different data set than that used for me
development of the promulgated
standards. Since there was no error in
the calculation of the promulgated
standards for the organic constituents,
the Agency is not proposing to change
the standards for the orgarrica present m
KlOl and K102 wastewaters. The
promulgated standards for the organic*
are being presented for convenience of
the reader and are not being
reconsidered. Therefore, no comment on
this subject will be accepted.
BOAT TREATMENT STAOTARDS FOR
D004, K031, KOS4, P010, P011, P012.
P036, P038, AND U136
EWastewaters}
Regulated constituent
Arsenic
079
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/I)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D004, K031, K084, P010, P011, P012,
P036, P038, AND Ut36
CNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
EP leachate
(mg/I)
5,6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D010, P103, P114, U204 and U205
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/I)
Selenium _
0.79
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D010, P103, P114, U204 and U205
CNonwastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
EP leachate
(mg/I)
Selenium
5.6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K101
CWastewaters)
Maximum for
any single
Regulated constituent arab^pf9'
composition
(mg/I)
Ortho-nitroaniKno .
CMmi«m _ _ '....
LOKt ._—-.-._ :_. ....
Mercury... _._.._. ... _
0.27
0.79
fX24
0.062
-------
48434
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 , Wedn^day. November 22. 1989 / PropO8ed Rules
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K102
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Orthc-nitropheno)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Maximum for
any single
grata sample,
total
Composition
(mg/l)
0 79
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K101 ANDK102
[Nonwastewaters* ]
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
EP teachate
(mg/l)
Arsenic.
5.6
* This propose* to remove subcategories based
on high and low arsenic content
c. Barium. The Agency has identified
two hazardous wastes that potentially
contain high levels of barium. These
include P013 (barium cyanide) and D005
(EP toxic for barium; 100 mg/l barium as
measured in an EP leachate). Treatment
standards for cyanides contained in
P013 wastes were promulgated with the
Final Rule for second Third Wastes (54
FR 26614 (June 23,1989)). At the same
time, treatment standards for barium in
P013 wastewaters were not promulgated
based on the lack of treatment data.
Today's notice proposes treatment
standards for P013 wastewaters and all
D005 wastes.
According to the periodic chart of
elements, barium is a group II element
that has chemical properties similar to
magnesium and calcium. In aqueous
conditions it typically exists as a
divalent, cationic species. This behavior
is important, in that selection and
performance of treatment technologies
for barium is somewhat similar to most
other metals based on this cationic
behavior in aqueous conditions.
However, due to differences in
solubilities of certain salts of barium
compared to other metals, treatment
technologies for both wastewaters and
nonwastewaters containing barium are
slightly different compared to wastes
containing only other metal constituents.
The treatment standards presented in
today's preamble for all barium wastes
are based on a limited amount of
treatment data. In this notice, the
Agency is soliciting data on the
characterization and treatment of all
wastes containing barium. Copies of any
additional data pertaining to these
proposed treatment standards that may
be submitted during the public comment
period, can be specifically requested in
writing by identifying the request for
data as "Additional data on treatment of
barium—Section III.A.5.C.". See section
IILA.l.i. of today's preamble for
additional information on procedures for
requesting additional data on specific
standards.
(1) Identification ofBDA Tfor
Wastewaters. When evaluating
treatment technologies to establish
wastewater treatment standards for
barium wastes, the Agency believes that
it must consider not only the efficiency
of removal of barium from the
wastewater. but also the physical and
chemical state of the precipitated
barium salts that end up in the
wastewater treatment residues.
While some data indicate that barium
can be removed from wastewaters by
using lime (calcium hydroxide) or
caustic (sodium hydroxide) as a
precipitating reagent (resulting in ,
precipitation of the barium as a
hydroxide salt (barium hydroxide)),
barium is typically precipitated as a
sulfate salt (barium sulfate) using
sodium sulfate, ferric sulfate, or
aluminum sulfate as a precipitating
reagent Most other cationic metals are
typically removed from wastewaters
based on precipitation as hydroxides or
sulfides. While barium hydroxide is
slightly soluble in water, barium sulfate
is practically insoluble in water.
Although lime or caustic may be
effective in precipitating barium from
wastewaters. sulfate precipitation
should result in a precipitate that is less
soluble in water than the hydroxide salt.
To further complicate matters, the
resultant nonwastewater treatment
residues containing barium sulfate salts
may not be effectively stabilized by
conventional stabilization reagents. This
is primarily due to the anticipated
presence of excess soluble sulfate (used
as the precipitating reagent) which is
known to interfere with the cementitious
reactions. (Note: Conventional
stabilization processes are typically
applied to wastes containing primarily
metal hydroxide salts). Therefore, in
development of the appropriate BOAT
treatment standards for wastewaters
containing barium, the decrease in
solubility of the resultant
nonwastewaters containing barium
sulfate (versus the more soluble barium
hydroxide) must be balanced against the
potential difficulty in conventional
stabilization processes for the barium
sulfate nonwastewaters. However, there
are stabilization reagents (such as
certain types of Portland cements) that
have been developed that are
specifically designed to handle
materials containing high sulfates.
Due to a well established chemical,
relationship known as the "common ion
effect" and due to the relatively higher
solubility of barium hydroxide
(compared to barium sulfate), there
exists a reasonable potential for an
increase in leachability of the resulting
wastewater treatment sludges (either
the barium hydroxide or the barium
sulfate) during co-disposal with alkaline
wastes or materials. This potential for
increased leachability under these
conditions is a legitimate concern, in
that some operators of hazardous
landfills co-dispose all "metal" wastes
and it is typical practice to add excess
lime to prevent migration of the other
metals prior to disposal.
Thus, EPA solicits comments on
whether it should (as part of the
treatment standard) specify the use of
sulfate as the precipitating reagent for
all wastewaters containing barium. In a
similar manner, the Agency solicits
comment on whether it should establish
disposal requirements under 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 265 for all barium
wastewaters that would include sulfate
precipitation followed by segregation of
the treatment residuals from alkaline
materials (i.e., in either monofills or
separate subcells within a landfill). EPA
notes that these proposed requirements
may then be promulgated as additional
requirements to meeting the proposed
concentration-based standards.
Additional information indicates that
barium could be precipitated as barium
carbonate at pH 10-10.5; with lime used
for pH adjustment, as an alternative
treatment technology for barium
wastewaters. Ion exchange also has
been reported as achieving extremely
high removal efficiencies. The Agency,
however, lacks data to support these
treatment technologies as being BDAT
for D005 wastes.
For some barium wastewaters. more
extensive treatment trains may be
necessary in order to treat hexavalent
chromium, other metals, and organics
which could possibly interfere with the
treatment of the barium. A reduction
step for hexavalent chromium and an
oxidation step (with reagents such as
hydrogen peroxide or hypochlorite) may
be necessary to treat the organics.
However, the Agency currently lacks
data indicating that the proposed
concentration-based standards cannot
be achieved for these type of wastes,
and anticipates that pretreatment steps
such as hexavalent chromium reduction
-------
Fedatat Regater / VoL 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rales
and chemical oxidation of organics
could remove these potential
interferences. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on the applicability of
these and other pretreatment
technologies for barium wastewaters, as
well as data indicating the achievability
of the concentration-based standards
proposed in the following, sections.
The Agency has very little data on
precipitation of barium from RCRA
hazardous wastewaters identified as
P013 or D005. However, the Agency's
Office of Water does have data from its
analysis of various treated waste water*
under the Agency's Effluent Guidelines
Program. In the absence of treatment
data specific to PO13 or D005
wastewaters, the Agency believes that
these data from the Effluent Guidelines
Program can be transferred to develop
treatment standards for P013 and D005
wastewaters.
Based on these treatment data, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 1.15 mg/1 barium for alt
D005 wastewaters. As discussed in
detail in section III.C. of today's
preamble, the Agency has initially
determined that it has the authority to
establish treatment standards- below the
characteristic level for these wastes or
at least to make failure to treat to the
lower level a violation of Section
3004(m). The Agency is also soliciting
comments on an option of limiting trie
treatment standard for DOGS
wastewaters. to the characteristic level
of 100 mg/1.
Based on Efficient Gakfeimes data, the
Agency is also proposing a treatment
standard for barium in P013
wastewaters of 1.15 mg/I barium. While
P013 wastes, (barium cyanide} are
typically generated as nonwastewaters,
the Agency expects that wastewater
forms, of thp?g wastes may be.generated.
from incidental spills or from the
treatment process itself and: tins would
require treatment standard*. The
Agency expects that untreated
wastewaters will be relatively dibite*
and thus would not expect to be «fiff?c»H
to treat. The Agency ponn* out that it is
not reopening the prDKdgattd
treatment standard* for cyanides in
P013 for comment.
(2} Identification of BOAT far
Nomrcstewaters. For nonvrastewster
forms of P013 and DG05, witch primarily
consist of inorganic barram sabs other
than hydroxides or sulfatesvthe- Agency
believes that the barim caa be
dissolved andrepmapitaled as the
sulfate OE carbosate kt order to-generate
a treatment residual neeting the
characteristic leveL IB addition. bariu»
may be able to be kached frcs» these
wastes by concentrated strong acid
solutions, with the acid leachate
subsequently neutralized and'treated by
sulfate or carbonate precipitation. The
Agency is proposing a requfred method
as the treatment standard for these
barium wastes. D005 nonwastewaters
must be treated by acid or water
leaching followed by chemical
precipitation as sulfate or carbonate
followed by stabilization.
For D005 wastes that are generated
containing high levels of organica the
Agency believes that these wastes can
be incinerated prior to stabilization of
the ash. The Agency is soliciting
information on whether these wastes
actually exist, the concentration of
barium and organica within these
wastes, and treatment data for these
wastes. If the Agency finds that these
wastes do exist and treatment data is
submitted, the Agency may define these
wastes as a separate treatab&ty group
based on the level of organics and
barium and promulgate the resultant
concentration-based standard* based on
these data. However, information is
submitted that these wastes exiat but no
treatment data are submitted front
which concentration-based standards
can be developed, the Agency may
promulgate "Incineration Followed by
Stabilization as a Method of Treatment"
for these wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS. FOR
0006 AND PC13
[NonwastetMtera]1
Ac« ervMier kMcttng. taKevad by dwmcaf
precipitation u tuttatc or caitoonat* or stabilization
as memods of tmttnwtf
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
0005 AND-P013
R0£(^8t6
1-W
-------
Federal Renter /Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
encompasses the largest volume of
cadmium wastes, which are generated
primarily as electroplating rinsewaters.
The technologies typically used for
treating these wastewaters include
chemical precipitation (as a hydroxide,
carbonate, phosphate, sulfide, or ferrous
sulfate coprecipitant), ion exchange,
activated carbon adsorption, and
evaporative and electrolytic recovery.
The Agency has very little data on
precipitation of cadmium from RCRA
hazardous wastewaters identified as
D006. However, the Agency's Office of
Water does have data from its analysis
of various treated wastewaters under
the Agency's Effluent Guidelines
Program. In the absence of treatment
data specific to D006 wastewaters, the
Agency believes that these data from
the Effluent Guidelines Program can be
transferred to develop treatment
standards for D006 wastewaters. The
data show that the treatment provided
by these industries can reduce the
concentration of cadmium in the
wastewater to levels below the
characteristic level of 1.0 mg/1.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing a
concentration based treatment standard
for D006 wastewaters based on the
performance of precipitation in treating
cadmium wastewaters.
Based on these treatment data, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 0.20 mg/1 cadmium for all
D006 wastewaters. As discussed in
detail in section III.C. of today's
preamble, the Agency has initially
determined that it has the authority to
establish treatment standards below the
characteristic level for these wastes or
at least to make failure to treat to the
lower level a violation of section 3004
(m). The use of other technologies to
achieve this concentration-based
treatment standard is not prohibited by
today's rule.
(2) Identification of BOAT for
Nonwastewaters. Wastes which are
comprised of concentrated cadmium
metal, such as the residuals from the
recovery of K061 (electric arc furnace
dust containing cadmium) and zinc
mining wastes, are amenable to
recovery, direct reuse, or stabilization.
The Agency has data on the
stabilization of nonwastewaters
indicating that cadmium can be
effectively stabilized to levels below the
characteristic level. For example, the
Agency has data on the stabilization of
K061 (electric arc furnace dust
containing cadmium primarily in the
form of cadmium oxides)
nonwastewaters indicating that
cadmium can be stabilized to a level of
0.14 mg/1 using TCLP extraction (53 FR
31164). Furthermore, the Agency has
data indicating that stabilized cadmium
in F006 (wastewater treatment sludges
containing primarily cadmium in the
form of cadmium hydroxides) can
achieve a TCLP extract level of 0.068
mg/1 (53 FR 31153). Based on these
available data, the Agency believes that
all cadmium nonwastewaters can either
be stabilized such that the technologies
reduce the leachability and total
composition of cadmium in D006
nonwastewaters to below the
characteristic level.
As discussed in detail in section IH.C.
of today's preamble, the Agency has
initially determined that it may have the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes or at least to make
failure to treat to the lower level a
violation of section 3004 (m). The
Agency is proposing two options for the
development of treatment standards for
E006 nonwastewaters.
The first option is to propose a
concentration-based treatment standard
for D006 nonwastewaters of 0.14 mg/1
based on a transfer of K061 data. The
Agency believes that this transfer is
technically feasible due to fact that K061
wastes probably contain cadmium
oxides which appear to be slightly more
difficult to stabilize than the cadmium
hydroxide found in a F006 wastes.
Waste K061 is also a particularly
difficult matrix to stabilize (see e.g.,
Comments of Steel Bar Mills
Association and other steel producers)
in the First Third rulemaking. The
second option is to propose a method of
treatment of stabilization or metals
recovery. The Agency is soliciting
comments on the concentration of
cadmium that can be recovered and
whether the Agency can identify a
concentration of cadmium in
nonwastewaters that is not amenable to
metals recovery.
(3) Identification of BOAT for
Cadmium-Containing Batteries. Nickel/
cadmium rechargeable batteries are
widely used in many household
electronic products and are also used
industrially in railroad signaling, diesel
locomotive starting, commercial and jet
aircraft starting, satellites, missile
guidance systems, television and
camera lighting, portable hospital
equipment computer memories, pinball
machines, and gasoline pumps.
Variations of this battery are the silver/
cadmium cell and the mercury/cadmium
battery, which are more costly and
limited in their use.
Because the Agency does not have
adequate data to establish a
concentration-based standard, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard for cadmium-containing
batteries expressed as "Recovery as a
Method of Treatment". The Bureau of
Mines has conducted studies on
pyrometallurgical techniques for
recycling nickel/cadmium batteries.
Data indicates that cadmium-containing
batteries may be recycled through the
use of smelting technologies. More
information on this data can be found in
the background document for cadmium
wastes. EPA is specffically requesting
data on the recovery of cadmium-
containing batteries.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D006
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Maximum
for any 24
hour
composite
sample
Total
Composition
(mg/1)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D006
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
! Maximum
1 lor any
i single grab
sample
TCLP (mg/1)
Cadmium..
0.14
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D006
[Cadmium Batteries)
Thermal recovery as a method of treatment
e. Chromium. U032 (calcium
chromate) and D007 (EP toxic for
chromium; 5.0 mg/1) are two of the many
RCRA hazardous wastes that are listed
for their chromium content. Typically,
these wastes contain chromium as
trivalent or hexavalent cations.
Primarily in untreated wastewaters,
chromium is present in its hexavalent
state and is reduced by treatment to the
trivalent state. The Agency is proposing
to regulate chromium in wastes as
"total" chromium rather than
distinguishing between these two
valence states. This is primarily because
of the difficulty in analyzing treatment
residues for hexavalent chromium.
(Note: Concentrations of trivalent
chromium are determined by subtracting
the concentration of hexavalent
-------
Federal RegiBter / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48437
chromium from total chromium
concentrations).
The Agency has data treatment of
chromium in wastewaters such as K062
waates that contafn significant
concentrations of chromium and other
metals. These data on K062 wastes
indicated treatment of up to 7,000 ppm
of total chromium. This is similar to
waste characterization data on other
waslewaters (such as those generated in
battery manufacturing) indicating
concentrations of up to 10.000 ppm of
total chromium in untreated waste. The
data for treatment of nonwastewaters
(sludges or solids) indicate that high
levels of chromium in hydroxide
sludges, incinerator ash, and in furnace
dust, can be treated by conventional
stabilization processes to below the
characteristic level for D007.
(1) Identification ofBDA Tfor D007
Wastewaters. Treatment data available
to the Agency indicate that chemical
reduction processes can convert a
significant range of concentrations of
hexavalent chromium in wastes to
chromium in the bivalent state using
chemical reducing agents such as sulfur
dioxide, sodium bisulfite, metabisulfite,
hydrosulfite, or ferrous sulfate. The
bivalent chromium is then removed,
usually by hydroxide precipitation. The
Agency has treatment data on chromium
reduction followed by precipitation and
sludge dewatering for K062 wastes. The
Agency believes that K062 would be
similar or more difficult to treat than
D007 wastes because of the high
concentration of chromium and other
metals in K062 wastes. Therefore, the
Agency is transferring the performance
data for K062 to D007 wastewaters and
is proposing a treatment standard of 0.32
mg/1. The Agency is soliciting additional
treatment performance data, including
data on ion exchange processes which
can remove hexavalent chromium
directly from wastewaters.
(2) Identification of BOAT for DOO7
Nonwastewaters. Treatment data
available to the Agency indicate that
D007 nonwastewaters can be treated by
stabilization provided -the chromium has
been reduced to the bivalent state. The
Agency has performance data from the
stabilization of F008 wastes that contain
high concentrations of chromium. The
data indicates that total chromium can
be stabilized to 5.2 mg/1 as analyzed by
the TCLP analysis. For the K062
nonwastewaters, the concentration of
total chromium in the nonwastewaters
did not need to be stabilized. The reason
was during the precipitation step, the
beater added lime such that it reduced
the mobility of chromium and other
metals that were present in the wastes.
This information justifies that fact that
chromium wastes can be easily
stabilized.
Therefore, the Agency has two sets of
treatment data for chromium containing
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that the F006 wastes could have
contained hexavalent chromium as
opposed to bivalent chromium. The
reason for this is that the Agency
believes that a F006 wastes is generated
from the treatment of electroplating
rinsewaters by alkaline chlorination
treatment rather than a chromium
reduction treatment. An alkaline
chlorination process would not reduce
the hexavalent chromium to bivalent.
Therefore the Agency is proposing a
treatment standard for D007
nonwastewaters of 0.094 mg/1 based on
an analysis of TCLP exbacts and based
on the performance of chromium
reduction followed by lime and sulfide
precipitation and dewatering for K062
wastes. The Agency is soliciting
comments and treatment data from
industry on whether this treatment
standard is achievable for all D007
nonwastewaters. If comments indicate
that the standard is not achievable, the
Agency may promulgate the 5.2 mg/1
treatment standard based on a bansfer
of the performance of stabilization for
the F006 wastes.
(3) Identification of BOAT for Calcium
Chromate. In today's proposed rule, the
Agency is proposing wastewater and
nonwastewater concentration-based
beabnent standards for chromium in
this waste (U 032). BOAT for
wastewaters and nonwastewaters are
based on a transfer of the beabnent
performance of chemical reduction
followed by lime/sulfide precipitation
and filtration, for K062 wastes.
The Agency believes that the bansfer
of the performance data for the
beabnent of K062 to calcium chromate
wastewaters is technically feasible due
to the high concentration of chromium in
K062 wastewater.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D007
AND U032
tNonwastewatarsJ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D007
AND U032
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample
TCLP (mg/1)
0.094
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample
Total
composition
(mg/1)
032
/ Lead
D008—EP toxic for lead
PltO—Tetraethyl lead
U144—Lead acetate
U145—Lead phosphate
U146—Lead subacetate
Lead appears in Group IV of the
periodic table. Lead, as a metal, is used
as an industrial raw material in the
manufacture of batteries, pigments,
leaded glass, fuels, photographic
materials, matches, explosives, and in
electroplating baths. Lead is also used in
the iron and steel industry and in the
mining industry. Typically the lead in
the 0008 nonwastewaters may appear
as lead in its elemental form (i.e., solid
lead) or as chemical salts. In aqueous
solutions (such as wastewaters), lead
can easily be precipitated by adding
lime, carbonate, or sulfides. This
behavior is important, in that selection
and performance of treatment
technologies for lead is somewhat
similar to other metals, based on this
cationic behavior in aqueous conditions.
Lead salts typically contain lead in the
divalent state and are mostly insoluble
in water. The nitrate, PtyNOafe, and the
acetate, PblGzHjOafe, are the only
common soluble salts. The solubility of
these two salts form the basis for certain
analytical determinations of lead
concentrations in some particular
matrices.
The treatment standards presented in
today's preamble for all lead wastes are
based on a limited amount of treatment
data. In this notice, the Agency is
soliciting data on the characterization
and beabnent of all wastes containing
lead. Copies of any additional data
pertaining to these proposed treatment
standards that may be submitted during
the public comment period can be
requested in writing by identifying the
request for data as "Additional data on
treatment of lead—Section III.A.S.e.".
See Section III.A.l.i. of today's preamble
for information on procedures for
requesting additional data on specific
standards.
(1) Treatment Standards for
Wastewaters. When evaluating
-------
48438
treatment technologies to establish
wastewater treatment standards for
lead wastes, the Agency believes that it
must consider not only the efficiency of
removal of lead from the wastewater,
but also the chemical state of the
precipitated lead salts that end up in the
wastewater treatment residuals.
Most of the data indicates that lead
oxides can be removed from
wastewaters by using carbonate or
hydroxide as precipitating reagent. In
most precipitation treatment systems,
two factors influence lead removal.
These are lead solubility and lead
precipitate settleability. Lead oxides are
more insoluble in carbonate rather than
lead hydroxide. (Note: Lead hydroxide
is actually amphoteric and will become
more soluble as the pH moves beyond
optimum insolubility.) This suggests that
a method of treatment for lead in
wastewaters should be precipitation
with carbonate, followed by sludge
dewatering. The Agency is requesting
comments on the approach of specifying
a precipitant with the method of
treatment.
The Agency has data on the treatment
of wastewaters containing lead by
precipitation with lime and sulfide
filtration, and settling for K062 and D008
mixed wastes. The Agency believes that
these data represent a matrix that is
very difficult to treat since it consists of
other dissolved metals in concentrations
up to 7,000 ppm. While the lead
concentration in K062 waste ranged up
to only 200 ppm, treatment by
precipitation acts to concentrate the
lead in the sludge. K082 wastewaters
were treated by chemical reduction,
followed by precipitation with lime and
sulfide and sludge dewatering. The
sludge generated from this process
contained leachable lead concentrations
of less than 0.10 mg/1, indicating that the
sludge did not need further treatment.
The wastewater residual from this
treatment contained lead concentrations
of less than 0.01 mg/1. These data
indicate that the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide can
achieve concentration levels lower than
the EP toxic concentration for lead (i.e.,
5 mg/1}.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing
two options for treatment standards for
D008 wastewaters. The first option is a
treatment standard of 0.04 mg/1 lead for
all D008 wastewaters. As discussed in
detail in section III.C. of today's
preamble, the Agency has initially
determined that it has the authority to
establish treatment standards below the
characteristic level for these wastes or
at least to make failure to treat to the
lower level a violation of Section 3004
(m). However, the Agency is proposing a
second option of limiting the treatment
standards for D008 wastewaters to the
characteristic level of 5.0 mg/1. The
Agency specifically solicits comments
on these two options. The Agency also
solicits comment on use of the standards
developed for the secondary and
primary lead industries as part of the
Agency's effluent limitations guidelines
program.
The constituents for which U144,
•, U145, and U146 wastes are listed are all
soluble salt forms of lead. The
constituents for which P110, U144, and
U146 are listed are organic forms of
lead. While all of these wastes are
typically generated as nonwastewaters,
the Agency expects that wastewater
forms of these wastes may be generated
from incidental spills or from a
treatment process itself, and thus would
require treatment standards. The
Agency expects that untreated
wastewaters will be more dilute than
the untreated K062 wastewaters that
were used to develop the treatment
standards, and thus would be expected
to be less difficult to treat.
Given that: (1) U144. U145, and U146
are all soluble lead compounds, (2)
untreated K062 wastewaters are
expected to be more difficult to treat
than untreated PllO, U144, U145, and
U148 wastewaters, and (3) the
performance data demonstrate that the
lead in K062 wastewaters can
effectively be removed, EPA is
proposing to transfer K062 performance
data and concentration-based treatment
standard of 0.04 mg/1 for PllO, U144,
U145, and U146 wastewaters.
(2) Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewaters Containing Lead. The
Agency has identified many types of
D008 nonwastewaters that are different.
and can be classified as those wastes
that can be stabilized, recycled, and
incinerated. The Ag'ency has proposed a
cut-off concentration of 2.5% total lead
as a means of distinguishing between
those essentially inorganic
nonwastewaters containing recyclable
levels of lead and those which can be
effectively stabilized. This cut-off level
has been proposed based on a limited
amount of data from both recycling and
stabilization of wastes containing lead.
(a) Standards for Wastes in the Low
Lead Subcategory. For D008
nonwastewaters, the Agency has
identified two sets of stabilization data
on electroplating wastewater treatment
shidges (F006) and wastewater
treatment sludges from explosives
manufacturing (K046). Data on
electroplating nonwastewaters indicate
that wastes with total lead
concentration of 24,500 can be reduced
to lead concentrations of 0.51 ppm using
the TCLP extract test. At the same time.
the Agency has treatment data for K046
wastes that contain total lead
concentrations of 1,000 ppm with
reductions to 0.18 ppm of leachable lead.
Both of these data sets for diverse waste
types indicate that conventional
stabilization processes can reduce the
leachability of lead to concentrations
lower than the EP levels.
Therefore, using the treatment data
for F006 wastes, the Agency is proposing
a treatment standard of 0.51 mg/1
leacbable lead for D008 wastes that can
be effectively stabilized. In order to
define this subcategory, the Agency
examined the available data and
determined that total concentrations of
lead up to 2.5 percent can be effectively
stabilized. The Agency is proposing this
level as a cut-off for those D008
nonwastewaters that can be stabilized.
Based on this 2.5% level, the Agency is
identifying these wastes that can be
stabilized as wastes in the D008 Low
Lead Subcategory. The Agency believes
that these data forFOOB and K048
represent the treatment of wastes that
are more difficult to stabilize (due to the
presence of organo-lead initiating
compounds and residuals organics in the
K046 wastes, and high dissolved metals
and oil and grease in the F006 wastes).
As discussed in detail in section III.C.
of today's preamble, the Agency has
initially determined that it has the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes or at least to make
failure to treat to the lower level a
violation of section 3004 (m). However,
the Agency is proposing a second option
of limiting the treatment standard for
these D008 nonwastewater treatment
sludges to the characteristic level. The
Agency is soliciting comments on this
approach and on the definition of
stabilized D008 nonwastewaters based
on a 2.5 percent cutoff concentration of
lead.
(b) Standards for High Lead
Subcategory. In determining which D008
lead wastes are amenable to thermal
recovery, the Agency has data that
indicate that wastes containing
concentrations of lead as low as 5
percent can be recovered.
(Note: This 5% level correlates well with
the proposed cut-off level of 2.5% based on
the performance of stabilization.)
Thus, the Agency is defining wastes in
the High Lead Subcategory as those
wastes containing greater than or equal
to 2.5% lead (based on an analysis of
total lead concentration in the waste).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 /.Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
4843R
The Agency has identified some
particular D008 wastes which appear to
have good recovery potential, such as
lead acid batteries, lead dross, and
electric arc furnace dust.
Data available to the Agency
indicates that lead can be recovered
from electric arc furnace dust (K061) by
high temperature metals recovery. Some
K061 wastes contained total lead
concentrations up to 14 percent, and
were reduced to leachate levels well
below the characteristic level of 5.0
mg/1. Based on these data, the Agency
believes that residues from thermal
recovery of D008 wastes containing high
levels of lead will no longer leach lead
above the EP toxic level. (See also the
discussion on recovery of lead acid
batteries and the solicitation of
comments and data below.) Therefore,
the Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Thermal Recovery as a
Method of Treatment" for wastes in the
High Lead Subcategory.
(c) Standards for Lead Acid Batteries
Subcategory. Currently, the Agency
does not have waste characterization
and treatment data from the recycling of
lead acid batteries (i.e., influent lead
concentrations and total and leachable
residual data). Therefore, the Agency is
soliciting recovery data of lead from
secondary smelting operations. In
particular, the Agency is interested in
the minimum concentration of lead that
can be recovered from other DOOS
wastes, the resultant waste
characteristics associated with the slag
(assuming that the slag is either a D008
waste, or comes from smelting a waste
that is not indigenous to the industrial
furnace), and any treatment data on the
slag.
As a result, the Agency is proposing
treatment standards for non-indigenous
recyclable D008 wastes (identified as
the DOOS High Lead Subcategory) based
on the performance of the high
temperature metals recycling of K061
wastes that contain significant
concentrations of lead. (Residues from
recycling indigenous DOOS materials
would be subject to the DOOS standard if
such residues exhibit EP toxicity for
lead, and their Subcategory would be
determined at the time of their
generation.)
Incidentally, the Agency notes in
response to inquiries from the affected
industries that lead acid batteries
themselves, when stored before land
disposal, are not considered to be land
disposed. This is because the battery is
considered to be a container (see 40 CFR
264.314(d)(3)J. Battery storage, however,
typically is subject to the subpart J
storage standards (relating to secure
storage, secondary containment in some
instances, and other requirements).
For the lead acid batteries treatability
group, the Agency is proposing metals
recovery as a method of treatment. The
Agency believes that most of the
treatersior lead acid batteries are using
a recovery process. These standards
only apply for lead acid batteries that
are identified as RCRA hazardous
wastes and that are not elsewhere
excluded from regulation under the land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR 268 or
exempted under other EPA regulations
(see 40 CFR 266.80).
(d) Standards for P110, U144, and
U146 Nonwastewaters. The Agency has
determined that some nonwastewater
forms of lead wastes including PllO,
U144, U146, and some DOOS wastes,
would need to be incinerated prior to
stabilization due to the presence of high
concentrations of organics in order to
achieve a treatment standardised on
stabilization. This is primarily because
the organics typically interfere with
conventional stabilization processes
(particularly at concentrations
exceeding 1% TOC). The Agency has
data on the incineration of organic
wastes containing up to 1,000 mg/kg
lead (such as K048/K051 and K087
wastes) followed by stabilization of the
ash. These data indicate that the
proposed standard (i.e. 0.51 mg/1
teachable lead) for DOOS
nonwastewaters in the Low Lead
Subcategory based on stabilization can
be achieved for wastes that also contain
significant concentrations of organics,
provided the organics are destroyed by
pretreatment The Agency is therefore
proposing that this standard is
applicable to those U and P lead wastes
that are organo-lead compounds, i.e.,
PllO, U144, and U146. This is further
supported by the fact that the lead
contained in the K048-K052 petroleum
refinery wastes that were incinerated,
probably was present as tetraethyl lead
thus supporting the extrapolation to
PllO, off-specification tetraethyl lead.
Lead acetate (U144) and lead subacetate
(U146) are anticipated to be less difficult
(or at least of similar difficulty) to treat
than tetraethyl lead.
(e) Standards for Radioactive Lead
Solids Subcategory. The Agency is also
proposing treatment standards'for
radioactive lead solids. These lead
solids include, but are not limited to, all
forms of lead shielding, lead "pigs", and
other elemental forms of lead. These
lead solids do not include treatment
residuals such as hydroxide sludges,
other wastewater treatment residuals, or
incinerator ashes that can undergo
conventional pozzolanic stabilization,
nor do they include organo-lead
materials that can be incinerated and
then stabilized as ash. These wastes are
different than the other DOOS
nonwastewaters containing high levels
of lead, because of their radioactivity.
EPA does not believe that metal
recovery (i.e., smelting) is an available
technology for radioactive solids. Any
lead recovery would be radioactive, and
thus unusable. If the radioactive lead
was smelted along with normal lead, the
entire mass recovered would be
unusable.
However, conventu nal stabilization
technologies generally should not be
impacted by the presence of radioactive
versus nonradioactive lead. As a result,
the Agency is not subcategorizing
wastewater treatment residues and
incinerator ash containing radioactive
lead or other metals except for purposes
of determining availability of treatment
capacity (i.e., stabilization processes for
•radioactive materials should employ
special safety precautions due to the
radioactivity). Therefore, the Agency
has developed a separate treatability
group and BOAT for the specified
radioactive lead solids.
For these radioactive lead solids, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Surface Deactivation or
Removal of Radioactive Lead Portions
Followed by Encapsulation; or Direct
Encapsulation as Methods of
Treatment". The Agency believes that
most radioactive lead results from the
use of the elemental lead (a solid) either
directly or indirectly as a shield from
radioactivity. Typically, the
radioactivity penetrates slowly into one
side of the lead (shield), thus providing
the necessary protection. Therefore.
depending upon the thickness of the
lead shield the radioactive portion of the
lead may be able to be shaved off from
the nonradioactive portion. The
remaining nonradioactive lead would
then be subject to the treatment
standard for High Lead wastes,
"Thermal Recovery as a Method of
Treatment". The radioactive portion (or
in some cases the entire shield or solid)
would then be either macro- or micro-
encapsulated into a protective material
that would prevent the lead from
leaching in the disposal environment.
-------
4844J Fadetal Register
VoL 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1988 / Proposed Rule*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D006,P1JO.U144.U14SIU-M6
CWastawaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead.—
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.040
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P11O, U144, U145, AND U146
Otonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead.,
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.51
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
Low LEAD SUBCATEGORY—LESS THAN
2.5%
. CNonwastewatars]
Regulated constituent
Lead.. .-.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l>
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
HIGH LEAD SUSCATEGORY GREATER
THAN OR EQUAL to 2.5% LEAD
[Nonwastewaters]
Thermal recovery as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
[Lead Acid Batteries']
Thermal recovery as a method of treatment
'This standard only applies to toad acid batteries
that are identified as RCRA hazardous wastes and
that are not excluded elsewhere from regulation
under the land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR 268
or exempted under other EPA regulation* (see 40
Urn 266.80).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
[Radioactive Lead Solids']
Surface deactivation or removal of radioactive lead
portions folowed by encapsulation; or direct
encapsulation of radioactive lead solids as methods
of treatment
•These lead solids include, but are not limited to
all forms of lead shielding, lead "pigs", and other
elemental forms of lead. These lead solids do not
include treatment residuals such as hydroxide
sludges, other wastewatar treatment miduato, or
Incinerator asnee that on undergo conventional
pozzolanic stabilization, nor do they include
organo-tead materials that can be incinerated and
then stabilized as ash.
g. Mercury.
D009—EP toxic tor mercury
K071—Brine panficatioa mnds from the
mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately prepurified
brine is not used
K106—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production
P065—Mercury fulminate
P092—Phenylmercury acetate
U151—Mercury
These six wastes are grouped together
because they contain mercury as the
primary rmzardous constituent. The
Agency is grouping these wastes
together in order to simplify the
explanation of the chemistry of mercury
and the operational treatment principles
of technologies for treating the related
mercury wastes.
(1) Review of Applicable
Technologies for Nonwastewaters—(a)
Thermal Recovery Processes. Based on
the available treatment data from
thermal recovery processes for K071,
K106, and for cinnabar ores, EPA is
proposing thermal recovery as part of
the treatment standards for many of the
nonwastewater forms of these six
mercury wastes. EPA has examined
data on the mercury content of residues
from roasting/retorting of K071 and
K106 wastes, and believes that it shows
substantial redaction* in mercury
mobility. The data indicated that
mercury can be recovered from these
wastes sech that the residues contain
less than 18 mg/kg of total mercury.
In addition, EPA believes the thermal
processing of cinnabar ores simulates
the roasting/retorting of mercury sulfide
containing wastes. These additional
data indicates that the thermal
processing of cinnabar ores yields a
calcinated residue containing 100 mg/kg
total mercary, and none of treated
residues exceed EP toxicity Levels for
mercury. As a result, EPA is proposing
to use the lowest concentration based
number achieved by these two sets of
thermal recovery data, i.e., the 18 mg/kg,
to reflect the level of mercury amenable
to recovery.
It is not clear from the available data
whether organo-mereury wastes {like
P065 and PQ92) can be retorted directly,
or if the organic fraction must be
destroyed first. Consequently, for
certain organo-mercury wastes, EPA is
proposing an initial treatment step to
destroy the organics followed by
thermal recovery of mercury if tine
incineration residues contain sufficient
mercury to be amenable to recovery.
The Agency is aware of other thermal
processes, such as scrap metal
distillation incorporating steam stripping
and vacuum distillation, that are used
for recovery of mercury from debris and
equipment. However, the Agency has no
particular data from these processes for
use in the development of treatment
standards. Therefore, the Agency is
soliciting data and information on these
technologies.
(bj Acid Leaching. The promulgated
treatment standards for K071
nonwastewaters in the First Third rule
based on the performance of a treatment
process involving acid leaching to
solubilize and extract the mercury
contained in the K071 brine sludge and
later convert the mercury to a relatively
insoluble mercury sulfide sludge. (See
further discussion of proposed rule for
K071 in 53 FR 11758-11759 (April 8,1988)
and final rule in 53 FR 31166-31167
(August 17,1988).) The Agency is using
these data and promulgated standards
for transfer to wastes that contain less
than 18 mg/kg total mercury as
generated (i.e.. wastes with insufficient
mercury to warrant recovery). Residues
from this acid leaching process must be
evaluated for mercury content to
determine whether they must undergo
thermal recovery.
(c) Stabilization. Existing stabilization
data fpr K106 nonwastewaters
containing over 2% total mercury (by
weight) indicate that the overall
leachabflity of mercury from the K106
wastes actually increases with the
addition of the alkaline stabilization
reagents. Thus, conventional
cementitious and pozzolanic
stabilization processes (all of which
involve alkaline materials) are not
considered BDAT for wastes containing
concentrations above 2% total mercury.
No data have been received on K106
stabilization using proprietary binders
such as asphalts, silicates, or sulfide.
While some vendors have expressed
their interest in submitting data to EPA,
these data have not been submitted at
the time of this rule. If these data
become available, anyone interested in
reviewing performance data for the
stabilization of K106 Wastes (mercury
sulfides), must request such data
following the procedures described in
section IttA-l-i- of today's preamble.
This request should be identified as
"III.A.5.g. Stabilization of Mercury
Wastes".
(d) Incineration. EPA has information
from a few facilities that indicate
routine incineration of some wastes
containing organo-metallics. EPA
believes that these include organo-
mercury wastes such as spent organo-
mercury catalysts, organo-mercurials in
lab packs, and paint sludges containing
mercury. Thus, incineration is
considered to be demonstrated to treat a
-------
Federal Reg»rtCT7^Vd.5». No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1980 / Proposed Rule*
48441
vast array of mercury-containing
wastes. The mercury from these wastes
is not destroyed by the incineration
process but rather accumulates aa
inorganic mercury compounds in the
ash. the scrubber water, and the
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of the scrubber waters. Thus.
the Agency is specifying further
treatment of incineration residues in
order to reduce the mobility or
concentration of mercury to levels that
more fully minimize threats to human
health and the environment
(2) Complications of Co-disposal with
Alkaline Materials. Mercury sulfide is
relatively insoluble in water under acid
conditions. However, the information on
the attempted pozzolanic stabilization, of
K106 (which is primarily mercury
sulfide] indicates that the teachability
(i.e., solubility] of the mercury increases
under alkaline conditions. Therefore, the
low solubility of mercury sulfide must
be balanced against the potential for
teachability of the resulting wastewater
treatment sludges during co-disposal
with alkaline wastes or materials. This
potential for increased teachability
under these conditions is a legitimate
concern, in that some operators of
hazardous landfills co-dispose all
"mclal" wastes and it is typical practice
to add excess lime to prevent migration
of the other metals prior to disposal.
The Agency solicits comment on
whether it should establish disposal
requirements under 40 CFR parts 2M
and 265 for all mercury sulfide
wastewater treatment residuals in the
Low Mercury Subcategory which would
require segregation of the treatment
residuals from alkaline materials (hi
either monofills or separate subceHs-
within a landfill}. Such a requirement
would be a type of management
standard designed to prevent co-
disposal of incompatible wastes. By
soliciting comment, EPA notes that these
proposed requirements may be
promulgated as additional requirements-
to meeting the proposed concentration-
based TCLP standard*.
The Agency also solicits comment on
an alternative of simply classifying
D009. K071. K108, P065» P092; and U151
nonwastewaters in the Low-Mercury
Subcategory as "incompatible" with
alkaline wastes like hydroxide sludges.
The basis would be the increased
potential for teachability of the mercury
when exposed to alkaline pH.
(3J Standards for All Waatewaters.
The Agency has identified ton exchange^
carbon disulfide sorption. chemical
oxidation/reduction, chemical
precipitation, or combinations of these
technologies a* applicable technologies
to treat inorganic mercury waatewatera.
Chemical oxidation/reduction processes
typically alter the chemical valence of
mercury species for subsequent
precipitation or removal by ion
exchange or carbon diaulf ide sorption.
While ion exchange and carbon
disulfide sorption may be used directly
on a mercury-containing wastewater, all
of the mercury must be in the proper
valence state. Typically these two
removal technologies are used primarily
as polishing steps after precipitation.
Several facilities are believed to be
treating mercury wastewaters with ion
exchange or carbon disulfide sorption.
However, the Agency lacks sufficient
wastewater treatment data based on the
use of these two technologies.
The Agency has data on precipitation
of mercury from wastewaters identified
as K071 from the chlor-alkali industry
using sulfide as the precipitant. The
Agency believes that these data
represent a matrix that is difficult to
treat since it consists of a mixture of
different forma of inorganic mercury.
The data show that this precipitation
process provides effective treatment and
removal of mercury from these
wastewaters because it reduces the
concentration of mercury in the
wastewater to levels below the
characteristic level of 0.2 mg/L
Based on these treatment data, the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 0.030 mg/1 mercury for all
D009 wastewaters. The Agency believes
that these wastes represent the most
difficult to treat wastewaters. As
discussed in detail in section m.C. of
today's preamble, the Agency has
initially determined that it has the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes, or at least to make
failure to treat to the lower level a
violation of section 3004(m). The Agency
is also proposing a second option of
limiting the treatment standard for D009
wastewaters to the characteristic level
of 0.2 mg/L The Agency specifically
solicits comments on these two options.
The Agency is also proposing to
transfer these performance data and
standards to Kioa, P065. P092, and U151
wastewaters. EPA is soliciting and data
on the achievability of these standards
for all mercury wastewaters. ID
particular, the Agency solicits data
characterizing the untreated and treated
mercury-contaminated waatewaten that
are routinely generated, information
pertinent to the design and operation of
their wastewater treatment
technologies, and information pertinent
to the manufacturing processes
generating these mercury-bearing
wastewaters.
Some mercury-containing
wastewaters may require more
extensive treatment trains in order to
treat hexavalent chromium, other
metals, and organics which could
possibly interfere with the treatment of
the mercury. A reduction step for
hexavalent chromium and an oxidation
step (with reagents such as hydrogen
peroxide or hypochlorite) may be
necessary to treat the organics. m
addition, compl'exed organometallics
which may be present will probably
have to be oxidized or otherwise
removed prior to conversion of the
mercury to their proper valence slate for
further metal treatment by precipitation.
However, the Agency currently lacks
reliable data that indicate that the
proposed concentration-based
standards cannot be achieved for these
types of wastes. Nevertheless, EPA
anticipates that pretreatment steps such
as hexavalent chromium reduction and
chemical oxidation of organics may be
necessary and these pretreatment steps
could remove these potential
interferences. This is further supported
by the fact that quantitative analytical
methods for mercury in waste samples
include such pretreatment steps to
remove the interferences during
analysis. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on the applicability of
these and other pretreatment
technologies for mercury-containing
wastewaters and data that indicate the
achievabilily of the proposed
wastewater standard.
(4) Standards for K106 and Ul5l
Nonwastewaters. The Agency
previously proposed treatment
standards for K108 wastes .based on
retorting in the First Third proposed rule
(53 FR 17578, May 17,1988). The
proposed standards, however, were not
promulgated because, at that time, there
was insufficient information to support
the transfer from the retorting of
mercury sulfide ores or other mercury
wastes that the Agency believed were
similar to the K106 wastes (53 FR 31173-
31174, August 17,1988). The Agency has
since collected performance data on the
thermal processing of cinnabar ores that
the Agency believes simulates the
roasting/retorting of mercury sulfide
containing wastes. (See section
III.A^.g.(l.)(a.) above).
The Agency is proposing to establish
a High Mercury Subcategory and a Low
Mercury Subcategory for K106 and U151
nonwastewaters based on a cut-off of id
mg/kg. For wastes in the High Mercury
Subcategory (Le., containing greater
than or equal to IS mg/kg total mercury}
the Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of "Roasting or Retorting as a
-------
Method of Treatment". Since it is likely
that K106 and U151 wastes will be
considered indigenous to the thermal
recovery processes, the residues from
these processes would no longer be
considered K106 or U151. However, if
these wastes are EP toxic for mercury
(D009) they must then comply with the
appropriate standards for D009 wastes
(i.e., High or Low Mercury Subcategory)
presented below.
For K106 and U151 nonwastewaters in
the Low Mercury Subcategory (i.e., less
than 16 mg/kg total mercury) the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 0.025 mg/1 mercury
measured in a TCLP leachate based on
the transfer of performance of acid
leaching data for K071 nonwastewaters.
(See section III.A.5.g.(l.)(b.) above.)
Residues from this acid leaching process
must be evaluated for mercury content
to determine whether they must undergo
thermal recovery. K106 and U151
nonwastewaters that contain less than
16 mg/kg total mercury and that also
leach less than 0.025 mg/1 mercury (as
measured in the TCLP extract) are
considered to have met the BOAT and
can be land disposed.
(5) Proposed Revisions ofK071
Nonwastewaters. The Agency
promulgated treatment standards for
K071 nonwastewaters with the First
Third Final Rule based on the
performance of a treatment process
involving an acid leaching to solubilize
and extract the mercury contained in the
K071 brine sludge and later convert the
mercury to a relatively insoluble
mercury sulfide sludge. (See further
discussion of proposed rule for K071 in
S3 FR 11758-11759 (April 8,1988) and
final rule in 53 FR 31166-31167 (August
17,1988).)
The Agency is proposing to create a
new subcategory identified as K071 High
Mercury Subcategory and is thus
proposing to partially replace the K071
nonwastewater treatment standard
previously promulgated. Thus, for K071
nonwastewaters in the.High Mercury
Subcategory (i.e., greater than or equal
to 16 mg/kg total mercury) the Agency is
proposing a treatment standard of
•"Roasting or Retorting as a Method of
Treatment". (See also discussion for
K106 and U151.) The Agency is also
proposing to create a new subcategory
identified as Low Mercury Subcategory,
i.e., less than 16 mg/kg total mercury, for
K071 nonwastewaters and is retaining
the promulgated standard (0.025 mg/1
mercury based on analysis of a TCLP
extract) for these wastes.
(6) Standards for P065 and P092
Nonwastewaters. Mercury fulminate
(P065) and phenylmercury acetate (P092)
are mercury compounds containing
carbon. The Agency has determined that
incineration represents part of the BOAT
for P065 and P092 nonwastewaters. This
is because incineration is demonstrated
for destruction of carbon-metal bonds in
organo-metallics, and may be necessary
to make mercury available for recovery.
(See discussion of incineration in
section III.A.5.g.(l.)(a.) and (c.) above.)
Also, the Agency notes that available
information for P065 indicates that
mercury fulminate can be destroyed in
an incinerator designed to destroy
explosive wastes. (Detailed information
on the treatment methods identified for
mercury fulminate can be found in the
Department of the Army Technical
Manual, TM-9-1300-214, Military
Explosive, September 1984).
Incineration of P065 and P092 will not
destroy mercury, which will end up in
the residues. The residues therefore
must be treated further. This is reflected
in the proposed standard for these
wastes: "Incineration followed by
roasting or retorting of incinerator
nonwastewater residues (ash and
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of incinerator scrubber
waters) provided such residues exceed
16 mg/kg total mercury; and scrubber
waters from incineration must comply
with the 0.030 mg/1 wastewater
standard" for D009, K106, P065, P092,
and U151 wastewaters.
In other words, residues from
incinerating these wastes (including
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of scrubber waters) require
further treatment for mercury. For
nonwastewaters, if the residues contain
sufficient mercury to warrant recovery
(18 mg/kg total mercury) they would
have to be roasted or retorted. If not,
they would have to meet the standard
for low mercury wastes. Scrubber
waters would be required to meet the
same standard applicable to all
wastewaters within the mercury
treatability group. Thus, for these
wastes, incineration serves as a type of
pretreatment, and nonwastewaters from
incineration are then evaluated to
determine if they are in the High or Low
Mercury Subcategory, and the
appropriate treatment standard for
mercury applies.
(7) Standards for D009
Nonwastewaters. Treatment standards
for D009 nonwastewaters in the High
Mercury Subcategory are being
proposed based on a combination of the
standard for K106 and that for P065 and
P092. The main reason for this is that
D009 wastes may be contaminated with
organics or other organo-mercury
constituents (along with inorganic
mercury). EPA is thus proposing a
standard for D009 nonwastewaters in
the High Mercury Subcategory of
"Roasting or retorting as a method of
treatment; or incineration followed by
roasting or retorting of incinerator
nonwastewater residues (ash and
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of incinerator scrubber
waters) provided such residues exceed
16 mg/kg total mercury". As a result, if
the organic content is too high for the
retorting or roasting, incineration would
be required as a pretreatment step. The
Agency considered proposing a
subcategory of organic-mercury wastes;
however, the Agency had no means of
establishing a definition for these
wastes. Thus, the Agency is soliciting
• data and comment that would assist the
Agency is subdividing this standard
according to the organic content.
(8) Standards for Radioactive Wastes
Containing Mercury. Information
provided recently to EPA by the United
States Department of Energy (DOE)
indicates the generation of two
particular mixed radioactive/hazardous
wastes that contain mercury. This
information also suggests that the BOAT
technologies and standards proposed for
the corresponding nonradioactive
wastes may not be applicable. The
Agency, therefore, has developed
alternative treatment standards for
these wastes which are presented in the
following section.
(a) Elemental Mercury. Elemental
mercury is typically found in vacuum
pumps and related manometers. In the
nuclear industry, this form of mercury
has been contaminated with radioactive
tritium (a radio-isotope of hydrogen).
These wastes are often identified as
D009 or U151. The treatment standard
proposed for the nonradioactive wastes
of this type is "Roasting or Retorting as
a Method of Treatment". However, the
Agency has no data or information that
would indicate that these processes
would be able to separate the mercury
from the radioactive material (i.e.,
tritium) resulting in a reusable mercury.
Thus, the Agency believes that these
processes would not necessarily be
applicable to these wastes and therefore
developed a proposed standard based
on the following information.
As a result of the high vapor pressure
associated with elemental mercury in
the liquid form, the predominant safety
concern with the mercury in these
wastes is from air emissions. One
method that has been developed to
handle spills of nonradioactive liquid
mercury involves the application of
elemental zinc powder to areas that
have been contaminated with the
mercury (the visible droplets of liquid
mercury are physically collected in a
-------
separate step before application of the
zincj. The zinc is dampened with dilute
snlfuric acfd {5-10%J until a paste is
formed. This paste is then collected for
disposal. The mercury forma an
amalgam with the zinc providing a
significant retraction in air emissions of
mercury. (EPA prefers' tins- procedure
over the conventional spill cleanup
procedures involving addition of
calcium polysulffde or flowers of sulfur
because USB of zinc-results m lower air
emissions of rnercury.J
The Agency currently has no
information on whether this procedure
will reduce the overall Teachability of
mercury. However, the Agency has
determined that this procedure does
provide significant treatment due to the
decrease m air emissions, the change fa
mobility from liquid mercury to a paste-
like solid, and the potential reduction in
teachability due to the amalgamation
with the zinc. Based on this information,
the general lack of treatment data, the
lack of alternative technologies, and the
unique handling problems associated
wfth the radioactivity, the Agency ii
proposing a treatment standard for Don?
and UlSt elemental mercury wastes
contaminated with radioactive materials
of "Amalgamation with Zinc as a
Method of Treatment1*. Roasting;
retorting or other recovery process are
not precluded from use by this standard
as long as all residuals- from these
recovery processes comply wfth the*
amalgamation treatment standard prior
to land disposal.
(b) Hydraulic Off Contaminated with
Mercury. The DOE also indicated the
generation; of a hydraulic oil that is
contaminated with mercury and tritium.
EPA fs assuming that the hydraulic oil
referred to by DOE a organic and can
be incinerated. EPA has determined that
the technologies applicable to
nonradioactive mercury waste* mat
contain high levels of organics are
incineration followed by roasting or
retorting of all of the nwrganicresfo/Bes
and wastewater treatment forme
scrubber waters. (See the exact
proposed standards for FOBS and P08Z
nomvastewaters above.)
The Agency is proposing to modify
this- standard for this type of radioactive
mercury waste by removing the
requirement to recover mercury from tie
inorganic residues. Because the Agency
is uncertain that roasting or retorting
will be able to recover a reusable
mercury (i.e.» nonradioactivel from these
residues, the Agency fs proposing a
treatment standard of "Incineration ax a
Method of Treatment wftn fndnerator
residues meeting the foHowing: (1J Ash
and wastewmter treatment sradges front
the treatment of scrubbet waters must
comply with a TCLF concentration, of
0.025 mg/t and &] Scrubber waters, mast
comply with a total concentration of
0.030 mg/I wastewater standard" foe
DOOfl Hydraulic Oil Contaminated with
Radioactive Materials.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
DOO&. K106, P065, PG92, AND U151
EVWistewWersT
Regulated constituent
Mfin^iy, ,
Mfttiknwiv
tarsi*
sfngjegrab-
Tojtt
COIHlMJftlBOfl
*v*
O03O
BOAT TREATMENT STANOMOS FOR K106
AN0U151
CMofltwastawatersl
[High Mtrcar? Sotaatoapir-Grmtar 1am or 9m*
to 16 mo/kg total ruMcuryl
Rowrtng or Retorting a* * Mflttwrf of TwatnwH
BOAT TRCATMEWT STANDARDS FOR Kt06
CLow Men**/ $*tx*tayi»r-l*su W*t> 16 mm/fm
Regotttufcatwamm
Uaxiraum
for any
BOAT TflEATMBfr STANDARD* FOR
KO71-
CN&nwastewatersl
[Itiph Mamri Tii«*i*apr-
category.
[Low Mercury Subcategory-Less than
total maccucyl
Haflulatad constituent
Mercury
•This standard Is the same as the
K071 nomM*tawaiar> promuta««e6 Aw
(S3 FR 31167), but now would only be
Mercury SubcaWgory,
tor any
•ingte-grab
samp**
TdPfrnfffl).
0.025
standard for
J0«t IT, -I9B3
applicable to
* KOT1 Low
BOAT THEATVCMT STAMMROS FOB P064
ANOP082
CNonwaetewatersl
Irictneratfbn Fofloworf by Roasting or Retort&ig of
IncifHMkv hfcMMMIawaUr O&uOun (««fi and
WaatewalM Treata«ent Sludgw (rom TPOOMHM ot
the [nctoBfator Scrubfaee Waters) Provided Such
Resi*w« Exoetf tfi mg/fcg Tow Mefcary; and
Scrubber Watar* fcof» Incmeaoon Must ComBly
With tfea OjaOmoXI Wastewater Standard
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
CMonwattawotaral
[Higri MoRuy SubcKBgerr Greater (tan or eotiaf
RoMting or Ratortinft a» » Method o/ Tpealraaat;- oc
Incfnenttiwi FoflDwerf Cry Roasting or Refortna of
Wastewatai TrMttnoM SJwlgB» Iron Ir«ottnen« of
the Incinerator Scrubber Waters) Provided Such
Residue* Exeoed 16 mg/kff ToW Mercury
9MS BOAT TREATMEKT STANOAROS FOR DOCS
tNonwastewatersi
[Lew Uetcmy Sxbca»eqory-- Ua» ttian M rng/la
total mercury 1
Mnreuzy .
nUAIUIUTTT
taraKy
singtogtab-
sample
TCLP^iay^
H025
BOAT TREATMENT STAMOAAOS FOR 0003
AMD U15t ELEMENTAL MERCURY CON-
TAM4MATEO WITH FUOtOACTrVE MATERI-
ALS
as • tl»muil ol T>ea«tn«at
-------
48444 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 /
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
HYDRAUUC OIL CONTAMINATED WITH
MERCURY AND RADIOACTIVE MATERI-
ALS
Incineration as a Method of Treatment with
incinerator Residues Meeting the Following: (1) Ash
and Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Treatment
ana wasiewater Treatment Sludges from Treatment
of the Incinerator Scrubber Waters Mast Comply with
a TCLP Concentration of 0.025 mg/l; and (2)
Scrubber Waters must Comply with a Total
Concentration of 0.030 mg/l Wastewater Standard)
h. Silver. The Agency has identified
three hazardous wastes that potentially
contain high levels of silver. These
include P099 (potassium silver cyanide),
P104 (silver cyanide), and D011 (EP toxic
for silver; 5.0 mg/l silver as measured in
an EP leachate). Treatment standards
for cyanides contained in P099 and P104
wastes were promulgated with the Final
Rule for Second Third Wastes (54 FR
26614 (June 23,1989)). At the same time,
treatment standards for silver in P099
and P104 wastewaters were not
promulgated based on the lack of
treatment data. Today's notice proposes
treatment standards for P099 and P104
wastewaters and all D011 wastes.
Silver is part of the Group I elements
and has chemical properties similar to
lead and mercury. In aqueous conditions
silver typically exists as a monovalent,
cationic species. This behavior is
important, in that selection and
performance of treatment technologies
for silver is somewhat similar to most
other metals based on this cationic
behavior in aqueous conditions.
However, due to differences in
solubilities of certain salts of silver
compared to other metals, treatment
technologies for both wastewaters and
nonwastewaters containing silver are
slightly different compared to wastes
containing only other metal constituents.
The treatment standards presented in
today's preamble for all silver wastes
are based on a limited amount of
treatment data. In this notice, the
Agency is soliciting data on the
characterization and treatment of all
wastes containing silver. Copies of any
additional data pertaining to these
proposed treatment standards that may
be submitted during the public comment
period, can be specifically requested in
writing by identifying the request for
data as "additional data on treatment of
silver—section IILA.S.h.". See section
III.A.l.i. of today's preamble for
additional information on procedures for
requesting additional data on specific
standards.
(1) Identification of BOAT for
Wastewaters. When evaluating
treatment technologies to establish
wastewater treatment standards for
silver wastes, the Agency believes that
it must consider not only the efficiency
of removal of silver from the
wastewater, but also the physical and
chemical state of the precipitated silver
salts that end up in the wastewater
treatment residues.
Some data indicate that silver can be
removed from wastewaters by using
lime (calcium hydroxide) or caustic
(sodium hydroxide) as a precipitating
reagent (resulting in precipitation of the
silver as a hydroxide salt (silver
hydroxide)). However, silver is typically
precipitated as a chloride salt (.silver
chloride) using a soluble chloride salt as
a precipitating reagent. Most other
cationic metals are typically removed
from wastewaters based on
precipitation as hydroxides, carbonates
or sulfides. While silver hydroxide is
slightly soluble in water, silver chloride
is relatively insoluble in water. Although
lime or caustic may be effective in
precipitating silver from wastewaters,
chloride precipitation should result in a
precipitate that is less soluble in water
than the hydroxide salt.
Due to the relatively higher solubility
of silver hydroxide (compared to silver
chloride), there exists a reasonable
potential for an increase in leachability
of silver from the resulting wastewater
treatment sludge containing silver as a
chloride during co-disposal with
alkaline wastes or materials. This
potential for increased leachability
under these conditions is a legitimate
concern, in that some operators of
hazardous landfills co-dispose all
"metal" wastes and it is typical practice
to add excess lime to prevent migration
of the other metals prior to disposal.
Thus, EPA solicits comments on
whether it should (as part of the
treatment standard) specify the use of
chloride as the precipitating reagent for
all wastewaters containing silver. In a
similar manner, the Agency solicits
comment on whether it should establish
disposal requirements under 40 CFR
parts 264 and 265 for all silver
wastewaters that would include
chloride precipitation followed by
segregation of the treatment residuals
from alkaline materials (i.e., in either
monofills or separate subcells within a
landfill). In doing so, EPA notes these
proposed requirements may then be
promulgated as additional requirements
to meeting the proposed concentration-
based standards.
The Agency has information that
sulfide has been used to precipitate
silver contained in photoprocessing
wastewaters. Also, ion exchange of
silver has been reported as achieving
extremely high removal efficiencies. The
Agency is soliciting data on the
efficiency of these treatment
technologies for D011 wastes.
For some silver wastewaters more
extensive treatment trains may be
necessary in order to treat hexavalent
chromium, other metals, and organics
which could possibly interfere with the
treatment of the silver. A reduction step
for hexavalent chromium and an
oxidation step (with reagents such as
hydrogen peroxide or hypochlorite) may
be necessary to treat the organics.
However, the Agency currently lacks
data that indicate that the proposed
concentration-based standards cannot
be achieved for these type of wastes
and anticipates that pretreatment steps
such as hexavalent chromium reduction
and chemical oxidation of organics
could remove these potential
interferences. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on the applicability of
these and other pretreatment
technologies for silver wastewaters and
data that indicate the achievability of
the concentration-based standards
proposed in the following sections.
The Agency has very, little data on
precipitation of silver from RCRA
hazardous wastewaters identified as
P099, P104, or D011. However, the
Agency's does have data from its
analysis of various treated wastewaterj
under the Agency's Effluent Guideline
Program. In the absence of treatment
data specific to P099, P104, or D011
wastewaters, the Agency believes that
these data from the Effluent Guidelines
Program can be transferred to develop
treatment standards for P099, P104, or
D011 wastewaters. The data show that
the treatment provided by these
industries can reduce the concentration
of silver in the wastewater of levels
below the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/
I*
Therefore, the Agency is proposing •
two options for treatment standards for
D011 wastewaters. Based on these
treatment data, the Agency is proposing
a treatment standard of 0.29 mg/l silver
for all D011 wastewaters as one option.
As discussed in detail in section III.C. of
today's preamble, the Agency has
initially determined that it has the
authority to establish treatment
standards below the characteristic level
for these wastes or at least to make
failure to treat to the lower level a
violation of section 3004(ml. The Agency
is also proposing a second option of
limiting the treatment standard for D011
wastewaters to the characteristic level
of 5.0 mg/l. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on these two options.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Ruleg
4844$
Based on this same data, the Agency
is also proposing a treatment standard
for silver in P099 and P104 wastewaters
of 0.29 mg/1 of silver. While P099
(potassium silver cyanide) and P104
(silver cyanide) wastes are typically
generated as nonwastewaters, the
Agency expects that wastewater forms
of these wastes may be generated from
incidental spills or from the treatment
process itself and thus would require
treatment standards. The Agency
expects that untreated wastewaters will
be relatively dilute, and thus would not
be expected to be difficult to treat. The
Agency points out that it is not
recpening the promulgated treatment
standards for cyanides in P099 and P104
for comment.
(2) Identification of BOAT for
Nonwastewaters, The Agency is
proposing several options for treatment
standards for D011 nonwastewaters.
These options are based on the inherent
economic value of silver and the general
lack of treatment data for wastes
containing various levels of silver.
For nonwastewater forms of D011, the
Agency believes that the silver can be
dissolved or leached using an
appropriate media (each chemical form
of silver may require a different
dissolving media) and either
reprecipitated as the chloride or
hydroxide or better yet. recovered for its
inherent economic'value through
processes involving electro-deposition
or electro-winning. As an example,
while silver chloride is generally
insoluble in dilute acids, it is
considerably soluble in strong ammonia
(NH4OH) and could theoretically be
leached by ammonia and recovered. The
Agency believes that due to the
relatively high economic value of silver,
an economic incentive already exists for
most generators to investigate all
recovery options as well as source
reduction techniques to prevent
generation. The Agency is thus
proposing one option for D011
nonwastewaters treatment standards as
"Recovery as a Method of Treatment".
However, the Agency does not think
that at very low concentrations (i.e., just
above the EP level) and low waste
volumes, recovery may not be a viable
alternative for D011 wastes. Therefore,
the Agency investigated the availability
of stabilization data for wastes
containing silver. Treatment standards
for silver in nonwastewater forms of
P099 and PI04 were promulgated in the
Second Third Rule (53 FR 28615. (June.
23,1989)). These standards were
transferred from stabilization data for
F006 nonwastewaters. However, these
data represent the stabilization of a
waste that originally contained low
concentrations of silver. The Agency
received no comments disputing the
achievability of the silver standards for
P099 and P104 wastes, even though the
Agency anticipates that these wastes
could contain reasonably high levels of
silver. As a result, the Agency is
proposing the same concentration-based
standards for silver in D011
nonwastewaters. However, the Agency
is concerned about the validity of the
transfer of these standards to D011
wastes that contain high levels of silver,
and is thus proposing "Recovery or
Stabilization as Methods of Treatment".
EPA is currently unaware of any.
silver wastes contaminated with high
levels of organics being generated on a
routine basis. If these wastes do exist,
the Agency believes that these wastes
can be incinerated prior to stabilization
of the ash. The Agency is soliciting
information on whether these wastes
actually exist, the concentration of
silver and organics within these wastes,
and treatment data for these wastes. If
the Agency finds that these wastes do
exist and treatment data is submitted,
the Agency may define these wastes as
a separate treatability group based on
the level of organics and silver and
promulgate the resultant concentration-
based standards based on these data.
However, information is submitted that
these wastes exist but no treatment data
are submitted from which concentration-
based standards can be developed, the
Agency may promulgate "Incineration
Followed by Stabilization as a Method
of Treatment" for these wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D011.P099.ANDP104
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Silver..
Maximum for
any 24 hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.39
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D011
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Silver.,
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
TCLP (mg/l)
0.072
/. Thallium
P113—Thallic oxide
P114—Thallium aelenite
P115—Thallium (I) julfate
U214—Thallium (I) acetate
U21S—Thallium (I) carbonate
U216—Thallium (I) chloride
U217—Thallium (I) nitrate
In today's notice, the Agency is
proposing wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards for
P113, P114. P115. U214, U215, U216. and
U217 thallium wastes. The Agency has
been able to identify only one
manufacturer of Thallium wastes. (In
fact, the Bureau of Mines estimates the
production of thallium as only 4,000
pounds per year.) Most of thallium
compounds are used in research, in the
electrical industry for the production of
thallium activated sodium iodide
crystals, in the glass industry as low
melting alloys, and as catalysts in the
organic chemical industry.
(1) Wastewaters. The Agency has
reviewed characterization data from the
Generator Survey and the TSDR Survey
for thallium wastewaters. Based on the
information from these'surveys, most
thallium wastewaters are characterized
as metallic acidic liquids. There may be
other metals such as lead, nickel, and
zinc present within the wastes. The
concentration of thallium in these
wastes range from 0.1-10 ppm.
The Agency has information
indicating that thailic hydroxide
compounds are very insoluble. The
Agency is proposing to use this
information to extrapolate treatment
standards to these thallium wastes. The
Agency believes that because thailic
hydroxide is so insoluble, if these
thallium wastes are treated by chemical
oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation with hydroxide reagents,
settling and filtration, most of the thailic
compounds will precipitate out in the
sludge. Therefore, BOAT for thallium
wastewaters is chemical oxidation
followed by chemical precipitation with
hydroxide reagents, settling and
filtering. The treatment standard being
proposed today is based on the
detection limit of thallium in
wastewaters.
As an alternative, the Agency has
recently analyzed additional
wastewater treatment data primarily
from the Agency's Office of Water for
incorporation into the treatment
standards for many of the U and P
wastes in this section. These data
include the treatment of wastewaters
that are not specifically listed as U or P
wastewaters, but do contain many metal
constituents. While these data were not
available in time to incorporate into this
discussion or into the background
document for these wastes, these data
are being placed in the administrative
record for today's notice. Therefore, the
Agency is not precluded from using
-------
48446 Federal Register / Vo}. 54. No. 224 / Wedneaday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
these data in promulgating the
standards for these wastes. Further
information on these data can be found
in section III.A.l.h.(6.). The resultant
alternative standard calculated for
thallium in wastewaters is 1.400 mg/1.
(2) Nonwastewaters. The Agency is
proposing several options for treatment
standards for P113, P114, P115, U214,
U215, U218, and U217 nonwastewaters.
These options are based on the inherent
economic value of thallium and the
general lack of treatment data for
wastes containing various levels of
thallium.
Based on information from the
Generator Survey, most of the thallium
nonwastewaters are characterized as
inorganic salts used as research
chemicals, off-specification, or out-dated
materials. Because of the insolubility of
thallic hydroxide compounds and the
information that suggest that these
thallium compounds are mostly
inorganic, the Agency believes that
P113, P114, P115, U214. U215, U21& and
U217 nonwastewaters are also primarily
inorganic and therefore can be
stabilized. Thus, the Agency is
proposing that stabilization is also
BOAT for the nonwastewaters. In
addition, the Agency believes that due
to the relatively high economic value of
thallium, an economic incentive already
exists for most generators to investigate
all recovery options as well as source
reduction techniques to prevent
generation. However, the Agency does
not think that at very low
concentrations and low waste volumes,
recovery may not be a viable alternative
for thallium wastes. The Agency is thus
proposing for a nonwastewater
treatment standard of "Recovery or
Stabilization as a Method of Treatment"
for P113, P114, P115, U214, U215, U216,
and U217.
The Agency is also soliciting
comments on the regulation of P114
(thallium selenite). In section III.A.S.b. of
today's rule, the Agency is proposing a
concentration-based treatment standard
for D010 nonwastewaters based on
vitrification data for arsenic. Thus, the
Agency is proposing "Vitrification or
Stabilization as a Method of Treatment"
for P114 nonwastewaters and is
soliciting comments on whether
vitrification is necessary to immobilize
both thallium and selenium. The Agency
is soliciting comments on potential cut-
off levels for thallium wastes that can be
recovered versus those that can be
stabilized and any stabilization data on
wastes containing thallium.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P113,
P114*. P115, U214, U215, U216. AND
U217
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Thallium
Maximum tor
•nysingte
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0 14
•Treatment standards for selenium in P114
wastewaters are presented in section IIIAS.b.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P113
P115, U214, U215, U216, AND U217
[Nonwastewaters]
Recovery or stabilization as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P114
[Nonwastewaters]
Vitrification or stabtfzation as a method of treatment
/. Vanadium.
P119—Ammonium vanadate
P120—Vanadium pentoxide
Vanadium compounds are used
primarily as alloying materials in iron
and steel production or as catalysts in
several chemical manufacturing
processes such as adipic acid, sulfuric
acid, synthetic rubber, and crude oil.
Most of the vanadium produced in the
United States comes from mined ores or
recovery processes. Vanadium is
recovered from mining ores by calcining
and leaching of the calcined material.
Recovery processes usually recover the
vanadium in its pentoxide state.
Vanadium is recovered in uranium
production via liquid/liquid extraction;
and the product is usually in the form of
ammonium metavanadate.
The Agency believes that these
wastes comprise one treatability group
because they are produced from the
same mined ores and are used as
catalysfs in similar industries.
Vanadium wastes such as P119 and
P120, can be generated as a fly ash or
slag from the iron and steel industry or
as a spent catalyst from the chemical
manufacturing process. Based on
information from the Generators Survey,
'these wastes could be classified as
inorganic solids, organic liquids, or used
bags or drums.
(1) Wastewaters. The Agency believes
that P119 and P120 wastewaters could
be generated from recovery or
incineration of the nonwastewater forms
of P119 and P120, and as leachate from
landfill closure operations. A review of
the literature indicates that vanadium-
compounds can be treated with ferric
sulfate. By treating with ferric sulfate,
the vanadium is removed from the
wastewaters and ferric metavanadate,
which is relatively insoluble, remains in
the filter cake.
The Agency has recently analyzed
additional wastewater treatment data
primarily from the Agency's Office of
Water for incorporation into the
treatment standards for many of the
metal wastes in this section. These data
include the treatment of wastewaters
that are not specifically listed as P119 or
P120 wastewaters, but do contain many
metal constituents. While these data
were not available in time to
incorporate into this discussion or into
the background document for these
wastes, these data are being placed in
the administrative record for today's
notice. Therefore, the Agency is not
precluded from using these data in
promulgating the standards for these
wastes. Further information on these
data can be found in section
III.A.l.h.(6.). The resultant alternative
standard calculated for vanadium in
wastewaters is 0.042 mg/1.
(2) Nonwastewaters. The Agency
believes that P119 and P120
nonwastewaters can be generated as
spent catalysts from chemical
production or as fly ash from the iron
and steel industry. The Agency has
information indicating that
nonwastewaters containing greater than
seven percent of vanadium can be
recovered. The Agency is proposing a
treatment standard for P119 and P120
nonwastewaters of "Thermal Recovery
as a Method of Treatment" based on the
following: (1) P119 and P120 are
generated primarily as off-spec products
and would probably contain greater
than seven percent vanadium due to
their elemental composition, thus
making them technically viable to
recovery; (2) Due to these high levels of
vanadium, P119 and P120 contain an
inherent high economic value that acts
as an incentive for most generators to
investigate all recovery options as well
as source reduction techniques to
prevent generation; and (3) The Agency
has no other treatment data for
nonwastewaters containing vanadium.
However, the Agency does not think
that at very low concentrations and low
waste volumes, recovery may not be a
viable alternative for vanadium wastes.
Because these vanadium compounds are
inorganic, the Agency believes that P119
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 43447
and P120 nonwastewaters could be
easily stabilized. Thus, the Agency is
also proposing that stabilization is
BDAT for the nonwastewaters. The
Agency is thus proposing a treatment
standard of "Recovery of Stabilization
as a Method of Treatment" for P119 and
P120 nonwastewaters. The Agency is
soliciting comments on potential cut-off
levels for vanadium wastes that can be
recovered versus those that can be
stabilized and any stabilization data on
wastes containing vanadium.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P119ANDP120
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Vanadium,;,,.,.................. „
Maximum for
any 24 hour
composite
sample
Total
Composition
(mg/l)
0042
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P119ANOP120
[Nonwastewatere]
Thermal Recovery or Stabilization as a Method of
Treatment
6. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Additional Waste Code Specific
Treatability Groups.—a. Cyanide
Wastes. In the June 23,1989 Second
Third final rule, the Agency promulgated
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanide constituents for the
electroplating, heat treating, and
acrylonitrile F and K wastes (54 FR
26610-815). The Agency transferred
certain of these treatment standards to
the cyanide wastes listed as P waste
codes. The analytical method used to
measure cyanide concentrations in
treatment residues (thereby determining
compliance with thfe treatment standard)
was SW-846 Method 9010.
After promulgation of the Second
Third rule, the National Association of
Metal Finishers (NAMF) requested that
the Agency confirm that generators of
F006 nonwastewaters containing
cyanides will be in compliance with the
Second Third Land Disposal
Restrictions if the total cyanide
treatment standard (590 mg/kg) is
measured using Method 9010 as
currently written, that is analyzing the
largest sample size practical, distilling
for approximately one (1) hour, and one
(1) liter distillation flask. NAMF
asserted that for certain F006
nonwastewaters the total cyanide
concentration varied significantly
depending on the length of distillation
time and the sample size used for the
analysis. Data submitted by NAMF
indicated that as the sample size
increased and distillation time
decreased, the concentration of total
cyanide increased.
EPA regards the lack of specificity as
to the sample size and distillation time
in the description of Method 9010 to be
potential loopholes that could allow
persons to misuse the analytical method
in order to demonstrate compliance
without treating the waste. The Agency
believes that a generator or treater
could analyze a large sample size (i.e.,
greater than 10 grams] and shorten the
length of the distillation time—thereby
impacting the amount of cyanides that
ultimately is analyzed—in order to
comply with the treatment standard.
Most of the samples being analyzed for
cyanides are treatment residues
containing significant amounts of
alkaline materials, such as lime and
metal hydroxides. The analytic method
uses a fixed amount of sulfuric acid (as
specified in Method 9010) which amount
is supposed to be sufficient to neutralize
alkaline materials and to acidify the
sample such that the cyanide is
converted to HCN and subsequently
distilled and analyzed as total cyanide.
However, the method does not limit the
sample size nor the distillation time, and
too large of a sample size could result in
incomplete neutralization of the
alkalinity, thus reducing the amount of
HCN released and a resultant lower
analysis of total cyanide. Similarly, too
short a distillation time would also
result in a lower analysis of total
cyanide. To prevent this from
happening, EPA is proposing an
amendment to 40 CFR 268.43 that would
require amenable and total cyanide
concentration in wastes to be analyzed—
by Method 9010 of SW-846 with a
sample size and a distillation time
ranging from 0.5 to 10 grams and one
hour to one hour and fifteen minutes,
respectively. By proposing these
constraints on sample size and
distillation time, the Agency believes
that compliance of the BDAT treatment
standard will be done by actual
treatment. Also, based on information
from commercial laboratories, these
values represent a range of sample size
and distillation time that is commonly
used for cyanide analysis.
EPA does not believe that this
proposed clarification to the analytical
method affects the achievability of the
cyanide standards already promulgated.
In fact, the sample size and the
distillation time used to develop the
treatment standards for F006, F007, F008,
and F009 nonwastewaters were 10
grams and one hour and fifteen minutes,
respectively (see RCRA Docket LD10-
L0032, letter dated May 1,1989). The
Agency subsequently has solicited
information from several treaters of
cyanide wastes, who indicated to the
Agency during the Second Third
rulemaking that they were achieving the
F006 nonwastewater cyanide standard
a& to the sample size and distillation
time they are using. These facilities
stated that they use a sample size of less
than 5 grams and a distillation time of 1
hour (see administrative record for
cyanide wastes in today's notice), again
within the range being proposed today.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the
data in the Second Third rule
documenting achievability of the
cyanide treatment standard reflects the
analytic procedure being proposed
today.
(1) F006 Wastewaters. Today's rule
proposes wastewater treatment
standards for -amenable and total
cyanides and metal constituents for F006
wastewaters. (Nonwastewater
standards for F006 metal constituents
were promulgated in the First Third final
rule, and nonwastewater standards for
F006 cyanides were promulgated in the
Second Third final rule.) Wastewater
treatment standards are based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
the amenable and total cyanides, and
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation using lime and
sulfides and sludge dewatering for the
metals. Detailed information on F006
waste characterization and the technical
feasibility of the transfer of the
performance of the treatment systems
can be found in the Proposed Addendum
to the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for F006.
F006 wastewaters are expected to
result primarily from waste treatment
operations in the electroplating or metal
finishing industries. For example, the
filter and/or clarifier overflow from
treated electroplating wastewaters may
be considered F006 wastewaters. F006
wastewaters may also be generated at a
CERCLA site, during corrective action at
a RCRA facility, or as a result of spills.
The Agency is proposing amenable
and total cyanide standards for F006
wastewaters based on the performance
of alkaline chlorination. The Agency is
transferring these standards from the
F007, F008, and F009 wastewaters. This
transfer is based on the similarities in
concentrations of cyanides in these
-------
48448
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
wastewaters and on the fact that F006
wastewaters, like F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters, are generated from
electroplating operations. The Agency
also believes that the F008 wastewaters
contain lower or at most, similar,
concentrations of amenable and total
cyanides than F007, F008, and F009
wastewaters and are therefore less
difficult to treat.
The Agency is proposing four metal
standards (cadmium, total chromium,
lead, and nickel) for F006 wastewaters
based on the transfer of treatment
standards for metals in K062. These
standards are based on chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation using lime and sulfide and
sludge dewatering. (In fact, the Agency
has information that certain facilities
currently using these same treatment
processes on F006 wastewaters.) The
Agency believes that this transfer is
technically feasible because the metals
in K062 wastewaters are more difficult
to treat (due to the high acidity of K062
wastes and the higher overall
concentrations of total dissolved salts
and metals) than the F006 wastewaters
(e.g., individual metal concentrations in
K062 ranged up to 7,000 ppm).
During the process of determining
today's proposed standards, the Agency
also evaluated performance data that
were developed by EPA's Office of
Water for hydroxide precipitation,
sedimentation, and filtration for wastes
from the metal finishing industry.
However, the Agency did not use these
data in the development of today's
proposed F008 metal standards because
the metal finishing waste
characterization data indicated that the
untreated concentrations of these metals
in these wastewaters were low
compared to those in F006 wastewaters.
In fact, the individual metal
concentrations in F006 wastewaters
ranged up to 400 ppm and overall were
typically orders of magnitude higher
than those in the database for metal
finishing raw wastewaters. The Agency
believes, therefore, that these treatment
data for the metal finishing wastewater
streams do not represent treatment of
F006 wastewaters and may result in
wastewater treatment standards that
would be unachievable for the F006
wastewaters. Thus, the Agency is not
proposing F006 wastewater treatment
standards based on these data.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
CWastewalers]
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total) _,.
Cyanides (amenable)
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Maximum for
any tingle
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/l)
1 9
0 10
1 6
0 040
0 44
f2) F019. Today's rule proposes
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanides and metals in F019
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Treatment standards for the
wastewaters are based on the
performance of wet air oxidation for the
amenable and total cyanides. Treatment
standards for metals in wastewaters are
based on chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation with lime and sulfide, and
sludge dewatering. Treatment standards
for the nonwastewaters are based on
the performance of wet air oxidation for
amenable and total cyanides, and
stabilization for die metals.
In the Second Third final rule, the
Agency stated that F019 wastes are a
different treatability group than F006,
F007, F008, and F009 electroplating
wastes or F010, Foil, and F012 heat
treating wastes. This difference is
primarily due to the presence of high
concentrations of iron-cyanide
complexes (ferric or ferrous cyanides) in
F019 wastes (54 FR 26813. June 23,1989).
The source of the iron-cyanide
complexes is the soluble ferrocyanide
compounds used in the coating baths
and in components of the coating. A
detailed technical description of the
generation and characterization of F019
wastes and discussion of the applicable
technologies can be found in the
Background Document for F019 wastes.
For the F019 wastes, the Agency
investigated the technologies of
ultraviolet (UV) ozonation and wet air
oxidation. For the UV ozonation test, the
Agency treated a F009 waste that
contained primarily complex cyanides
at a concentration of 80 to 63 ppm. This
waste was then spiked with
approximately 1,900 ppm of the
ferricyanide, in order to simulate an
F019 wastewater. The performance data
from the UV ozonation technology
indicated that the total cyanide
concentration was not substantially
reduced, indicating that UV ozonation
was not an effective treatment for these
wastes.
The Agency also investigated wet air
oxidation of F019 wastes. The original
F019 wastes collected by the Agency
contained a total concentration of
cyanide of 5,000 ppm. The waste was
then diluted four to one with water in
order to fluidize and charge the waste
through the wet air oxidation process.
Therefore, the theoretical influent
concentration of cyanide should have
been 1,250 ppm. However, the analysis
of the influent concentration of cyanides
indicated a concentration of 300 ppm
(which was analyzed as mostly
amenable cyanides). Because of these
apparent discrepancies in the analytical
data, the Agency is proposing two
options for the development of
treatment standards for total and
amenable cyanides for F019
wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
The first option proposes
concentration-based treatment
standards for cyanides based on the
performance data for wet air oxidation.
Although there apparently are some
discrepancies (noted above) with the
cyanide analyses for F019, these data do
represent treatment of an F019 waste
and indicate that significant destruction
of cyanides was achieved by the
technology. Since wet air oxidation is an
applicable technology and has been
demonstrated on other cyanide wastes,
the Agency believes that these
standards based on wet air oxidation
can be achieved.
As an alternative, the Agency is also
proposing to transfer the concentration-
based treatment standards for F006-
F009 based on the performance of
alkaline chlorination for F006 through
F009 wastes..In the Second Third Final
Rule (54 FR 26611), the Agency
promulgated a treatment standard for
total cyanide in F006 through F009
nonwastewaters as 590 mg/kg. While
the Agency stated that F019 wastes
were different from F006-F009 wastes
because the F019 wastes contained high
concentrations of iron-cyanide
complexes, review of the waste
characterization data for F006 wastes
indicates that many F006 wastes also
contain high concentrations of iron-
cyanide complexes that are somewhat
similar. Based on this information and
the fact that F019 wastes could be
diluted to levels similar to those found
in the high iron F006 wastes in order to
effect treatment, the Agency believes
that the alternative proposed treatment
standards for F019 based on a transfer
from these F006 high iron wastes may be
appropriate. The Agency is requesting
comments on these two options for
developing treatment standards for F019
wastes.
-------
Federal RegJaJer^TVoljM. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48449
In addition, the Agency is proposing a
treatment standard for amenable
cyanides in F019 nonwastewaters based
on the reproducibility of the analytical
method for total cyanides. Details of the
calculation of the amendable cyanide
standards can be found in the
background document. The Agency used
a similar procedure for developing
treatment standards for amenable
cyanides in F006-F012 wastes in the
Second Third Final Rule (see 54 FR
26611).
The Agency is proposing treatment
standards for total chromium based on a
transfer of treatment performance data
for K062 wastewaters. These data are
from a treatment train that included
chromium reduction followed by
precipitation with lime or sulfide and
dewatering. In addition, generators of
F019 wastes have indicated to the
Agency that this treatment train is
consistent with the onsite treatment of
F019 wastewaters that is currently being
performed. The Agency believes that
this transfer is technically feasible
because the metals in K062 wastewaters
are more difficult to treat (due to the
high acidity of K062 wastes and the
higher overall concentrations of total
dissolved salts and metals] than the
F006 wastewaters (e.g., individual metal
concentrations in K062 ranged up to
7000 ppm).
The Agency is also proposing
treatment standards for total chromium
in F019 nonwastewaters based on a
transfer of performance data from the
stabilization of F006 wastes. The
Agency believes that the transfer of the
performance of stabilization data from
F006 to F019 is technically feasible due
to the higher concentration of metals
within F006 wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F019
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
CyandAs (Total),»_.._......_ „..
Cyanido (Amendable)....™ „
Chfomtum (T
-------
43450
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
that occur. The first reaction is the
reaction of cyanide with chlorine to
form cyanogen compounds. The second
reaction is cyanogen compounds
hydrolyzed to cyanate compounds.
These cyanate compounds are further
oxidized with excess chlorine to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. Based on
information from the "Standards
Method for the Examination of
Wastewater," the cyanogen compounds
are highly toxic and have limited
solubility. At alkaline pH, these
compounds hydrolyze to the cyanate
compound and the rate of reaction is pH
and time dependent. However, these
cyanogen compounds convert rapidly to
the cyanate compound when there is
excess chlorine.
The Agency believes that because the
cyanogen compounds are very unstable,
these compounds are destroyed by
incineration. Since the Agency has data
that indicate that other more stable
cyanide wastes can be completely
destroyed to the detection limits, the
Agency is proposing that incineration is
an option for these cyanogen U and P
wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P031,
P033, U246
CNonwastewaters and Wastawaters]
Alkaline Chlorination or Incineration as Methods of
Treatment
b. F024andF025
(1) Addition of Standards for F024
Wastes. Concentration-based treatment
standards for organics in F024
wastewater and nonwastewater were
promulgated in the Second Third final
rule (54 FR 26615, June 23,1989). The
treatment standards were based on the
performance of rotary kiln incineration
for organic constituents, and chemical
precipitation followed by vacuum
filtration for metal constituents in
wastewaters.
After the close of the comment period,
the Agency completed an analysis of
TCLP extracts obtained from the
stabilization of F024 incinerator ash
residues. The results of this analysis
showed substantial reduction of metals;
however, because these data were not
available for public notice and comment
and the resultant treatment standards
were significantly different from the
proposed standards, the Agency decided
to reserve treatment standards for
metals in F024 nonwastewaters.
Stabilization is an available
technology for metals in F024
nonwastewaters because this
technology is commercially available
and can be purchased from a proprietor,
and provides substantial reduction of
metal hazardous constituents in the
TGLP extract. The stabilization data
obtained from the Agency's BOAT
treatment test of F024 incinerator ash
residues is the only available data on
treatment of metal constituents in F024
nonwastewaters. EPA therefore
considers stabilization to be BOAT for
metals in F024 nonwastewaters.
The specific constituents being
proposed by EPA for regulation and the
proposed treatment standards are
presented in the table at the end of this
section. For a detailed description of the
reductions exhibited by stabilization of
these wastes refer to the Addendum to
the BDAT Background Document for
F024.
EPA has received anecdotal
information that some treatment
facilities which previously treated F024
wastes are now refusing to do so
because the treatment standard for the
waste includes standards for various
chlorinated-dibenzo dioxins and furans.
EPA has not had the opportunity to
pursue whether this is the case, or the
extent of the problem, if any. EPA
solicits comment on these points here. In
addition, the Agency solicits comment
on whether the other treatment
standards for organics in F024 serve as
an adequate surrogates for these
chlorinated-dibenzo dioxins and furans
(i.e., whether achieving the treatment
standards for the other organic
constituents in the waste means that the
treatment standards for chlorinated-
dibenzo dioxins and furans will also be
achieved). Based on these comments,
the Agency may amend the treatment
standard for chlorinated-dibenzo
dioxins and furans in F024 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters.
(2) Proposed Standards for F025
Wastes. Although the listing of F025 as a
RCRA hazardous waste has not been
promulgated as of today's rule, the
Agency believes that promulgation of
the listing for F025 will occur prior to the
promulgation of the Third Third final
rule, and has therefore decided to
propose concentration-based treatment
standards for F025 wastes at this time.
The proposed concentration-based
standards for F025, however, may
change or become further refined as a
result of the final listing of the waste.
(EPA would not, however, establish an
effective date for a prohibition and
treatment standard for this waste before
the effective date of the F025 waste
listing.)
F025 wastes have been characterized
as condensed light ends, spent filters
and filter aids, and spent desiccant
wastes from the production of
chlorinated aliphatics. For the purposes
of establishing treatment standards, the
wastes have been grouped into two
subcategories: condensed light ends and
filters/aids and desiccants. Available
characterization_data suggest that
different constituents may be contained
in each of these subcategories.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing
concentration-based treatment
standards to reflect these differences in
physical and chemical composition.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for all wastewater and
nonwastewaters forms of F025 are
proposed today based of the transfer of
performance data used in the
development of treatment standards for
specific U and P wastes that are
constituents in the various F025
subcategories. (See sections III.A.2.C.
and III.A.2.d. for additional information).
The Agency believes that the
constituents expected to be contained in
F025 wastes can be incinerated to below
detection limits. Those constituents for
which.the Agency has not set
concentration-based standards can also
be incinerated to below detection limits
because the Agency believes that these
constituents are easier to treat than
those constituents for which EPA is
proposing concentration-based
treatment standards. Further
information on the development of
treatment standards can be found in the
Addendum to the Background Document
for F024 Wastes in the RCRA docket.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
CNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0 073
0021
0 088
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
CNonwastewaters ]
Light Ends Subcategory
Regulated constituent
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichlofoethane
1,1-Oichloroethyletw
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg'kg)
62
62
6,2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wedne3day, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48451
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
F025—Continued
CNoowtttawiters]
Light Ends Subcategory
Regulated constituent
Methyten* chtorid.
Carbon totrachlorio'e ..........
1,1,2-Trichioroethane .„,......„.„
TrfcWoroethylen*
Vinyl chloride . ,.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
31
6.2
6.2
5.6
0.035
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
CWastewaters]
Light Ends Subcategory
Regulated constituent
Chloroform —
1.2-Dichforeethana
1.1-Oicftloroethylene.
Melnytene cnkmde
Carbon Mtraehkxido
1,1,2-Trichtoroethane;
TncNoroethylene™,
Vinyl chloride..
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.035
0.007
0.007
0.037
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.033
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
CNonwastewaters]
Spent Filters/Aids and Destecants Subcategory
Regulated constituent
CMoroform,™™.™.™,
Metnyteno chlonde, ,
Carbon tetrachtonde,
1.1.2-Tnchioroe thane ._.
Trichkxoethylene „..,
Vinyl chtoride...,..,
hexachiorobenzena —
Hexachtorobutadiene.._
Hexaehtoroeihane
Maximum (or
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/kgj
6.2
31
6.2
6.2
5.6
0.035
37
28
30
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
CWastewaters]
Spent Fitters/Aids and Deskxants Subcategory
Regulated constituent
C-*oroform,— _„,...
Mninylene chloride,.,™.
Carbon tetraehtorkJe.....
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
F025—Continued
tWastewaters]
Spent Fitters/Aids and Desiccants Subcategory
Regulated constituent
1 .1 .2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethytene
Vinyl chloride
Hexachkxobenzene
Hexachtorobutadiene
Hexachtofoethane •
Maximum
lor any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0 007
0007
0 033
0055
0031
0034
0,035
0.037
0.007
c. Wastes from Inorganic Pigment
Production. These wastes are generated
by facilities manufacturing and
processing inorganic pigments, as well
as from the treatment of the wastes
themselves. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these wastes can
be found in the Listing Background
Document for these wastes, as well as
the BOAT Background Document for
Inorganic Pigment Wastes.
(1) Nonwastewaters. In the Final
Second Third Rule (53 FR 26594: June 23,
1989), EPA promulgated treatment
standards of "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation" for K005 and K007
wastes. In today's proposed rule, the
Agency is revoking these standards
because a source wishing to
manufacture these pigments in the
future would be forced to apply for a
variance from the treatment standard
(40 CFR 268.44) in order to do so.
In the First Third final rule, EPA also
promulgated a standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" for
K004 and K008. EPA modified this
standard to apply only to certain newly
generated waste as part of the May 2,
1989 final rule (54 FR 18836). On January
11.1989 EPA also proposed to modify
this designation to "No Land Disposal
Based on Recycling". During the
comment period for the Second Third
proposed rule, EPA received information
that the recycling operation under
consideration for these wastes may
involve a limited captive market for the
waste by-product; therefore, not all
generators would be able to sell their
processed K004 and K008. As a result,
EPA revoked the "No Land Disposal
Based on No Generation" standard in
the Second Third final rule (54 FR
26817).
For K002. K003, and K006 (anhydrous)
EPA considered proposing a treatment
standard based on total recycling using
secondary lead smelting. However, this
process could also produce residues
which may be subject to land disposal
restrictions. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to transfer the performance of
chromium reduction followed by
precipitation and filtration from K062 to
K002, K003, K004. K005, K006
(anhydrous), and K008. The filter cake
that is generated from this treatment
train may need further treatment such as
stabilization hi order to prevent
immobilization of toxic metals.
EPA is proposing to transfer the K062
nonwastewaters standards to K002,
K003. K004, K005, K006, and K008
nonwastewaters because the
wastewaters from which K062 sludge
are derived are similar in nature to the
inorganic pigment wastewaters (i.e.,
consisting of inorganic constituents).
The concentrations of heavy metals in
the untreated wastewaters are also
similar. The only difference is that K062
wastewaters contain higher
concentrations of nickel and chromium
(see the BOAT Background Document
for Inorganic Pigments). The Agency,
however, is soliciting TCLP data on
treated inorganic pigment sludge.
In the case of hydrated K006, one
facility is manufacturing this pigment,
hydrated chrome oxide green, using a
boric acid process. Due to the presence
of boron, the sulfide precipitation results
for K062 sludges may not be
transferable to this waste. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to transfer the
chromium standard from F006 to
hydrated K006. This level is achievable
for hydrated K006 nonwastewaters.
Data submitted by the manufacturer of
hydrated K006 indicates that five
different stabilizing agents can reduce
the hexavalent chromium to its trivalent
stage. The process wastewaters
underwent chromium reduction and lime
precipitation, then the sludge was
stabilized using various mixes of
cement, fly ash, gypsum, ground burnt
lime, and silicate gel (a combination of
fly ash and gypsum was the most
successful). All of the five mixes easily
met the chromium standard for F006.
The Agency is soliciting further TCLP
data on treated hydrated K006.
(2) Wastewaters. The treatment of
pigment sludge can generate
wastewaters. These wastewaters are
similar to treated and untreated
wastewaters from the inorganic pigment
manufacturing processes, depending on
the type of pigment being processed.
EPA is therefore proposing regulations
based on the chrome pigment effluent
guidelines for discharges from this
industrial category regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR
-------
484S& Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. «989 / Pronosed Rules
415.340). The proposed standards are
taken directly from the concentrations
as stated in the "Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards
for the Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category",
June, 1982. These standards are based
on chromium conversion and lime
precipitation to remove toxic metals.
Because the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards contain both
30 day and one day numbers, the RCRA
treatment standard likewise requires
compliance with 30 day and one day
standards. The minimum sampling
frequency recommended is once a week.
The basis of the 30 day limit is
consecutive calendar days and not
sampling days. The statistical basis for
these one and 30 day values is set forth
in the Development document cited
above.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K002, K003, K004, K006 (ANHYDROUS),
AND K008
C Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total) ._
Lead _
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/
1)
0094
037
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K006
(HYDRATED)
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
52
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K005
AND K007
CNonwastewaters}
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0094
037
5BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K002, K003, K004, K006, AND K008
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Total concentration (in
mg/l)
30 day
maximum
1.2
1.4
24 hour
maximum
0.9
3.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K005
AND K007
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Cyanides (Total)
Total concentration (in
mg/l)
30 day
maximum
1.2
1.4
0.31
24 hour
maximum
.9
3.4
0.74
d. K015
In the final First Third Rule (53 FR
31154), the Agency promulgated a
treatment standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Ash" for K015
nonwastewaters. Concentration-based
standards for K015 wastewaters were
promulgated at that time. After
promulgation, a facility generating K015
nonwastewaters submitted information
indicating that their K015 waste
generated an ash residue upon
combustion. Therefore, the Agency's
assessment of these wastes not having
an ash content was incorrect As a
result, EPA is proposing to revoke the
"No Land Disposal Based on No Ash"
standard for the nonwastewater forms
of K015 (as well as the
subcategorization based on ash
content), and is proposing numerical
treatment standards for all K015
nonwastewaters today.
The Agency is proposing treatment
standards for five organic and two metal
constituents. Treatment standards for
the organic constituents are based on a
transfer of the performance data of
incineration for similar wastes.
Treatment standards for metal
constituents are based on a transfer of
the performance of stabilization of
incinerator ash for similar wastes. Six
sample sets from the treatment of K019
and five sample sets from the treatment
of K087 had been collected for rotary
kiln incineration. These data sets were
transferred to K015 nonwastewaters
based on structural similarities. The
constituent p-Dichlorobenzene is being
used as a surrogate for benzal chloride;
p-dichlorobenzene treatment data from
K019 will be transferred to benzal
chloride in K015. These constituents are
similar in that they are both chlorinated
benzenes.
The proposed toluene standards for
KO15 are transferred directly from K019
treatment data. Toluene is present at
higher levels in untreated K019 waste
than in untreated K015 waste. Therefore,
treatment by incineration should result
in at least as low a level of toluene in
K015 nonwastewater as in K019. The
proposed standards for benzofb/
kjfluoranthene in K015 are transferred
from K087 treatment data. Both the b
and k forms are found in K087, whereas
only the k form is present in K019. In
addition, the untreated benzo(b/
k)fluoranthene in K087 should be more
difficult to treat than in K019, hence
K087 is a better source of transferred .
incineration data for benzo(b/
k)fluoranthene. Proposed standards for
anthracene and phenanthrene are
transferred from K087 data. These
constituents are also found in untreated
K019 waste; however, the
concentrations of these constituents in
K019 are not as high as in untreated
K015. Anthracene and phenanthrene
are, however, present at higher
concentrations in K087 than in K015.
Therefore, treatment by incineration
should result in at least as low a level of
these constituents in K015 as in K087.
The Addendum to the Background
Document for K015 describes how each
standard was developed and presents
the K019 and K087 treatability data used
to generate these standards.
No performance data are available for
treatment of metals in K015
nonwastewaters. However, data are
available for stabilization of metals in
the incinerator ash of K048-K052. Based
on the similarity of the constituents and
their concentrations expected to be
found in the untreated K015 incineration
ash compared to K048-K052 ash, K015
ash appears to be sufficiently similar to
the ash generated by incinerating K048-
K052. No data exist characterizing metal
concentrations in untreated KO15 ash;
however, nickel and chromium were
found in the incinerator scrubber water.
Hence, nickel and chromium should be
expected in the ash and consequently
EPA is proposing to regulate them in
K015 nonwastewaters.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 34. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. -mao / Proposed Ruiea
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K015
[Nonwa*t»wat8fs; Revised from no land disposal]
Regulated constituent
Anthracene „„,..» . .
BenzaJ chkxid«
Benzo{b/k)fluoranthen« ...
Phenanthrene ™» „._,.
Toluene ' „
Oxomium (Total)
Nickel
Maximum for any single
grab sample
Total
composi-
tion (mat
kg)
3.4
6.2
3.4
3.4
6.0
1.7
0.048
TCLP (mg/
1)
e. K022, K025, K.028, K035, andK083.
All of these wastes generally contain
similar treatable concentrations of
aromatic organics and hydrocarbons.
They thus are amenable to similar
treatment technologies and present
similar technical difficulties in
developing treatment standards. Thus.
these wastes have been grouped
together under the same section for
purposes of discussion. K022, K035. and
K083 are scheduled First Third wastes.
K025 is a Second Third waste, and K028
is a Third Third waste. EPA
promulgated nonwastewater treatment
standards for K022, K025. and K083 in
the First Third final rule (53 FR 31138).
EPA later deferred treatment for K083
nonwastewatere containing ash to the
Third Third in the May 2.1989. final rule
' (53 FR at 18837).
(1) Development of Treatment
Standards. EPA has data that indicate
nonwastewater forms of K025 and K028
are no longer generated in the United
States. These wastes are currently
subject to a treatment standard
expressed as "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation". The Agency ia
proposing to revoke these standards in
order that a source wishing to
manufacture commercial products by
the manufacturing processes described
in the listing document for these wastes
will not be forced to apply for a
variance from the treatment standard in
order to do so.
K025 is generated from the nitration of
benzene which is a similar process to
that which generates Kill. K112, K103,
and K104. Each one of these wastes has
constituents which are as difficult to
treat as those constitutents in K025.
Available data characterizing the
chemical composition of K025 are very
limited, therefore the Agency is
proposing to transfer performance data
from K103 and K104 wastes to K025 in
order to establish, as one option,
concentration-based treatment
standards, and as another option, a
treatment standard expressed as a
method.
For K035 wastewaters. EPA is
proposing standards based on process
wastewaters from the distillation of
coal-tars as a surrogate waste for
developing treatment standards. These
process wastewaters are the precursors
of K035 wastewater treatment sludges
listed as hazardous wastes in 40 CFR
§ 261.32. These process wastewaters
contain the same constituents for
regulation as those identified in the K035
nonwastewaters with the exception of
o-cresol, p-cresol, and phenol. These
three constituents were identified in the
process wastewaters at treatable
concentrations and EPA is proposing to
regulate them.
EPA is proposing concentration based
standards for the organics identified in
K022, K026, K035. and K083 wastes.
These treatment standards are based on
the incineration of similar
nonwastewaters. As a result, EPA is
also proposing incineration of these
wastes as a prerequisite for land
disposal. The concentration based
standards for K028, K035, and K083
nonwastewaters are based on the
concentration of organics achieved in
the residual ash of the waste tested by
EPA. Similarly, treatment standards for
the K022. K026, K035, and K083
wastewaters are supported by the
concentration organics achieved in the
incineration scrubber waters.
For K025, EPA is proposing
concentration based treatment
standards for organics. The proposed
treatment standards for the organics in
K025 wastewaters are based on liquid-
liquid extraction followed by stream
stripping followed by carbon adsorption.
As an alternative, the agency believes
that the organics in these wastes can be
effectively treated and removed by
either direct carbon adsorption or wet
air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption. The proposed treatment
standards for K025 nonwastewaters are
based on incineration. Alternatively,
EPA is proposing requiring these
methods of treatment as a prerequisite
for land disposal of K025. Incineration of
K025 wastewaters is also proposed as
an equivalent method of treatment for
K025 wastewaters. EPA prefers
establishing methods of treatment for
K025 and K026 because the lack of
characterization data for them makes
our approach uncertain in whether other
constituents in the uncharacterized
wastes that may be at treatable
concentrations will or will not be
regulated by the constituents proposed
for regulation.
Available characterization for all
these wastes show that only K022 and
K083 have treatable concentrations of
48453
metals. As a result, EPA is proposing
concentration based treatment
standards for the metals identified in
K022 and K083. The proposed treatment
standards for K022 and K083
wastewaters are based on chemical
precipitation of a similar waste to K022
and K083 wastewaters. For the metals in
K083 nonwastewaters, the proposed
treatment standards are based on
stabilization. Alternatively, EPA is
proposing for K022 and K083 treatment
standards expressed as methods of
treatment. The methods of treatment
would be those BDAT technologies
supporting the proposed concentration
based standards for these two wastes. .
To determine the applicability of the
proposed treatment standards, the
standard BDAT criteria should be used
to classify K022, K026, K035, and K083
as wastewaters or nonwastewaters.
These standard BDAT criteria classify a
waste as a wastewater if it contains less
than one percent total suspended solid
(TSS) and less than one percent total
organic content (TOG). In contrast, K025
wastes are classified as wastewaters if
they contain less than one percent TSS
and less than 4 percent TOG. These
wastes are classified as
nonwastewaters if the TSS or TOG
percent levels are exceeded. EPA is
proposing a different wastewater
definition for K025 because, upon study,
it appears that normal liquids carrying
this waste code that are amenable to
wastewater treatment can legitimately
contain up to 4% TOG (see BDAT
Background Document of K025).
The BDAT Background Documents for
these wastes provide further discussion
on the constituents proposed for
regulation as well as the development of
the treatment standards proposed today.
The BDAT Background Document for
K022 is referred as a Proposed
Amendment to the Final BDAT
Background Document for K022. The
tables at the end of this section
summarize the proposed concentration
based treatment standards for these
wastes as well as the proposed
constituents for regulation.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K022
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
- total
composition
(mg/l)
Toluene
Acetophenone..: .
Diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine ,
Phenol
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
0017
0036
0.038
0091
035
047
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday.
22. 1980 / Proposed Rules
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K025
CWastewatars; <1% TSS and <4% TOC1
Incineration, or liquid-liquid extactton Mowed by
steam stripping followed by carbon adsorption as a
method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K025
[Nonwastewaters}
Incineration as a method oi treatment.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K025
CWastewatefs; Alternative preposaO
Reguiated constituent
2,4^XnitroJoluene
Nitrobenzene __....
4-Nltrophenol
any tingle
flnb sstrotet
Total
composition
(mg/D
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K025
[Nowastewatars; Atama-M proposal]
Regulated constituent
2,4-Dinrtrotoruene „
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol -
Maximum for
any single
grab sample:
Total
composition
6.6
14.0
14.0
14.0
i6
304
TOP
(mg/i)
0.088
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
CWastawaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene __
Aniline ..
Diphenylainine/
Nitrahanran.
Phenol. _
Cyctohexanone
Nickel
Max-numtar
any single grab
sample: Total
composition
(mg/O
0.008
0017
0,017
0007
0.036
0X7
Today's rule proposes revised
treatment standards for the wastewater
forms of K037 and the nonwastewater
forms of K038. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these wastes can
be found in the background document
for the listing of these wastes. These
compounds were included in the
organophosphorus pesticides treatability
group in the Second Third proposed rule
(54 FR1085).
The Agency promulgated a treatment
standard of "No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation" for K036
nonwastewaters in the First Third final
rule on August 8,1988 (53 FR 31174,
August 17.1988). 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 FR
18836). In today's rule the Agency is
proposing to transfer a concentration
based standard from K037
nonwastewaters to other forms of K036
nonwastewaters, such as K038 spill
residues, and is proposing to revise the
K037 wastewater standards. (The
Agency promulgated concentration-
based treatment standards for K037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters in the
First Third final rule.)
(1) Development of Standards. In the
January 11.1989, proposed rule for
Second Third wastes (54 FR 1056), the
Agency proposed a direct transfer of the
concentration-based standards from the
incineration of K037 wastes (wastewater
treatment sludge from the production of
Disuifoton) to a number of
organophosphorus pesticide wastes. The
basis for transferring the K037 standards
is the similarity in structure and
elemental composition of Disuifoton, the
principal hazardous constituent of
concern in K037 wastes, to all of the
organophosphorus pesticides. In
addition, the Agency believes that
Disuifoton is one of the most difficult
chemicals in that group of
organophosphorus pesticides to
incinerate. Given that Disuifoton can be
effectively treated by incineration, the
Agency believes that all the other
wastes in the organophosphorus
pesticides treatability group can be
effectively treated by incineration, and
the concentration-based standard for
each representative regulated
organophosphorus pesticide can be
identical to that achieved by
incineration of Disuifoton in K037
wastes. Therefore, the Agency believes
that the performance achievable by
incineration represents BOAT for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48455
nonwastewater forms of K036 and is
proposing concentration-based
standards based on a transfer from the
incineration of K037 nonwastewaters.
In the Second Third final rule, the
Agency promulgated concentration-
based treatment standards for the
wastewater forms of the
organophosphorus pesticides. These
standards were proposed based on the
concentrations found in scrubber water
from a K037 incineration test burn. The
Agency received data during the
comment period on biological treatment
of wastewaters containing Parathion, a
constituent similar to Disulfoton, that
were used as the basis of the
promulgated treatment standards.
Today the Agency is proposing to revise
the wastewater treatment standards for
K037 to be consistent with the other
wastewater standards for
organophosphorus pesticides.
(2) Identification of BOAT and
Regulated Constituents. Standards
applicable to K036 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 K037
wastewaters are based on the
performance achieved by biological
treatment and the concentration of the
regulated constituent (Disulfoton or
Toluene) measured in the resultant
effluent wastewaters. Where the
treatment standards are expressed as
concentration-based standards, 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 in the tables at the end of this
section.
The Agency points out that the
promulgated concentration-based
treatment standards for K037
waslewaters are based on the analysis
of composite samples rather than grab
samples. These performance data used
to develop the standard for Disulfoton
were received during the comment
period for the Second Third Proposed
Rule, and were based on the analysis of
composite effluent samples. The data
used to develop the standard for
Toluene is from the Office of Water's
Industrial Technology Division
Database. See further discussion of
composite samples in section III.A.l.f. of
today's preamble. These data are a
preferable measure of treatment
performance because where the Agency
has performance data that conform with
BOAT methodology on wastewater
treatment processes as well as data on
incineration as measured by constituent
concentrations in scrubber water, the
Agency prefers to establish treatment
standards based on the 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.)
Today's rule proposes revised
concentration-based standards for the
wastewater forms of K037 and the
nonwastewater forms of K036.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K036
[Nonwastewaters]
[Revised From No Land Disposal]
Regulated constituent
Disulfoton
0 1
Maximum
•for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K037
[Wastewaters]
CRevised Based on Biotreatment Data]
Regulated constituent
Disulfoton
Toluene
0025
0080
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
g. K044, K045, K046, K047—(1) K044,
K045, K047. Today's rule proposes to
revoke the "No Land Disposal Based on
Reactivity" treatment standard for K044,
K045, and K046 wastes and proposes to
set a method of treatment radier than
concentration-based standards for these
wastes. In the May 2,1989, final rule (54
FR18836), the Agency indicated that it
would not amend the standard for these
wastes because the wastes are listed for
exhibiting the characteristic of
reactivity. Although this is true, the
Agency believes that by revoking the
standard and setting "Deactivation as a
Method of Treatment", a generator or
treater can continue to dispose of this
waste after the removal of the
characteristic hazard.
(2) K04B. In the August 17,1989, final
rule (53 FR 31158), the Agency
developed two subcategories for the
K046 nonwastewaters identified as the
Reactive and Nonreactive
Subcategories. The Agency based this
subcategorization on the comments
received by industry indicating that
K048 Reactive wastes were not similar
1 to the K046 Nonreactive wastes due to
their reactivity. The nonreactive K048 '
wastes could be directly stabilized;
however, stabilization of the reactive
K046 wastes would result in a residual
that could remain reactive. The Agency
agreed and promulgated a treatment
standard for lead in K046 Nonreactive
nonwastewaters, but did not promulgate
a standards for the K046 Reactive
nonwastewaters nor did it promulgate
wastewater standards for any K046
wastewaters. The Agency indicated in
the First Third Rule that it would
examine the data from testing of
Nonreactive K046 nonwastewaters, and
would determine whether these data
could be extrapolated to Reactive K046
wastes or whether new data had to be
obtained to set treatment standards for
open detonation, open burning, or
specialized incineration.
In this rule, the Agency is proposing a
nonwastewater treatment standard for
lead in the K046 Reactive Subcategory.
BOAT for this waste is based on
•information that indicates that the K046
nonreactive waste for which the
treatment standard was promulgated,
originally started out as reactive
wastewaters. The Agency believes that
by removing the reactivity of these
wastewaters, the resultant
nonwastewater K046 will not be
reactive and thus will be similar to the
K046 nonreactive wastes for which the
Agency promulgated standards (see 54
FR 26607-608 (June 23.1989) regarding
waste treatment that may occur before
the listed waste is generated). In
addition, the Agency believes that if the
K046 nonwastewaters are generated as
reactive, they could also be siurried in
water and then treated by the sume
controlled chemical oxidation processes,
again resulting in a nonreactive K046
nonwastewater. Thus, the
nonwastewater standard for K046
reactive wastes is based on data
transferred from the performance of
stabilization of the K046 nonreactive
wastes. BOAT is based on the
performance of deactivation for the
reactive wastewaters followed by
alkaline precipitation, settling, and
filtration to form a nonreactive K046
nonwastewater that is then stabilized
for lead.
For all of the K046 wastewaters,
BDAT is based on the performance of
alkaline precipitation, settling, and
filtration. The Agency is transferring the
performance of this treatment system
-------
48458
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
from K062 wastes. The Agency believes
that the K062 wastewaters are just as
difficult to treat based on the
concentration of lead in K082 (up to 212
ppm) which is the same or higher than
that which has been found in K046
wastewaters (up to 200 ppm).
BOAT TREATMENT FOR K044, K045,
K047
[Nonwastewaters and Wastewatersl
[Revised From No Land Disposal!
Deactivation as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K044, K045, K046 AND K047 SlIBCATE-
GORIES
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead
0 037
Maximum for
any single
composito
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
REACTIVE SUBCATEGORY
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead , m ..
0 18
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample,
TCLP (mg/0
h. K060. In the August 17,1989 final
rule (53 FR 31174), the Agency
promulgated "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation" for K060
nonwastewaters. EPA amended this
standard in the May 2,1989 final rule to
apply only to certain newly generated
wastes (54 FR 18838). Today, the Agency
is proposing to revoke this standard
since a facility might legitimately use
ammonia as a reagent in the coking
process and therefore may generate this
waste. For more detailed technical
information about waste
characterization and treatment
technologies refer to the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) Background Document for K060.
(1) Wastewaters. Today, the Agency .
is proposing wastewater standards
based on the performance of biological
treatment followed by settling and
clarification. These treatment standards
are transferred from the Office of Water
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Industry
Manufacturing Point Source Catego-
Coke Making Subcategory.
The Agencyevaluated two types of
treatment processes: dephenolization
followed by alkaline chlorination and
biological treatment followed by settling
and clarification. Both data sets were
available from the Office of Water
Development Document for Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron
and Steel Industry Manufacturing Point
Source Category Coke Making
Manufacture. The Agency believes that
the performance data from biological
treatment followed by settling and
clarification were best because the
untreated values were higher and the
treated values were lower. Therefore,
this treatment system treated a more
difficult waste and therefore the
system's performance should be
transferable to K060.
For the cyanide constituents in the
wastewaters, the treatment standards
are based on the performance of
alkaline chlorination for F006 through
F009 wastes. The Agency believes that
this is technically feasible due to the
fact that the F006 through F009 wastes
are more difficult to treat because of the
higher cyanide concentrations (i.e.,
30,000 ppm) and presence of non-
cyanide complexes.
(2) Nonwastewaters. In today's rule,
the Agency is proposing nonwastewater
treatment standards for organic and
cyanides based on a transfer of the
performance of incineration for K087.
K087 wastes are generated from the
same industry (coking industry) as K060
wastes and have similar or higher
concentrations of K060. Therefore, the
Agency believes that this technology
transfer is feasible.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene __
Benzo(a) pyrene
Naphthalene „
Phenol
Cyanides (Total) _
Maximum for
any 24 hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0 17
0035
0028
0042
Maxiniuni for
•nyiingte
grab sample,
total
(mg/l)
1 9
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
CNonwaste waters]
[Revised From No Land Disposal]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
8enzo(a) pyrene
Naphthalene .-_
Phenol _ .
Cyanides (Total)
Maximum for
any singte
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
0 071
3 6
3 4
1 2
L K061. In the August 17,1988 final
rule (53 FR 31162), the Agency
promulgated treatment standards for
K061 nonwastewaters but did not
promulgate treatment standards for
K061 wastewaters. K061 wastewaters
can be generated from dewatered
sludges, CERCLA sites, and during
corrective action at RCRA facilities.
Based on single source leachate
information from the Generator's
Survey, K061 wastewaters generally
have low concentrations of dissolved
metals (i.e., less than 100 ppm). Because
of these low concentrations of dissolved
metals, the Agency believes that a
transfer of the performance of
hexavalent chromium followed by
precipitation with lime or sulfide and
sludge dewatering for K062 wastewaters
is technically feasible. In addition, the
Agency believes that thfe K062
wastewaters are more difficult to treat
than the K061 wastewaters because of
the high concentration of dissolved
metals, i.e. 5,000 ppm of dissolved
metals.
EPA promulgated treatment standards
for nonwastewater forms of K061 as part
of the First Third final regulation. In this
rule, two subcategories for
nonwastewaters forms of K061 were
defined. The low zinc subcategory (less
than 15%) and the high zinc subcategory
(greater than 15%) were defined as
separate treatability groups. BOAT for
the low zinc subcategory was based on
the performance of stabilization. For the
high zinc subcategory, the final standard
was "No Land Disposal Based on High
Temperature Metals Recovery as a
Method of Treatment" technology (53 FR
31221). The standard takes effect in
August. 1990 and due to a shortage of
treatment capacity, an interim numerical
standard based on performance of
stabilization technology is in force until
that time.
Today, EPA is proposing to revise the
promulgated treatment standard for the
high zinc subcategory to be "Resmelting
in a High Temperature Zinc Metal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. Nevember 22. 1989 / Proposed Rnlei
Recovery Furnace." Specifying this
treatment method more accurately
reflects the Agency's intentions in
promulgating the first third regulation.
and does not reflect a change in
regulatory approach.
EPA also notes that in establishing
resmelting technology as a treatment
method, residues from the process may
be land disposed without further
treatment. (54 FR 26631-32. June 23,
1989) (Where EPA specifies a method of
treatment under section 3004(m),
residues from that treatment process
may be land disposed without further
treatment.) That result is appropriate
here. Data gathered as part of the First
Third rulemaking (and part of this
ruleraaking record) indicate that the slag
that results from high temperature
metals recovery has metals mobility
levels comparable to (and in some
cases, lower than) that achieved by
stabilization technologies. To the extent
that stabilization may perform
somewhat better. EPA still views high
temperature metals recovery as superior
because it furthers the statutory
objectives of recycling and waste
minimization while still achieving
significant reductions of metal mobility.
(See H. Rep. No. 198,98th Cong. 1st
Sess. 31 describing a preferred hierarchy
of management options, and ranking
recycling and materials recovery as
preferable options to conventional
treatment.) Since stabilization
potentially adds to the volume of waste
requiring land disposal (through
addition of cementitious binding agents),
and does not perform significantly better
in reducing metals mobility, EPA does
not believe that it constitutes the
ultimate best available technology for
K061.
To assure that the metals recovery
process performs efficiently, however,
EPA is also reiterating that any residues
must not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (see
also the general discussion of this issue
in preamble section m.C). If they do,
they would have to meet the treatment
standard for that characteristic. None of
the residues from recovery of K061 in
EPA's existing data base exhibit any
hazardous waste characteristic.
EPA is further soliciting comment
regarding the advisability of extending
the duration of the existing, interim
treatment standard (based on
performance of stabilization technology)
for another year. EPA is doing so
because available information suggests
that there is insufficient high
temperature metals recovery capacity to
handle demand for this waste. If this
were the sole treatment standard,
generators could apply for and
potentially receive case-by-case
variances and the waste would not be
required to be treated before being land
disposed. EPA is also concerned about
the administrative costs and burdens of
applying for a case-by-case variance,
and the difficulties faced by waste
generators while variance petitions are
being evaluated.
On the other hand, the Agency does
not wish to create a disincentive to
construction of new metal recovery
capacity. Nor does the Agency wish to
reward companies that have not'
prepared for meeting a treatment
standard based on high temperature
metals recovery. Accordingly, EPA
seeks information about efforts made to
construct and operate this type of
technology, and what arrangements are
being made to enter into binding
contractual arrangements to utilize this
technology (cf. RCRA Section 3004(h)(3)
where this is part of the test for granting
a case-by-case variance). Based upon
this information (and other relevant
information that may develop), the
Agency will determine whether to
extend the existing standard as an
alternative to high temperature metals
recovery.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K061
[Nonwastewaters—High Zinc Subcategory]
[Revised from No Land Disposal]
Resmelting in high temperature zinc metal recovery
furnace to a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K061
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nick*
Maximum for
any singl*
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/l)
1 61
032
0 04
044
48457-
for the Non Calcium Sulfate Subcategory
for K069 nonwastewaters and is
proposing "Recycling as a Method of
Treatment".
(I) Wastewaters, BOAT treatment
standards for K069 wastewaters are
based on the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide and
sludge dewatering for K062 wastes.
Waste characterization data available
to the Agency indicate that K069
wastewaters contain cadmium and lead.
The concentration of cadmium is less
than 2 ppm and the concentration of
lead ranges up to 80 ppm. The Agency
believes that this transfer is technically
feasible due to the higher concentration
of dissolved metals that are present in
K062 wastes. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the K062 waste is a more
difficult waste to treat and thus the
performance of the treatment system
can be legitimately transferred.
(2) Nonwastewaters. BOAT for K069
nonwastewaters in the Calcium Sulfate
Subcategory is stabilization. The
Agency believes that there is only one
generator of this waste and that this
waste cannot be directly recycled to
recover lead. The waste
characterization data from the one
generator indicate that this waste
contains metal constituents such as
cadmium and lead. The metal
concentrations range up to 3300 ppm.
For the K069 nonwastewaters in the
Calcium Sulfate Subcategory, the
Agency is proposing to transfer the
treatment performance of stabilization
for K061 waste to the K069
nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that this is a technically feasible
transfer because the K061 waste is a
more difficult waste to treat. In fact, the
metal concentrations in K061 waste
ranges up to 20,300 ppm. Therefore, the
Agency believes that K069
nonwastewaters can be treated to
similar concentration levels as K061,
thus the performance of the treatment
system can be ligitimately transferred.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
[Wastewaters]
/ K069. In today's rule, the Agency is
proposing treatment standards for K069
nonwastewaters in the Calcium Sulfate
Subcategory, and for wastewater forms
of K069. In addition, the Agency is
proposing to revoke the no land disposal
based on recycling treatment standard
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Lead .
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
1 61
0 04
-------
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
CALCIUM SULFATE SUBCATEGORY
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead
Maximum for
any simple
Grab sample
TCLP (mg/l)
0.14
0.24
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
ON CALCIUM SUBCATEGORY
CNonwastewaters]
[Revised from No Land Disposal]
Recycling as a method o« treatment
k. Revisions to K086. Revisions are
being proposed today for the K086
solvent washes treatment standards that
were promulgated in the First Third final
rule (53 FR 31168, August 17,1988).
Treatment standards for the other K086
treatability groups that have been
subject to the "soft hammer" provisions
of 40 CFR 268.8. are also being proposed.
For a description of K086 wastes, see 40
CFR 268.33 and the K086 Listing
Background Document.
Since promulgation of the First Third
rule, EPA has collected samples of K086
caustic sludges and water sludges for
the purposes of waste characterization
and determination of BOAT. Based on
the treatment of these samples, EPA
believes that it is unnecessary to
subcategorize this waste code (beyond
subcategorization for wastewaters and
non-wastewaters).
The majority of the facilities
generating K086 claim they are phasing
out or no longer formulating inks
derived from chromium and lead based
materials. Current management
practices include solvent recoveries
(from solvent washes and sludges),
incineration (corrosive K086 wastes),
and fuel substitution (solvent and metal-
containing wastes). These technologies
are demonstrated and applicable to
K086.
Treatment data for wastes believed
similar to K086 show that all K086
wastes—solvent, caustic, and water
washes, and their sludges—can be
treated by incineration. These treatment
data also show that a wide range of
technologies are available to recover
valuable constituents or energy from
K086 wastes. (These recovery
technologies, however, frequently result
in residues that require further treatment
prior to land disposal.) Based on these
data, EPA is proposing treatment
standards for organics in K086
wastewaters and nonwastewaters
based on incineration. For the metal
constituents, the Agency is proposing
treatment standards based on the
performance of hexavalent chromium
reduction to trivalent chromium
followed by excess lime precipitation,
filtration. Except for methanol, the
development of the treatment standards
for the organics in K086 wastes is
consistent with the corresponding U and
P treatment standards. Both the BOAT
Background Document for K086-Solvent
Washes and its November 1989,
Addendum further discusses the
treatment data supporting the proposed
treatment standards, for the organic and
inorganic constituents in K088 wastes.
The Agency is proposing to expand
the list of regulated constituents in K086
to include acetophenone, di-n-
butylphthalate, and cyanide. Bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate is currently
subject to regulation in the current K088
solvent wash treatability group. New
characterization data indicate that K086
also contains treatable concentrations
of di-n-butylphthalate; therefore, the
Agency is proposing to add this
constituent for regulation. In addition.
the Agency is proposing to include other
phthalates identified in the BOAT list in
order to prevent the regulated
community from simply switching to
other phthalates for the purpose of
avoiding regulation.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K086
CNonwastewaters]
Constituent
Acetone
Acetophenone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
n-Butyl alcohol
Butylbenzylphthalate
Cyanide (total)
Cyclohexanone
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Diethyl phthalat*
Dimethyl phthalate
Dwvbutyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzen*
Methanol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl keton*
Metnytena chloride
Napthatene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethana. . .
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
96
28
26
28
1 5
1 9
6.2
28
28
28
28
56
33
14A
33
200
31
5 9
62
56
33
Regulated constituent
Chromium
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/
1)
BOAT Treatment Standards for K086
[ Wastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Acetone
Acetophenone ."
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
n-Butyl alcohol
Butylbenzylphthalate
Cyctobexanone
1 ,2-Oichlorobenzene
Diethyt phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
Methanol .'.. ..
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Napthatene ..
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene I
Xylenes (Total)
Cyanides (Total)
Chromium (Total) _
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/1)
0 25
0 17
054
0 56
0 54
0 058
0 54
0 54
0 028
0 14
0 033
0 007
0 007
0 028
1 9
0 32
1 Standard for methanol is based on analysis of a
composite sample using SW-846 Method 8000.
1. K100. Treatment standards for KlOO
wastes were originally scheduled to be
promulgated as part of the Third Third
rulemaking. However, a treatment
standard of "No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation" for KlOO
nonwastewaters was promulgated on
August 8,1988 and subsequently revised
on May 2,1989 (54 FR 18836) to be
applicable only to "Nonwastewater
forms of these wastes generated by the
process described in the listing
description and disposed after August
17,1988, and not generated in the course
of treating wastewater forms of these
wastes [Based on No Generation]."
In the proposal for the Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 1056 (January 11,1989)),
EPA stated its intention to develop
concentration-based treatment
standards for all forms of KlOO prior to
May 8,1990, and has decided to propose
to revoke the promulgated treatment
standard of "No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation" for KlOO
nonwastewaters. EPA prefers to set
concentration-based treatment
-------
Fedoral Regiater / VoL 54, No. 224 / Wedne«day, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
48459
standards in lieu of this standard and is
today proposing these for K100
nonwastewaters.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for all wastewater forms of
KlOO are proposed today based on the
transfer of performance data for metals
precipitation from K062 wastewaters
and data for metals stabilization from
fOOO nonwastewaters.
The Agency reminds commenters that
there are very few (if any) of these
wastes that are currently being
generated as originally listed and that
the standards will probably only be
applied to residues from previous
disposal that should be less difficult to
treat than the original waste as
generated.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KlOO
[WastewatoreJ
Regulated constituent
Cadmium. .
Qxomum.. .—..,...,.
Maximum for
any single
grab sampta,
total
composition
(mg/l)
1.61
0,32
0.040
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K100
CNonwastewatefs]
(REVISE FROM NO LAND DISPOSAU
Regulated constituent
Chromium,,.,,,
Maximum for
anytmgto
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.066
5.2
0.51
m. Cases
P07B—Nitric oxide
P078—Nitrogen dioxide
UH5—Ethylene oxide
While all three of these U and P
wastes are highly toxic, it is unlikely
that they will exist as wastes which
require land disposal. The wastes listed
below are typically found as gaseous
materials when existing at high
concentrations. Since it is difficult to'
"spill" a gas on soil or in water, it is
unlikely that these wastes could exist as
spill residues. While these compounds
may exist as aqueous or organic
solutions, the solutions may not be
considered the listed product. The
original listing specifically excluded
chemical products that simply contained
U or P constituents. However, EPA is
concerned about the possibility that full
containers of these wastes may have to
be disposed of in a cleanup situation.
EPA solicits comments from anyone
who feels they may be land disposing
these wastes or may have to do so in the
future.
Since all three of these wastes are
probably generated as gases and since
industry typically reuses or recovers
compressed gases directly, the Agency
is proposing a treatment standard of
"Recovery as a Method of Treatment"
for all P07B, P078, and U115 wastes.
Besides, the Agency currently has no
specific data on the treatment of P076 or
P078, nor can it determine a treatment
technology that would be applicable.
Thus, the Agency solicits comment on
these issues for these wastes and also
whether there is even a need to
promulgate treatment standards for
these wastes.
Concentration-based standards for
these wastes would be complicated by
the fact that these compounds are gases.
While some analytical techniques do
exist, the fact that they are gases
complicates the analysis of treatment
residuals. (The sampling and analysis
procedures for these constituents would
have to minimize potential losses.)
However, the Agency has recently
received data from a facility that had
generated a U115 wastewater and
nonwastewater. Under the soft hammer
provisions, the facility had to
demonstrate treatment for these wastes
prior to land disposal The wastes
contained up to 26.5 ppm of ethylene
oxide. Treatment included incineration
of the nonwastewaters and chemical
oxidation of the wastewaters. In all
cases, the ethylene oxide was reduced
to detection limits. These data were
received too late for the Agency to
develop concentration-based treatment
standards for U115 wastes. However,
these data are being placed in the
administrative record for today's notice
and treatment standards for U115
wastes may be promulgated based on
these data.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P076,
P078.ANDU115
Recovery as a method of treatment
n. Revision of Petroleum Refining
Wastes. On August 8,1988, EPA
promulgated treatment standards for
regulated constituents in K048-K052
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. The
promulgated BDAT treatment standards
were based on data that were collected
by EPA on incineration of these wastes,
data that were submitted to the Agency
on solvent extraction of the wastes, and
data for treatment of metals in the
wastewater and nonwastewater
residuals. However, some of the solvent
extraction data were not submitted to
the Agency in time to allow them to be
fully evaluated before the promulgation
date. As a result, EPA reserved the
treatment standards for several organic
constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewatera. Since promulgation of
K048-K052 treatment standards, the
Agency has received additional data on
treatment of these wastes. The Agency
has also recently collected data on
solvent extraction of these wastes.
Where. EPA has set a treatment
standard, it is not precluded from
revising that standard after the statutory
date provided that rulemaking
procedures are followed. RCRA Section
3004(m)(l) states specifically that
treatment standards are to be revised as
appropriate. EPA believes that revision
of these standards is appropriate and
timely. Therefore, the EPA is today
proposing revised BDAT treatment
standards based on a re-evaluation of
the currently available data and is
proposing that 'these revised standards,
with five exceptions, take effect exactly
on3 year following the Third Third
Rulemaking promulgation date to allow
the petroleum refining industry
sufficient time to adjust to changes from
the K048-K052 BDAT treatment
standards previously promulgated. The
five exceptions are benzo(a) pyrene,
ortho- and para-cresols, di-n-butyl
phthalate, and phenol. These standards
would increase based on the revised
data, and therefore, are proposed to be
effective on August 8,1990. Until the
revised standards take effect for all
other constituents, the previously
promulgated standards which, due to
the 2 year capacity variance issued for
K048-K052 wastes as part of th« First
Third rule, become effective on August
8,1990, will remain in effect. Specific
changes to the BDAT treatment
standards that are being proposed today
are discussed below.
The Agency is today proposing to add
cyanide as a regulated constituent for
K048-K052 wastewaters and ia
proposing a BDAT treatment standard
for cyanide based on incineration of
these wastes. At the time of proposal fot
the First Third wastes, the Agency did
not have data on treatment of cyanide
for K048-K052 wastewaters and did not
have data on treatment of cyanide in
other wastes that could be transferred to
K048-K052 wastewaters. Data on
cyanide in combustion gas scrubber
water from incineration of K048 became
available to the Agency late in the
regulatory schedule for the First Third
-------
48460
Federal Register / Vol. 54. Ne. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
wastes. These data have now been used
to develop the proposed Third Third
treatment standards for cyanide in
K048-K052 wastewaters. Thus, for K048-
K052 wastes containing cyanide, the
Agency expects treatment to occur using
incineration technologies. Solvent
extraction, although considered a BOAT
technology for all other organic
constituents regulated in K048-K052
nonwastewaters, has not been
demonstrated to treat cyanide. The
proposed treatmentstandard for
cyanide in K048-K052 wastewaters is
shown in the table at the end of this
section.
After the close of the comment period
for the proposed regulations for First
Third wastes, EPA received additional
data on solvent extraction.treatment of
K048-K052 wastes. These data were
received too late to allow a full
evaluation and inclusion in the
development of the promulgated BDAT
treatment standards. Since promulgation
of the land disposal restrictions for First
Third wastes in August 1988, the Agency
has reviewed these data as well as
additional new data submitted following
promulgation. The Agency has also
recently completed a solvent extraction
treatment test on a mixture of K048 and
K051 waste. For most of the regulated
organic constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters, the new solvent
extraction data show better or similar
treatment than the data used to develop
the previously promulgated standards.
Overall, the Agency believes that the •
new data provide the most substantial
treatment for the greatest number of
organic constituents of concern than all
of the other solvent extraction data
available to the Agency. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing revised treatment
standards for the organics already
covered m the K048-K052
nonwastewater treatment standards
based on the results of this treatment
test. The Agency has not reevaluated
the selection of solvent extraction and
incineration as BDAT for organics in
nonwastewaters but has instead
incorporated the additional solvent
extraction performance data into the
revision of these treatment standards.
As before, these wastes may be treated
by any treatment technology capable of
achieving the treatment standard.
The Agency also is proposing
nonwastewater treatment standards for
two constituents for which it reserved
treatment standards in the First Third
rule, naphthalene and xylene. The
results from the recently completed
Agency-sponsored solvent extraction
test provide treatment performance data
for solvent extraction of these
constituents as well (as the other
regulated organic constituents in K048-
K052 nonwastewaters). There are
important environmental reasons to
develop treatment standards for xylene
and naphthalene in these wastes. These
solvents have been found to be present
at high concentrations in these wastes
(0.1 percent or higher), and at these
levels can readily mobilize other land
disposed constituents or degrade landfill
liners resulting in increased
mobilization. The Agency also is
concerned about the potential
contribution of these constituents to
VOC emissions from land disposal
facilities. Thus, treatment of these
constituents will clearly serve to reduce
the mobility of land disposed K048-K052
wastes (and any wastes with which they
are co-disposed) (see Section
3004(m)(l)).
EPA has recently received treatment
performance data, and a separate
rulemaking petition, from Exxon
Company, U.S.A. and the American
Petroleum Institute (API). The thrust of
the petition is that certain of the
promulgated treatment standards are
unachievable. These data were not
received by the Agency in time to be
fully evaluated for this proposed
rulemaking. The data are mentioned
here and included in the administrative
record for this proposed Eulemaking to
provide sufficient notice to commenters
of their availability. These data will be
fully evaluated by the Agency and may-
be used by the Agency to provide
further revisions to the K048-K052
BDAT treatment standards, if
appropriate, in the Third Third final rule.
The revised BDAT treatment
standards that are being proposed for
organic constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters and for cyanide in
K048-K052 wastewaters are listed in the
tables at the end of this section. The
Agency is not proposing revisions to
promulgated BDAT treatment standards
for constituents in K048-K052
wastewaters other than cyanide, nor for
any metal constituents in either K048-
K052 wastewaters or nonwastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K048. K049, K050, K051 AND K052
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0 028
REVISED BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANICS IN K048
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cnrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
o q
4 3
4 3
0 84
0 84
8 5
REVISED BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANICS IN K049
(Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyt)phthalate
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
i.t
41
0 08
0 84
j -j
8 5
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANICS IN K050
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
1 4
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
{mg/kg)
REVISED BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORGANICS IN K051
CNonwastewaters ]
Regulated constituent
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzoialantfiracene
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/ng)
3 9
U
-------
Federal Regjsiet / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48461
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORQANICS IN K051—Continued
(Nonwastiwatm]
Regulated constituent
B«nzo{a}pyr0ne..
DkvbutyJ phthalaUp
EBiyttxmztoe..
Naphthatorw..
Ptwnanthftoe., .....
FDflixd...
Pyrtfie..
Xytenea (Total)..
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
1.4
4.3
0.84
4.3
0.08
0.84
0.84
4.3
1.1
3.9
8.5
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR ORQANICS IN K052
[Nonwastewatersl
Regulated constituent
Xytetm (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
3.9
1.4
6.8
6.8
0.08
0.84
0.84
4.3
3.9
8.5
o. Additional Treatment Standards for
FQ02 andFOOS. The Agency promulgated
treatment standards for F001-F005 listed
wastes in the Solvents and Dioxins Rule
(51 FR 40572. November 7.1988). On
February 25,1988 the Agency amended
the listing of F002 and F005 to include
four new constituents: 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, benzene, 2-
elhoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane (51
FR 8737). These are organic compounds
that are usually used for their solvent
properties.
Although HSWA directs the Agency
to restrict the disposal of these new
constituents six months after they were
listed, EPA was unable to propose or
promulgate treatment standards because
there were no SW-848 analytical
methods that could satisfactorily
analyze 2-ethoxyethanol and 2-
nilropropane in complex waste matrices.
Therefore, the Agency has been unable
to propose treatment standards for these
constituents until today's notice.
The Agency synthesized several
wastewaters containing these
constituents in order to conduct
treatability studies and to identify
appropriate analytical methods. To
develop today's proposed treatment
standards, the Agency modified existing
SW-84B analytical methods so that they
were applicable to 2-ethoxyethanol and
2-nitropropane. (For further information
on the synthesis of these wastewaters
and the development of these analytical
methods, consult the F002 and F005
Background Document in the
administrative record for today's
proposal.)
The Agency has determine!! that
biological treatment represents BDAT
for treatment of 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
benzene, and 2-ethoxyethanol.
Wastewater treatment standards are
being proposed today for 1,1,2-
trichloroethane of 0.03 mg/l, benzene of
0.07 mg/l, and 2-ethoxyethanol of 73.3
mg/l based on the performance of
biological treatment.
The Agency has determined that
liquid-liquid extraction followed by
steam stripping followed by carbon
adsorption represents BDAT for 2-
nitropropane wastewaters. Based on the
performance of this treatment train the
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 0.058 mg/l for this
constituent in wastewaters. The Agency
also examined the performance of steam
stripping alone for treatment of 2-
nitropropane wastewaters and
developed a treatment standard of 1.35
mg/l. The Agency is concerned about
the validity of the steam stripping data
because the holding times of the
samples supporting the 1.35 mg/l limit
were exceeded. The Agency is also
evaluating the need for recreating the
steam stripping test studies of 2-
nitropropane because the reduction of 2-
nitropropane was achieved at the
expense of significant amounts of
energy. The high energy demands may
have been a result of an inappropriate
steam stripper design or the azeotropic
behavior of 2-nitropropane with water.
As a result, the Agency is proposing the
0.058 mg/l level, and solicits comment
on this proposed approach.
Incineration represents BDAT for all
of the newly listed F002 and F005
constituents in nonwastewaters. The
Agency does not have incineration data
from the treatment of the four newly-
listed F002 and F005 organics. However,
the Agency has performance data from
incineration of nonwastewaters
containing treatable concentrations of
the same or similar constituents. (See
preamble section DI.A.l.d. for further
discussion of the transfer of treatment
standards.) Nonwastewater treatment
standards are being proposed today for
1,1,2-trichloroethane of 7.6 mg/kg,
benzene of 3.72 mg/kg, and 2-
ethoxyethanol of 47.5 mg/kg, and 2-
nitropropane of 5.6 mg/kg, based on the
transfer of incineration performance
data.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F002
CNonwastewatersl
Regulated Constituent
1,1,2-Trichloroetnane..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
6.2
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F002
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
1 ,1 ,2-Trlchloroethane
Maximum
for any
composite
sample,
total
Composition
(mg/l)
0 054
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005
CNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
2-Ethoxyethanol..
2-Nitropropane....
Maximum (or
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
3.72
47.5
5.6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
2 Ethoxyethanol..
2-Nitropropane....
Maximum for
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.07
73.3
0.073
7. Development of Treatment
Standards for Multi-Source Leachate—
a. Background. In the final rule for the
First Third Wastes (August 17,1988 (S3
FR 31146-31150)) the Agency reiterated
that leachate derived from the disposal
of listed wastes is a hazardous waste
based on the derived-from rule. The
Agency took the position that the waste
code-specific treatment standards for
the land disposed waste(s) from which
the leachate is derived applied to the
leachate (this idea has acquired the
-------
48462
Fedaml Bagater / VoL Si. Mo. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
label of "waste code cany-through
principle", although tha label is
something of an oversimplification
because it merges the ideas of carry-
through of a treatment standard with
carry-through of a waste label for
permitting purposes; these issues need
not be identical, as discussed in section
e. below]. EPA later revisited the issue
of leachate treatability and determined
that there were significant unresolved
issues regarding availability of leachate
treatment capacity, and that further
study of treatability of leachate derived
from the co-disposal of multiple waste
codes (i.e., more than two waste codes)
was warranted. These wastes have thus
been designated as multi-source
leachate (see 54 FR 8264 (Feb. 27,1989}).
Single-source leachate must meet the
wastewater and nonwastewater
standards for the underlying waste code
from which it was derived. Id.
The Agency consequently rescheduled
most multi-source leachate to the third-
third of the schedule. Id. The only type
of multisource leachate not rescheduled
is that derived from disposal of the
listed dioxin-containing hazardous
wastes. Such leachate remains the
subject of a judicial stay order entered
by a panel from the District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals which stays the
applicability of the waste code carry-
through principle to multi-source
leachate whose prohibition date was not
rescfaednled by the Agency.
fl) Definition of Mufti-source
Leachate. Leachate is defined in 40 CFR
260.10 as any liquid, including any
suspended components in the liquid,
that has percolated through or drained
from hazardous waste. Leachate that is
derived from the disposal of listed
hazardous wastes i* classified as a
hazardous waste by virtu* of the
"derived-from" rule in 40 CFR
261.3(^X2). Multi-source leachate is
leachate that is derived from the
disposal of more than one listed
hazardous waste (ie., more than one
waste code). 54 FR 8284 (February 27,
1989). EPA is soliciting comment beiow
on considering leachate derived
excrasively from F021-F823, and F025-
F028 dioxin-containing wastes to be
single-source leachate. EPA also solicits
comment on a narrower definition of
multi-source leachate which would say
that leachate must be derived from more
than one treatabHiiy group (rather than
more than one waste code} to be
considered "multi-source". EPA is
soliciting comment on this point both
because it appears that leachate derived
exclusively from, wastes within a single
treatability group would be able to meet
the treatment standards for that
treatability group because it is more
dilute, and because members of the
regulated community have voiced
concern at being subject to standards
encompassing all toxic pollutants {a
virtually inevitable consequence of
classifying multi-source leachate as any
leachate derived from more than one
waste code). By "treatability group. EPA
is referring to the groupings of wastes in
this proposed rule such as "halogenated
aliphatics", or "phenolics". Scheduled
wastes from earlier rulemaltings would
be part of a single treatability group if
grouped within an industry grouping in
§ 261.32 (hazardous wastes generated
from specific sources). For example, the
K048-052 series of wastes would
constitute a single treatability group
since all the wastes come from the
petroleum refining process.
(2) Applicability. Leachate can
become subject to the land disposal
restrictions if it is removed from a land
disposal »"'* for disposal after the
prohibition effective date for the
underlying waste (see Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 869 F. 2d. 1528.
1536 (D.C.CLT. 1989)). Furthermore, to the
extent that such kachale is derived
from wastes that were listed as
hazardous on November 8.1984 (the
date of the HSWA amendments), it is
subject to the statutory hard hammer in
section 3004&) which applies to all
wastes that were listed as hazardous on
the date of enactment of the HSWA
amendments. The time the waste was
originally disposed is irrelevant to this
analysis; the status of wastes as listed
hazardous wastes (and wastes derived
from them as listed hazardous-wastes) is
determined by. what the wastes are. not
by when they were initially disposed
(Chemical Waste Management, 889 F.
2d at 1536-37).
To farther clarify the applicability of
the treatment standards to multi-source
leachate, the Agency points out the
following; (11 Groundwater
contaminated with multi-source
leachate must comply with the multi-
source ieochate standards (see e.g.
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
supra. 869 F.2d at 1539-40); (2) Single-
source leachate (Le, leachate derived-
from only one waste code such as might
be expected from a nannofm) cannot be
combined to create multi-source
leachate; and (3) Single-source leachate
from separate facilitiea cannot be
combined to create multi-source
leachate. These last two interpretive
principles are needed to prevent abuses
that would forestall treatment of
prohibited wastes.
b. Development of Proposed
Treatment Standards. The Agency is
today proposing two options for
applicability of BOAT treatment
standards for multi-source leachate and
residues from leachate treatment: (i)
Continued application of only those
treatment standards for the waste codes
that were land disposed; and (2)
application of one fixed set of
wastewater treatment standards and
one set of nonwastewater treatment
standards for all multi-source leachate
and treatment residues. These options
are discussed later in this preamble
section. The Agency is specifically
requesting comment on both of these
options.
For both options, the number of
applicable concentration-based
constituent standards could be very
large (i.e., there could be more than 200
individual constituent concentrations
that would have to be met). This is a
consequence of viewing mnlti-source
leachate as its own treatability group; it
thus potentially contains any or all of
the BOAT list constituents which
consequently must be addressed in
treatment standards. It is important to
point out that under either option, EPA
envisions the rule being implemented by
leaving the frequency of monitoring for
constituents (or indicator parameters) to
the judgement of the permit writer, who
would specify monitoring frequency in
the facility's waste analysis plan. (See
further discussion of waste analysis
plans in section H!.A.l.f.(3.) of today's
preamble). As with all BOAT treatment
standards, this provides site-specific
consideration of the need for monitoring
regulated poHutanfc likely to be present.
EPA is in the process of reviewing
these constituents to determine if
treatment of the BOAT list of
constituents will assure treatment of
these other one hundred or so Appendix
VIII constituents. If the BOAT list is not
adequate as a surrogate for all
constituents contained in multi-source
leachate, a treatment train could also be
specified to assure adequate treatment
of all codes.
(1) Continued Application of Only
Those Treatment Standards for the
Waste Codes that irere Land Disposed.
The first option is to continue to apply
the derived-from rule to multi-source
leachate for onry those treatment
standards for the waste codes that were
land disposed. As discussed earlier in
this section, the derived-from rnie would
require that leachate meet the standards
set for the waste codes from which the
leachate is derived, m previous rules,
the Agency stated that these treatment
standards could be appropriate because
leachate is expected to be more dilute
than die original wastes on which the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
standards were based. At that time, the
available waste characterization data
for leachate indicated that the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in untreated leachate were
slightly higher but very similar to the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents that would meet the
promulgated treatment standards. Thus,
the Agency concluded that leachate is
easier to treat than the original wastes
and so could be treated to comply with
BOAT.
Administrative complications can
arise from applying these standards
based on the vast number of potentially
applicable treatment standards and the
various combinations and permutations
of applicable treatment standards. This
is further complicated if more than one
standard exists for a particular
constituent, since the most stringent
standard then applies (see § 268.41(b)).
Because of the variety in potential
applicable treatment standards due to
the wide variety of combinations of
waste codes, the Agency cannot present,
in today's preamble, all of the options of
treatment standards that would apply
for all combinations of wastes.
EPA solicits comment regarding
applicability of treatment standards that
are specified methods of treatment
should the Agency decide to adopt this
option in the final rule. The Agency's
tentative resolution is that, for leachate"
wastewaters, any treatment standard
that is a method should apply. This is
because all of the specified treatment
methods for wastewaters (typically wet
air oxidation or chemical precipitation
and filtration) are readily applicable
ivastewater treatment methods to which
leachate wastewaters should be
amenable.
The situation for leachate non-
wastewaters. i.e. the residues from
treating leachate, is more complicated.
The nonwastewater treatment methods
that EPA has specified most frequently
are incineration to destroy organics and
chemical stabilization for inorganics.
Since these are generally-applicable
treatment technologies (and form the
basis for most of the numerical
standards in any case), EPA does not
see any difficulty in applying these
methods. EPA, however, has also
required deactivation and recovery as
methods for certain wastes. These
methods are less likely to be appropriate
to leachate nonwastewaters. As a
practical matter, however, EPA expects
that the property of reactivity will be
removed by treating the leachate itself.
so that the treatment residue would
never require deactivation. Thus, EPA is
not proposing to require this treatment
method for leachate nonwastewaters
(should it ultimately adopt standards
based on this option). EPA has specified
or proposed recovery as a method for
certain wastes that contain zinc, lead, or
mercury (see section III.A.5. of today's
preamble). These treatment methods are
required for waste treatability groups
that contain recoverable amounts of the
target metal. For zinc in K061 wastes the
percentage is 15%; for lead in the D008
High Lead Subcategory, the percentage
is greater than 2.5 %; for mercury in D009
High Mercury Subcategory, the
concentration is 16 mg/kg. EPA is
proposing to apply these same
thresholds to leachate nonwastewaters
derived from wastes subject to these
treatment methods. Should the leachate
nonwastewater contain less than these
concentrations of the target metal, the
concentration level based on
stabilization would apply. (See also 54
FR18836 (May 2.1989) where the
Agency adopted a similar approach in
revising certain of the no land disposal
treatment standards.)
(2) Establishing One Set of
Wastewater Standards and
Nonwastewater Standards for Multi-
Source Leachate and Treatment
Residues. The Agency received several
comments during the first third
rulemaking alleging that multi-source
leachate can be difficult to treat due to
its complex waste matrix (i.e., each
leachate and treatment residue has
various combinations and
concentrations of different hazardous
constituents). The commenters
suggested that multi-source leachate
should be a specific treatability group
with its own separate waste code, and
that one set of treatment standards (i.e.,
one standard per constituent) should be
established for this group. At that time,
however, insufficient data were
available to substantiate that multi-
source leachate and treatment residues
constitute a separate treatability group.
Since the time this issue was first
raised, the Agency has received data on
the physical and chemical composition
of various multi-source leachates and on
current multi-source leachate treatment.
These data were submitted from various
TSDFs to show that multi-source
leachate is more difficult to treat than
EPA originally thought, and that it
deserves classification as a separate
treatability group. The Agency is
examining waste characterization data
and some treatment data to determine
the frequency that leachate (both
treated and untreated) fails to achieve
the existing treatment standards. The
treatment data are from treatment
systems that are currently being applied
4846.1
to leachate collected from several
sources. These data are being placed in
the administrative record for today's
proposed rule and will be considered in
the promulgation of treatment standards
for leachate.
Based on a preliminary analysis of
industry data and the various
complications that arise in applying the
treatment standards to a seemingly
endless array of waste combinations,
the Agency is proposing, as one option,
the applicability of one set of
wastewater treatment standards and
one set of nonwastewater standards for
all multi-source leachates as a means of
complying with the waste code carry-
through. Although this option may ease
the burden of compliance for those
facilities land disposing numerous waste
codes, it may increase the burden for
those facilities land disposing only a few
waste codes, who, under this second
option, would have to analyze for the
entire BOAT list of constituents. (See the
earlier solicitation of comment on
redefining multi-source leachate as a
means of dealing with this potential
problem.)
The Agency also is specifically
requesting comment on the treatability
data submitted by industry that can be
found in the administrative record for
today's proposed rule. These data may
be used by the Agency to develop or to
revise the proposed standards based on
the second approach (although initial
indications are that these data do not
come from optimized treatment
systems). If any person desires a copy of
any additional data pertaining to this
proposed treatment standard that is
received during the public comment
period, please request it in writing by
identifying the data of interest as III.A.7
Development of Treatment Standards
for Multi-Source Leachate. See section
III.A.l.i. for more information on-
requesting data.
c..Proposed Treatment Standards
Based on Option Two. In today's notice,
EPA is proposing one set of
nonwastewater and one set of
wastewater treatment standards based
on the data currently available
according to option two discussed
above. As noted previously, the final
treatment standards based on this
option will depend upon the analysis of
additional treatment data received just
prior to proposal (these data have been
placed in the administrative record for
today's notice but have not yet been
analyzed for impact on the treatment
standards proposed in this notice) and
any additional data or comments
received during the comment period.
-------
48484 Federal Ragfatar / Voi
224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rale,
These treatment standards propose
the regulatioa of the entire BOAT list of
constituents. The reasoning behind this
is that commenters have previously
stated that their multi-source leachate is
typically derived from the land disposal
of every listed hazardous waste, and
thus can potentially contain any or all of
the BOAT list constituents. More
information on how these standards
were developed can be found in sections
of today's preamble and various
background documents. The proposed
wastewater and nonwastewater multi-
source leachate standards for option
two are included in tables at the end of
this preamble section.
It is EPA's tentative conclusion that
establishing treatment standards for
each BOAT constituent obviates the
need to specify methods of treatment,
should the Agency adopt this option. In
other words, the BDAT hst would serve
as a surrogate for those constituents for
which there are no analytic methods.
The Agency solicits comment on this
point, and specifically requests
documentation of the validity of using
the BDAT list as surrogates.
(1) Nonwastewaters. The Agency is
proposing to transfer most of the
concentration-based nonwastewater
standards for multi-source leachate
(option two) based on a direct transfer
of existing and proposed nonwastewater
treatment standards for the U and P
waste codes that correspond to the
proposed regulated constituents. For
convenience of the reader, the Agency
presents a table at the end of this
section entitled Basis of Transfer for
Multi-Source Leachate Treatment
Standards which gives the waste code
from which the standard has been
proposed to be transferred. This table
also includes a reference to further
discussion of the development of the
proposed standard either in the
administrative record, the preamble of
today's notice, or the appropriate
background document for that particular
standard.
Almost all of the nonwastewater
standards for organic constituents are
based on incineration as BDAT. These
constituent concentrations are
transferred from treatment standards for
U and P waste codes promulgated in the
Second Third Rule or proposed in
today's preamble. The metal constituent
concentrations (except for arsenic,
selenium and mercury) are primarily
based on a transfer of the performance
achieved by stabilization for PB06.
(2) Wastewaters. Most of the
concentration-bated wastewater
standards were transferred from
treatment data on those constituents
developed for various other regulatory
programs administered by lisa Agency,
and are based on data from numerous
sources. (Since these data apply to the
development of treatment standards for
other wastewaters besides multi-source
leachate, further discussion of these
data is presented in section IH.A.lJi.(8.)
of today's notice.) Some of the treatment
standards for wastewater forms of
multi-source leachate have been
transferred from other listed RCRA
wastes. Details on the development or
transfer of these wastewater standards
per constituent can be found in the
administrative record for multi-source
leachate.
EPA also has recently conducted a
study of the treatment of wastewaters
by wet air oxidation followed by PACT
or activated carbon. Subsequent to this
proposal these data will be examined
for applicability to wastewater
constituents in multi-source leachate. In
the interim, these data can be found in
the administrative record for today's
proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits
comment on the appropriate use of these
data in establishing standards for
leachate.
d. Multi-Source Leachate That
Exhibits a Characteristic of Hazardous
Wastes. EPA is not proposing separate
standards under option 2 for multi-
source leachate that exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous wastes. This
is because, by proposing standards for
all of the BDAT list constituents, the
treatment standards will address all of
the constituents and properties that the
treatment standard for characteristics
address. As described more fully in
section III.C below, the Agency's
proposed resolution of situations where
prohibited listed wastes also exhibit a
characteristic is that the specific
treatment standard for the listed waste
would control because it is more
specific. As stated further in that
section, however, should multi-source
leachate or its treatment residues
exhibit a characteristic at the point of
disposal, it would have to be treated to
meet th* treatment standard for that
characteristic.
Under option t. if multi-source
leachate exhibited a characteristic, one
would have to ascertain if the treatment
standard for the listed wastes from
which the leachate is derived addressed
the same constituents or properties
identified by the characteristic. If so, the
treatment standard for the listed waste
would supersede the standard for the
characteristic. If not, the leachate and/
or treatment residues would have to be
treated to meet the treatment standard
for both the listed wastes and the
characteristic. See section JH.C. This
same result would obtain for single
source leachate that exhibits a
characteristic.
Finally, if leachate simply exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste
without being derived from a fisted
waste, it is subject to the treatment
standard for that characteristic.
e. Multi-Source Leachate Containing
Dioxins and Furans. A final set of issues
pertaining to multi-source leachate
involves the status of multi-source
leachate that contains chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans ("dioxins"
and "furans"). Specific points for
discussion are applicability of the waste
code carry-through principle where the
leachate may be derived in part from
treatment, storage, or disposal of listed
dioxin-containing wastes, applicability
of the dioxin land disposal prohibitions,
applicability of management standards
for acute hazardous wastes, and a need
for treatment standards for dioxins and
furans.
The most recent characterization data
for multi-source leachate indicates
presence of dioxins at low concentration
levels. These data are gathered from
several very large commercial facilities
that treat a great number of different
wastes: these data should thus be
representative of the majority of
leachate that may be generated. Based
on a review of waste characterization
data for fifteen different sources of
untreated multi-source leachate. only
two data points indicated detectable
concentrations of dioxins (based on a
range of detection limits of 0.0001 ppb to
0.01 ppb): concentrations of 0.031 ppb
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in one
sample, and .028 ppb
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in another
sample (TCDD equivalence: .013 ppb,
based on a Toxic Equivalence Factor of
0.5, see 51 FR 19661, June 3.1988). All
other samples showed nondetectable
levels for hexa-, penta-, and tetra-
chlorodibenzo-furans and dioxins. (It is
not known if any of the leachates tested
derived in part from disposal of listed
dioxin-containing wastes,)
These concentration levels are very
low, and below the level the Agency
believes warrants the special concerns
which prompted special management
standards for the F021-F023 and F025-
F028 wastes, and which prompted
Congress to prioritize the dioxin waste
land disposal prohibitions (see 51 FR
19859, June 3,1986). Based on these data,
EPA is proposing that the dioxin waste
codes not apply to multi-source
leachate. Thus, the leachate would
remain a hazardous waste but would
not be classified under these waste
codes. These waste codes trigger
extraordinary regulatory and
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Roles
48485.
nonregulalory burdens in the form of
extra management standards (50 FR
1978, January 17,1985), permitting
obstacles due to public perceptions.
extra management costs, and prioritized
land disposal prohibitions. These
extraordinary consequences should be
reserved for situations where the
concentrations of dioxin merit the need
for extraordinary controls. This does not
appear to be the case for multi-source
leachate. (EPA notes that the derived-
frora rule does not bar the type of
reclassification that we are proposing
here. The derived-from rule, and the
interpretive waste-code carry through
principle, establish presumptions that
can be rebutted either by an individual
party, or by the Agency. Indeed, EPA
itieif indicated in the original dioxin
waste listing regulation that not all
wastes derived from managing the listed
dioxin-containing wastes are acute
hazardous. EPA thus listed waste F02S,
which is a residue from treating listed
dioxin-containing wastes, as a toxic
hazardous waste under its own waste
code.)
However, to guard against situations
where leachate might have higher
concentrations of dioxins and furans as
a result of management of the listed
dioxin-containing wastes (the only
circumstance under the existing rules
when presence of dioxins would trigger
acute hazardous waste status for the
leachate). EPA is proposing that
leachate that is derived from any or all
of the listed dioxin-containing wastes
(F021-F023 and F02S-F028) and no other
hazardous waste continue to be
classified as multi-source even if it was
derived exclusively from these dioxin-
containing wastes, provided more than
one was involved.
A consequence of the proposal is
rescheduling to the Third multi-source
leachate that could have been classified
under the dioxin waste code. EPA does
not see a legal impediment to this
action. As the Agency determined with
respect to multi-source leachate that
contains listed solvent wastes. EPA
does not believe that either the solvent
or dioxin statutory prohibitions (RCRA
section 3004(e)) are so definite as to the
prohibition effective date for multi-
source leachate not directly attributable
to disposal of a particular solvent or
dioxin that the Agency is without
discretion to determine an alternative
prohibition effective date (see 54 FR
8285, February 27,1989). Rather, the
Agency sees some ambiguity in the
classification of multi-source leachate
and thus some discretion to reschedule.
Because existing data show that the
levels of dioxins and furans are so low
or nondetectabie, EPA does not
presently believe it would be
appropriate to classify those multi-
source leachates that technically are
derived in part from disposal of the
listed dioxin-containing waste codes
under the dioxin waste prohibition.
For the same reasons, imposition of
the special standards for acute
hazardous wastes do not appear
appropriate for multi-source leachate.
Indeed, EPA has already made
determinations (or proposed them) that
comparable levels of dioxins are not
properly classifiable as acute hazardous
wastes (see 51 FR 30271 (July 25,1985);
53 FR 7903 (March 11,1988); 53 FR 20103
(June 2.1988); 54 FR 27167 (June 28,
1989)].
The final issue is whether the
treatment standards for multi-source
leachate should include a treatment
standard for dioxins and furans. The
Agency is proposing a treatment
standard of 1 ppb in the waste, the
routinely achievable analytical
detection limit. However, it may be that
there is no need for a dioxin standard
(or a standard for many of the other
BOAT list constituents) if control of
other constituents will also control the
dioxins and furans. Given the apparent
low level of dioxins and furans in the
untreated leachate, these would appear
to be possible candidates for indicator
pollutant status since most of the
samples could meet the treatment
standard even as generated. EPA notes,
however, that the issue of indicator
pollutants for multi-source leachate
treatment standards is not unique to
dioxin and potentially includes any of
the BOAT list pollutants. EPA
accordingly solicits comment on this
issue not only for dioxins and furans,
but as part of the general issue. EPA
also solicits comment on the other
issues discussed in this part of the
preamble, including any more raw
leachate characterization data that may
be available.
/ Separate Waste Code for Multi-
Source Leachate. EPA also solicits
comment on one remaining issue:
whether multi-source leachate should be
redesignated by a separate waste code.
This issue is not necessarily related to
the question of the treatment standards
that should apply to multi-source
leachate, since EPA could still
determine that the treatment standards
proposed under either option 1 or option
2 could apply to multi-source leachate
(although, should the Agency adopt an
approach based on option 1—carry
through of treatment standards—then
waste generators and treatment
facilities probably could comply with
5 2887 (a) and (b) only by listing
numerical treatment standards on the
land disposal prohibition tracking
document). Members of the commercial
waste management industry have urged
the Agency to establish a separate
waste code for multi-source leachate on
the grounds that it is a distinct type of
waste different from the underlying
wastes from which it is derived. In
addition, they assert that they will face
fewer administrative obstacles,
particularly with respect to permit
modifications if multi-source leachate
and treatment residues have a separate
waste code.
EPA solicits comment on this
approach, provided it is understood that
a decision on this issue does not
determine what the treatment
standard(s) for multi-source leachate
and treatment residues should be. In
addition, EPA solicits comment on the
possible effect on RCRA permitting of
designating multi-source leachate (and
treatment residues derived therefrom)
by a separate waste code. It would
appear that this necessitates amending
all RCRA permits that do not already
include a narrative description for
leachate and leachate treatment
residues. EPA also solicits comment on
whether designating multi-source
leachate by a single waste code should
be considered a HSWA regulation
immediately effective in authorized
states.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
CNonwastewaters)
Regulated organic constituents
Maximum for
1 any single
• grab sarnpfe,
i total
, composition
, (mg/kg)
Acetone
AceiKphthalene .
Acenaphthene ..
Acetonrtrile
Acrotein _ _ ....
Ac»tophenone
Acrylmmide
2-Acetytaminofluorene
Acrytonitrile—
Aldrin.
4-Arainobiphenyl
Aoilirw
Anthracene....
Ararnita _._ _ |
Arodor 1016 _ I
Aroctof 1221... _ i
Arodor 1232 _ _ I
Arodor 1242.: „ ._.j
Arodor 1248 J
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260 _ _
alpha BHC 4
beta-BHC j
delta-BHC j
gamma-BHC _ :
0.14
3.4
9.1
0,35
2.8
9.S
1.5
13
0.28
0.066
13
14
7.7
2.5 '
0.92
0.92
0.92
^0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
-------
4846fr
/ Vd 54. No. 23* / Wedruadsy. Novamber 22,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS TOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE—Continued
CNonwastewatefs]
Regulated organic constituents
Benzene 4
Benzal chloride .....".
Benzene thtol !.....!!!!!
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ....„.....!..!!!!!!
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Z"
Benzo(a)pyrene
.p-Benzoquinone """
Bromodichloromethane Z!!.
Bromoform _.....
Bromomethane (methyl bromide)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
n-Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate !!.!!!.!!!!!!!
2-sec-8utyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane _ _„..
p ChtoroaniHne ZZZ
Chlorobenzene „ ZZ"
Chlorobenzilate ZZZ!
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene.._ Z!
Chlorodibromomethane '.
Chloroethane „
bis-(2-Chtoroethoxy) methane ZZ!
bis-(2-Criloroetnyt) ether „.,..._
Chloroform
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether. !ZZ
p-Chloro-m-cresol _...
CMoromethane ZZ!
2-Chloronaphtnalene ZZ!!!!!!
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropene
Chrysene Z'"
o-Creso) Z!!Z!
Cresol (m- and pHSomers)Z!!Z!!!!!!!Z
Cyclohexanone _...„,
1,2-Oibromo-3 Chloropropane..ZZ.Z
1,2-Dibromoethano (Ethylene dibro-
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
Dibromomethana
2,4-Oichlorophenoxyacetic acid
0)
o,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDO ZZ.ZZ
o,p'-DDE
P,p'-DDE ZZZ
p,p'-DDT
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate
m-Dichlorobenzene „.
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichtorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ZZ!Z"|
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dtehlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane ,
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Otehloroethytene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene I
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol „...
1,2-Dichloropropane ZZ!
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
36
6.2
6.2
3.6
3.4
3.4
1.8
3.6
180
16
18
16
16
2.6
15
2.5
6.2
0.13
16
5.7
6.6
28
16
6.0
7.2
7.2
6.2
7.2
14
5.6
5.6
5.7
28
3.6
5.6
3.2
1.9
16
16
16
10
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
13
22
0.1
6.2
8.2
6.2
16
30
30
10
6.2
6.2
6.2
8.2
14
14
15
15
15
0.13
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE—Continued
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated organic constituents
Dlethyl phthalate
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
2.4-Dimethyl phenol
Dimethyl phthalate „ _.
Di-n-butyl phthalate..... „
1,4-Dinitrobenzene „ ,
4,6-Dinitrocresol „
2,4-Din!troph«nol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine „
Diphenylnitrosoamine
Di-n-propylnitrosoamins
1,4-Dtoxane
Oisulfoton
Endosulfan I
Endosutfan II _..'
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin \
Endrin aldehyde Z
Ethyl acetate _
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
bis-(2-Ethvlhexyf) phthalate !!!!!
Ethyl methacrylate
Famphur.
Huoranthene
Fluorene,
FluorotricMoromethane
Heptachlor _ ;..„.
Heptachlor eponde Z
Hexachkxobenzene _ „
Hexachtorobutadfene
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
Hexachkxodtbenzo-furans
Hexachlorodibenzc-p-dioxins
Hexachloroethane .
Hexachtorophone
Hexachloropropene
lnden
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No, 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Propoaed Rule* 4S487
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
CWastewater*]'
Regulated organic and inorganic
constituent*
Acetone „
Acenaphthalens...,,
Acerwprrthene.,..,....—
Acettxwrila.
Aeatophonon* ------- .
2-Acaiytamwofluof e;w
AeryloflKnla,.
Akjoo ..
4-Anw»oiph«nyl ..
AnAo« ,„...»
Atithracana ,.
A/amrtt .
Aroctor 1016
Afoctor 1221
Aroctor 1232
Aroctor 1218,
Aroctor 1254
Afodor1260
Upha-BHC...
b*uBHC
oXUBHC
gamma-BHG
B«nzo(a)anthraoan«
8orreo(a}oy-soe
Bensxbjfluoranthene,...
8*n»(g.h,i)peryler.e,
BanzoM nuoranthene ...
Bromodiehlofornethsne,
B«omome«hane (methyl bromide),
4.8romophenyl phenyl ether.
n-Butenol ,.„_„„_„.„.._...„...„
Butyl benzyl phthalala
2-iec-BotyM.e-dinitrophenol .-
CaftwntetrachtorJde.
Carton disuttide
p-Chforoaruhn*
Chforobenzilata.. „
2-O*xo-1.3-buUdiene
ChtowSxomomethane..
Cnkxca thane „
t.-s (2OJofoelhoxy) methane.,...-,
bis-(2-Cn!oroethyQ ether—
2-Chtoroethyl vinyl ether.
Chkxolorm..,. .„....„,.
tx».(2-Ch!orotsopropyO ether
p-CNoro-m-cfesol
Chtoromothane (methyl chloride).,
2-CNoronaphth»Jane
2-Chiorophenol.
3«Chloroprop«ne.n,-,.
Chrysene „„.,..,.,—,
o-Cresol ,.._,.,..,.,..,.„,,....,.,,,......
Crasoi (m- and p- ssomers)
Cyclohexanone,^
1,2 Dbromo-3-chlOfOpropane.,
Otbfomom«lh*n«
2,443ichlorophen<
o.p'-ODD
a tic acid......
Dibenzo(a,a}pyren«
Maximum (or
any 24 hr.
composite,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.162
0.059
0.059
0.097
0.162
41.198
1.042
0.040
0-242
0.021
0.095
0.807
0.059
0.020
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.00168
0.040
0.138
0.219
0.059
0.061
0.040
0.004
0.059
0.020
0.196
0.065
0.040
0.137
0.012
1.438
0.032
0.179
0.00327
43.736
0.032
0.072
0.032
0.032
0.268
0.008
0.024
0.035
0.046
0.040
0.053
0.190
0.040
0.051
0.021
0.059
0.189
1.315
'0.020
0.065
0.016
0.065
0.721
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
0.00392
0.00392
0.041
Regulated organic and inorganic
constituents
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracen« — .............
tris-{2,3-Dt>fomopropyl) phosphate..
'm-Dfchlorobenzene.. ........... „ .............
o-Dtchtorobenzene ._ ..........................
p-Dichlorobenzen* .......... __________ ......
3,3'-DicMorob9raicfine... ............ ___
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-buten« ..................
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-outene... ............
Ofchtorodifluoromethano .................. -
1.1-Dtchkxootharti._ ...................... ____
1 .2-Dfchloroethane . ............ ------
1,1-DtcWoroethytena.... ...................... .
trans-1 ,2-DJchioroethyterw ...... _____
2.4-Dtchlorophenol._ ...........................
2,6-Dichtaropnanol ................... ..........
1,2-Dichtoropropana — .......................
cis-1 ,3-Ochlofopropone... ...................
trans-1 ,3-Dichtoropropene ..................
Dieldrin.- ......... _______ ...........................
Diethyl pnthalata ..................................
3,3-Dimethoxyb8nzidine ........... ----
p-Dimelftylamino«zobenzene ..... - _
3,3'-pim«lnylbsnz)dina ----- ...... -----
2,4-Dimathyl phenol ........................ _.
Dimethyl phthalato ....................... —
Dt-n-butyl phtnalate — ............... _____
1 ,4-Dinitroben»n« ............................ _
4,6 Dinitrocre*oL~...
2,4-DiniSrophenol . ___ .............
2,4-Dinitrotoluena.
2,6-Dinitrotoluen«.
Dt-fvoctyl phthaW* .........
Di-n-projjyinrtiosoamine..
Diphenylamine — ..........
1.2-Oiphonyl hydnzlm ...
Diphenytritrosoamine —
Maximum for
any24hr.
composite,
trftfl
composition
(mg/l)
Disulfoton
EndosuHan I .,_
Endosutfan II
EndosuMan sulfate.-
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde _.
Ethyl acetate—. _._
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether „ _
bts-(2-Elhylhexyl) phtnalate
Ethyl methacrytata.- —
Ethyiena oxide _ -
Famphur._....__
Ruoranthene
Fluorene - - -
Fluorotrichkx'omethane
Heptachlor....™ _
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexacrdorobenzene „
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachkxocydopentadtene
Hexachlorodibenzo-furans
Hexachtorodibenzo-p-dioxtns
Hexachtoroethane
Hexachtorophene „
HexacWoropropene
lndeno(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene
lodomethane _
Isobutanol „ „
Isodrin...- „...
Isosafrote
Kepone.- —.-
Methacrylonitrito
Mothanol „ „
Methapyrilene.— - .,
Methoxychlor _ _
3-Methytohloarthrene
4,4-Mettiylene4iis-(2-cnloKMniline).
Methyl «*yl katonc ____
Methyl laooutyl k«tone
0.040
0.080
0.014
0.064
0.068
0.095
a021
0.021
0.130
0.059
0.211
0.025
0.054
0.076
0.076
0.482
0.021
0.021
0.017
0.203
0.095
0.095
0.095
0.036
0.047
0.057
OL231
0.277
0.123
0^35
0.398
0.012
0.4CO
a378
0.063
0.290
28
0.770
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.00279
0.025
0.195
0.032
0.067
0.279
0.032
127.4
0.336
0.068
0.059
0.023
•0.00116
0.016
0.040
0.040
0.041
0.000035
0.000031
0.040
0.00111
0.025
0.004
0.162
0.125
0.021
9.542
0.0095
28.
0.033
&S42
0.252
0.004
0358
0.089
0.016
0.032
R«guM«d organic and inorganic
constituents
Methyl matiacrytate...
Methyl ParsUhion.
NapcKhalaia
1,4-Naphthoquinone ,
1 -Naphthytamine
2-Naphthytemin« _.,
p-NitroaniSne „..„
Nitrobenzene
5-N«nH>-toluidine
4-N«roohenol
N-NrtrosooTethytamine
N-NHrosodhnethylamine
N-NitrotCKfi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine..
N-Nitrosomorpholine ,
N-NHrosopiperidlne.:
rwwrosopyrrolidine
Parathion
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachtorodibenzo-furana
Parrtachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins.-..
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophanol
Phertacetin _—. .
Pbenenthrene.-
Phenol
Phorate._
Phthalic anhydride (measured
phthaKc acid)
Propanenitrile (ethyl cyanide)
Pronamida
Pyridine.™,
Hesorcinol ._-
Safrole _ _
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)
2,4,5-T _
1,2.4,5-TatrachlOfObenzene
TatracWorodibenzo-lurans -
Tetrachtorodibenzo-p-dioxins
l,1,1,2Tetrachloroathane
1,1.2,2-Tatrachtoroathane
Tetrachloroethylarie
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol __
Toluene.... ™
Toxaphene .
Tribromomethane (bromoform)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene..._
2,4,5:Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2.3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2-Tnchloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ....
Vinyl chloride
Xylene(s)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable) _
Fluoride.-
Sulfide -.
Antimony -
Arsenic..- -
Barium..
Beryllium _
Cadmium „
Chromium (Total).
Copper ......
Lead
Mercury —
Nickel _. —
Selenium —
Silver _.
Thallium- _
Vanadhjm —
Maximum for
any 24 hr.
composite,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.032
0.336
0.059
0.020
0.378
0.378 ,
0.020
0.068
0.230
0.124
0.290
0.290
0.290
0.290
0.290
0.010
0.010
0.336
0.040
0.000023
0.000018
0.040
0.040
0.082
9.542
0.059
0.026
0.770
0.020
23.0
0.083
0.067
0.008
0.042
9.542
0.721
0.721
0.040
0.0000088
0.0000062
0.032
0.032
0.056
0.051
0.080
0.0095
0.357
0.046
'0.054
0,054
0.054
0.008
0.008
0.482
6.496
0.268
0.182
19
0.10
35.
1.930
1.390
1.150
0.820
0-200
0.370
1,280
0.280
0.150
0.550
0.820
0.290
1.400
0.042
-------
4S468 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rule*
Maximutrffor
Regulated organic and inorganic composite,
constituents total
composition
(ma/n
Zinc
1.020
"Note: These proposed standard* for wastewater
forms of Multi-source leachate represent alternative
standards for the U and P wastewaters that corre-
spond to chemicals listed in this table. As an exam-
ple: the standard for acetone listed above is an
alternative standard for U002 (acetone) wastewaters,
etc. Not all constituents listed in the above table
have a corresponding U or P waste codes. These
generally represent other Appendix VIII (40 OFF
261) constituents that were not listed as U or P
wastes. See background information on the develop-
ment of these alternative standards in section
lll.A.l.h.(6.)(b.).
BASIS OF TRANSFER FOR NON-
WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
NONWASTEWATER FOR MULTI-SOURCE
LEACHATE
Regulated organic constituents
Acetone _....
Ace naphthalene _
Acenaphthene ....
AcetonitrHe
AcrcHein .
Acetophenone
Acrylamide
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
4-Aminobiphenyt
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite _
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232 _.
Aroclor 1242 „
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
alpha-BHO
beta-BHC
detta-BHC
gamma-BHC „
Benzene
Benzal chloride ;
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene .-.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzofg,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
p-Benzoquinone
n-Butanol „....
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene.
Ctilorobenzilate ..
2-Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene _.'
Chloroethane
bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane..
bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether..™
Chloroform
bis-(2-Chkxoisopropyl) ether
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Refer
to
waste
coda
U002
U009
P003
U004
U007
UOOS
U009
P004
U012
K085
K085
K085
K08S
K085
K085
K08S
U129
U129
U129
U129
U019
U018
U022
U197
U031
P020
U211
U036
P024
U037
U038
U024
U025
U042
U044
U027
U039
Refer-
ence
for
stand-
ard
A
B
B
C
A
A
C
D
C
E
B
C
B
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
B
D
8
B
B
D
A
A
3
3
}
i
3
S
G
3
BASIS OF TRANSFER FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ARDS-i-Continued
Regulated organic constituents
Chloromethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chtoropropene ,
Chrysene
o-Cresol _
Cresol (m- and p- isomers)
Cyclohexanone
2,4-Dtehlorophenoxyacetic add
(2,4-0).
o,p'-ODD...
p.p'-DDD
o,p'-ODE „
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DOT _
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2,7.8-Dibenzopyrene.
tris-(2,3-Oibromopropyl) phos-
phate.
m-Dichlorobenzene ......;
o-Dichkxobenzene
p-Oichlorobenzene
3,3'-Oichlorobenzidine _
cts-1 ,4-Ofehloro-2-butene
trans-l.4-Oichloro-2-butene
Dicrriorodlfluoromethane .................
1 . 1 -Oichloroethane
1,2-Otehtoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Di(*loroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dfehlorophenol
1 ,2-Dtchtoropropane
cis-1 ,3-Oichloropropene _.
trans-1 ,3-Ofchloropropene
Dieldrin
Diethyt phthalate
3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine
p-DimetnylaminoazoDenzene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidln« -.
2,4-Oimethyl phenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dtnrtrobenzene
4,6-Dinitrocresol
2,4-Oinrtrophenol
2,4-Dinarotoluene
2,6-Oinrtrotoiuer)e
Di-rM>ctyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Diphenylnitrosoamine
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
1 ,4-Dtoxane _... .
Oisulfoton ..._ _
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate _
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethyl acetate. .
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
bis-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Famphur ..._
Fluoranthene...
Fluorene
Fhiorotrichlorornethane
Heptachkx
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachtorobenzene
Hexacrrtorobutadiene
Refer
to
waste
code
U045
U047
U048
U050
U052
UOS2
U057
U240
U060
U060
U061
U061
U081
U061
U063
U084
U235
U071
U070
U072
U073
U074
U074
U075
U076
U077
U078
U079
U081
U082
U083
U084
U084
P037
U088
U091
U093
U095
U101
U102
U069
P047
P048
U105
U106
U107
U111
U108
P039
P050
POSO
P050
P051
P051
U112
U117
U028
U118
P097
U120
U121
POS9
POS9
U127
U128
NON-
STAND-
Refer-
ence
for
stand-
ard
C
H
S
B
D
I
I
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
J
E
E
E
H
G
G
H
G
G
G
G
S
S
G
G
Jl
<
<
K
}
<
B
8
A
A
B
i
L
)
1
:
BASIS OF TRANSFER -FOR NON-
WASTEWATER TREATMENT STAND-
ARDS— Continued
Regulated organic constituents
Hexachkxocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodtbenzo-furans
Hexachtorodibenzo-p-dioxins ......
Hexachtoroethane
Indeno(1 ,2.3,-c,d)pyrene
Isobutanol „..
Isodrin
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methacryfonitriie „
Methanol
MethapyrHene
Methoxychlor
3-Methytehloanthrene _..
4,4-Metnytene-bis-(2-
chtoroantlrne).
Methytene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrytate
Methyl Parattiion
Naphthalene
1 .4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphtfiylamine
2-Naphthytamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene _ _
5-Nrtro-o-tc4uidine
4-Nitrophenol „
N-Nitrosocfiethylamine „...
N-Nftrosodimethylamine
N-Nrtroso-di-n-butlyamine
N-Nitrosomethytetriylarnine
N-NHrosomorpholine _.-..
N-Nitrosoptperkfine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Parattiion
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxms
Pentachloronilrobenzene
Phenol
Phorate
(measured as phthalic acid)
Pronamide
Pyrene
Resourtinol
Safrole
Sih/ex (2,4,S-TP)
2,4,S-T...
1,2.4,5-TetrachlofObenzene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans
Tetrachtofodibenzc-p-dioxins
1,1.1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane
2.3,4,6-Tetrachtorophenol
Toxapnena
1 ,2,4-Trichkxobenzene
1 1 1-TricMnmaftuna
1,14-Trichkxoethane
Trichloroethytene
Refer
to
waste
code
U130
U131
U132
U243
U137
U138
U140
P060
U141
U142
U152
K086
U1S5
U247
U1S7
U158
U080
U159
U161
U162
P071
U165
U166
U167
U168
P077
U169
U181
U170
U174
P082
U172
U179
U180
P089
U183
U184
U185
U187
U188
P094
U190
P101
U192
U196
U201
U203
U207
U208
U209
U210
U220-
P123
U226
U227
U228
Refer-
ence
for
stand-
ard
E
M
M
G
E
G
D
H
A
E
L
E
C
A
L
E
D
H
G
A
A
A
J
D
A
C
C
C
C
C
1
c
c
c
B
B
C
C
J
E
M
M
G
3
i
J
<
H
B
3
B
11 Z S (3 O O CO U. U
ICOO-C3CJ
-------
Federal Reciter / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 48468
BASIS OF TRANSFER FOR NON-
WASTEWATER TREATMENT STAND-
ARDS—Continued
Regutoltd organic constttuants
2,4.5-TricNorophanol
2,4.6-TrichkxoplMinol,
1.2.3
-------
48470 Federal RegJater / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
scrap which has been determined to be
unavoidably contaminated and to no
longer contain listed waste. Because of
the urgent need for action and specific
statutory language exempting such
decisions from review, we do not intend
to solicit comment on the rescheduling
and, instead, are making the action
effective today. The effect of this
rescheduling is to provide temporary
relief for these wastes while EPA
considers the comments on these issues.
9. Treatment Standards for Lab Packs.
The Agency received several comments
in response to the Second Third
proposed rule on the regulatory status of
lab packs. The commenters stated that
lab packs are typically used by industry
to dispose of small quantities of
commercial chemical products (U and P
wastes) and analytical samples that
may contain F and K wastes. These lab
packs may contain hundreds of
restricted wastes, and the applicable
treatment standards (or soft hammer
requirements until May 8,1990) must be
achieved for each waste code contained
in the lab pack. The commenters stated
that these requirements pose an
administrative burden that is
incommensurate with the amount of
waste land disposed.
In the Second Third final rule (54 FR
26594), the Agency restated its position
that ail restricted wastes placed in lab
packs and land disposed must comply
with the land disposal restrictions.
However, the Agency solicited
comments, data, and specific
suggestions to support treatment options
for lab packs. The Agency is today
proposing an approach for lab packs
that establishes alternate treatment
standards expressed as technologies for
those lab packs meeting certain criteria.
Lab packs that do not meet these
criteria must meet the applicable
treatment standard for each waste
contained in the lab pack. The Agency
notes that the proposed approach would
not be mandatory and that generators of
lab packs who wish to comply with the
current implementation of the land
disposal restrictions regulatory
framework as it applies to lab packs
would be free to do so.
The approach proposed in today's rule
establishes incineration as the alternate
treatment standard for lab packs
containing certain characteristic waste
and listed organic hazardous waste
codes only, and stabilization for lab
packs containing certain EP toxic metals
only. The Agency has developed
appendices to 40 CFR part 268 for the
purpose of identifying waste codes and
constituents to which the alternate
treatment standards are applicable.
Appendix IV to part 268 identifies waste
codes that may be included in an
"organic lab pack." Appendix V to part
268 lists inorganic constituents that may
be included in an "inorganic lab pack."
Where lab packs contain organic or
inorganic waste other than those
specified in Appendix IV or V (including
non-hazardous waste), or where organic
and inorganic wastes are commingled in
a lab pack, the treatment standards and
other restrictions for each waste code in
the lab pack must be achieved.
The Agency believes its proposed
approach, although narrowly defined,
provides some administrative relief
sought by the commenters. It simplifies
the management system for these
wastes because owners/operators will
not be required to analyze the treatment
residue for compliance with individual
treatment standards. However,
generators must continue to list each
waste code contained in the lab pack on
the notification form according to the
requirements of § 268.7. Lab packs that
are treated by the specified technology
may be disposed of in Subtitle C
facilities without further testing or
analysis..
Agency data indicate that organic
constituents can be effectively
destroyed by incineration in well-
designed, well-operated incinerators
that meet the requirements of part 264 or
265 subpart O. For example, treatment
standards for most solvents, dioxins,
California list halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs), and First, Second,
and Third Third organic wastes are
expressed as a numerical standard
derived from incineration of the waste.
In some cases, the treatment standard is
specified as incineration (e.g., for most
California list HOCs). Although the
Agency lacks specific treatability data
for lab packs containing organic waste,
it believes that incineration of organic
lab pack waste will significantly reduce
the risks posed by land disposal, and
simplify the management of these small
volume wastes. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to specify incineration as the
treatment standard for lab packs
containing these wastes.
The Agency is limiting the
applicability of this alternate standard
for organics to wastes that have a
promulgated or proposed treatment
standard based on the performance of
incineration, or where incineration only
is specified as the treatment standard.
Appendix IV to part 288 contains a list
of F, K, P, and U wastes and
characteristic wastes that meet these
criteria. These wastes must be
incinerated in accordance with the
requirements of part 264 subpart O and
part 265 subpart O. Ignitable and
corrosive wastes may be included in the
"organic lab pack" provided they
comply with the requirements for
incompatible wastes in § 264.316(d) or
265.316(d). Reactive wastes are
excluded from placement in the organic
lab pack. These wastes remain subject
to the applicable treatment standards.
The Agency is proposing to include
California list PCBs and dioxin-
containing waste (F020-F023, F026-F028)
in the "organic lab pack" treatability
group, but emphasizes that treatment of
these wastes requires more stringent
performance standards than wastes
included in part 268 Appendix IV (i.e.,
dioxins must achieve a destruction and
removal efficiency of 99.9999 percent
and PCBs must meet the technical
standards in 40 CFR 781.70). Where
generators choose to commingle one or
both of these wastes with "organic lab
pack" waste listed in Appendix IV, the
entire lab pack must be incinerated to
meet the more stringent standard. For
example, a lab pack containing dioxin-
containing waste, California list PCBs,
and Appendix IV waste must be
incinerated according to the technical
standards of 40 CFR 761.70 and the
applicable requirements of parts 264,
265, and 266 (including all applicable
performance standards for dioxin-
containing waste).
The Agency recognizes that
generators may also dispose of
inorganic (metals-bearing) wastes in lab
packs. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing an alternate treatment
standard of stabilization for the
following EP toxic metals listed in
Appendix V to part 268: barium,
cadmium, lead, silver, and trivalent
chromium. The Agency believes that
stabilization of these metals that are
removed from the vials and lab packs
can be accomplished using Portland
cement in a 20 percent binder-to-waste
ratio (by weight). The Agency believes
this to be a demonstrated and available
technology for these constituents. The
Agency would like to allow other
stabilizing agents that are "equivalent"
to Portland cement to also be used, but
has been unable to develop a method of
demonstrating equivalence that does not
involve review and approval. The
Agency is soliciting suggestions for
demonstrating such equivalence. The
Agency, therefore, is proposing a
treatment standard of stabilization (i.e.,
the wastes must be removed from the
containers and stabilized), performed in
the manner described above, for lab
packs containing only those inorganic
constituents specified in Appendix V to
part 268 (i.e., "inorganic lab packs").
-------
Fecteral Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48471
In cases where non-hazardous wastes
are commingled with Appendix V
inorganic constituents prior to
stabilization, the lab pack is ineligible
for the alternate treatment standard due
to possible interferences caused by
these non-hazardous constituents. The
alternate treatment standard for
"inorganic lab packs" is not applicable
where generators or owners/operators
commingle "inorganic lab pack waste
with wastes listed in part 268 Appendix
IV, dloxin-containing waste, PCBs, or
other wastes.
The Agency is not establishing an
alternate treatment standard expressed
as a specified technology for lab packs
containing the remaining EP toxic
metals (i.e.. arsenic, selenium, mercury,
and hexavalent chromium) because of
concern regarding the successful
stabilization of these inorganic
constituent:!. Agency data indicate that
there is difficulty in stabilizing these
constituents, and a TCLP analysis is
necessary to verify the results. In cases
where the Agency specifies a technology
as the treatment standard, however,
treatment using the specified technology
satisfies the land disposal restriction
requirements, and analysis of the
treatment residues is not required.
Consequently, lab packs containing
constituents other than those specified
in Appendix V to part 268 must comply
with the treatment standards for each of
the restricted wastes included in the lab
pack.
The Agency's proposed alternate
treatment standards for lab packs
applies only if the following conditions
are met:
(1) The lab pack contains only organic
hazardous waste codes, the waste codes
are listed in Appendix IV to part 288,
and the "organic lab pack" is
incinerated according to the provisions
in part 264 or 265 subpart O; or
(2) The lab pack contains only
inorganic constituents listed in
Appendix V to part 268, and the
"inorganic lab pack" is stabilized with
Portland cement in a 20 percent binder-
to-waste ratio by weight. Again, the
Agency is aware that equivalent
technologies to Portland cement
stabilization exist. Therefore, the
Agency is soliciting comment on
methods for establishing equivalency
that are short of establishing a variance
procedure.
Lab packs that contain PCBs or
dioxin-containing wastes must continue
to meet the applicable treatment
standards for these wastes. Examples
are provided for clarification:
(1) A lab pack that contains only
dioxin-containing waste (FQ20-23 and
F026-28) or a mixture of dioxin-
containing waste and organic hazardous
waste codes listed in Appendix IV to
part 268 must be incinerated according
to the provisions in part 264 or 265
subpart O (including the applicable
performance standards for dioxin-
containing waste).
(2) A lab pack containing California
list PCBs and dioxin-containing waste
must be incinerated according to the
technical standards of 40 CFR 761.70
and the applicable standards of parts
264,265. and 266 (including the
performance standards for dioxin-
containing waste).
Generators or owners/operators who
dispose of hazardous organic waste
according to the provisions in today's
proposed rule must also meet the
requirements for lab packs specified in
§§ 264.316 and 265.316, whichever is
applicable. Such persons must also
comply with the notification,
certification, and recordkeeping
requirements of 5 268.7. The Agency is
continuing to require generators to list
each hazardous waste code on the
notification form according to the
requirements in 5 268.7. The Agency is
also proposing to require generators to
certify that organic and inorganic lab
packs destined for treatment as
described in today'a_notice contain only
the applicable waste codes or
constituents listed in Appendix IV or
Appendix V, whichever is applicable.
The Agency emphasizes that lab packs
containing wastes other than those
listed in Appendix IV or Appendix V to'
part 268, including nonhazardous
wastes, are excluded from the alternate
treatment standards for lab packs
proposed in today's rule.
The Agency is requesting comments
on all aspects of its proposed approach
for lab packs.
m.B Capacity Determinations
1. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for
Surface Land-Disposed Wastes
a. Total Quantity of Land-Disposed
Wastes
The capacity analyses for wastes for
which EPA is today proposing treatment
standards were conducted using the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities (the TSDR Survey).
EPA conducted the TSDR Survey during
1987 and early 1988 to obtain
comprehensive data on 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 proposed rule.
Other major sources of data include
the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators, conducted by EPA
during 1988 and 1989. It includes data on
waste generation, waste
characterization, and hazardous waste
treatment capacity in units exempt from
RCRA permitting. These data are used
to support this proposal and are part of
the record for this proposed rule.
For mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes,
EPA has used data supplied by the U.S.
Department of Energy. State and State
compact low-level radioactive waste
survey data were also used, as were
data summaries in several overview
reports on mixed radioactive waste.
The various land disposal methods
used in 1986 and the quantities of waste
they handled (excluding mixed
radioactive wastes) are presented in
Table III.B.l.(a). The data indicated that
about 5,566 million gallons of the wastes
for which standards are proposed today
were disposed of in or on the land. This
estimate includes less than 1 million
gallons of wastes that were stored in
surface impoundments and 76 million
that were stored in waste piles. These
stored wastes will eventually be treated,
recycled, or permanently disposed of 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 volumes of wastes requiring
alternative treatment. Furthermore, this
rule proposes prohibitions on the
placement of wastes affected by this
rule in waste piles or surface
impoundments for storage.
EPA estimates that about 11 million
gallons of treatment residuals from
minimum technology impoundments or
from impoundments that were replaced
by a tank (e.g., standard cement, steel
tanks, or filter presses) will require
alternative treatment. EPA assumes that
this waste is now being sent off-site for
treatment. Consequently, this amount is
included as treatment capacity required
in today's rule.
In addition, 29 million gallons of
wastes were treated in waste piles, 20
million gallons were disposed of in
surface impoundments, 246 million
gallons were disposed of in land
treatment units or landfills, and 5,184
million gallons were injected
underground. All of these wastes will
require alternative treatment capacity.
-------
Federal
/ Vot. 54, Kg. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1988 / Proposed Ride*
TABLE ttLB.Ma) VOUJME OF WASTES BY
LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARC BEING PROPOSED
[Millions of gallons/year}'
Land disposal method
Storage:
Waste pile* _
Surface impoundments
Treatment:
Waste piles ..
Surface impoundments
Disposal:
Landfite
Land treatment ._
Surface impoundments
Underground injected—
Total
Vol-
ume
76
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Roles 48473
standards expressed either as
concentration limits based on the
performance of the BDAT, or as a
specific treatment technology. When a
treatment standard is expressed as a
concentration limit, a specific treatment
method is not required to achieve that
concentration level. However, the BDAT
(and technologies that EPA finds
perform comparably), as discussed in
section III.A., were used as the basis for
determining available capacity. When
the treatment standard is expressed as a
specific technology (rather than a
concentration limit), that technology
must be used.
Table III.B.1.(b) REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE
COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING
CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DISPOSED
WASTES
[Million gaHorw/year]
Wa*!t coda •
First Third Cods
F008
F018...
K004 „
KO17-..,...,,,. ,,, ,
K021 ,„, .
K035..
K071
K073.™
K064.™.
K085
K106
P001 ™ ...
P004...
POOS..™™™ „
P010. .
P011 ,„
P012...... .
P015.™,,«™_._™._._...._.™ _...
pozo 777777777777777777
P037... .
P048 .
P050 .,.„.,
P058 ™.™... _
P069 ""'17 '17.7.77!
P070,.«, ., ,..,.
P081 ;,;, , . -
PCS?
P092 L .777; — Z™"Z77
P105 „.„.„„... ™..._
Pt08 ,,„..,.,. ,
P115 , „. ,„ „.
P120 _. „
P123 «.
U007
U009. . „
U010
U012, . .
U019.™™.... .
U022 ™™ „. .
U029.™,™.™,,,....... „ „...
0031 „ .
U03S „
U037, ... „
U043,.™ ™«
U044,,..,™~
UOSO.... J
Capacity
required for
surface-
disposed
wastes
VV V V V VV VVVVV VVVVVV VVVVV VVVVV VVVVV VV VVVVVV V
Table III.B.t.(b) REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE
COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING
CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DISPOSED
WASTES— Continued
[Million gallons/year]
Waste code
U051
U061 _
U066
U067
U077
U078 _
U103
U105
U108
U122 _
U129
U133... .
U134
U151
U158
U177 „ .-..
U180
U185 „
U188
U192
U209.. ..
U210
U211
U219
U220
U226..._
U227
U228.
U237
U238
U248
U249 „.._ _ _
Second Third Code
F024 _
K1 05
P002 „ .
P003
P014
P066
P067
1)002
U003
UOOS
U008
U014
U021
U032
U047
U057. .„
U070
U073
U060 _
U083 . .
U092
U093 i „
U101 „
U106
U109
U114 i _
U1 16 _
U119 . .
U127
U131
U140.
U142 _
U144
U146
U147
Capacity
required for
surface-
disposed
wastes
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
^0.1
^0.1
^0.1
0.3
0*3
<0.1
<0.1
o!i
2.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
-------
48t?l Ffcftmrf ttagftfet / Vol. 84. K». 2M / Wednesday. Neremfecr 22, JS8S
Table Hf.B.t.(bf REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE
COMMERCJAt TRCATMENT/RECYCtlNG
CAPACtTY F0« SUflFACE-DlSPOSED
WASTES—Continued
[Milton gallons/year]
Waste code
U117 _
U118
U120 :
U121
U123
U125
U126
U148
U156 . .
U167
U181
U182
U201 . .
U202
U204 „
U225
U234
U240
U247
Leachate.
Capacity
required for
surface-
disposed
wastes
<01
<0 1
<-0 1
<0 1
<0 1
^01
<-Q 1
*'0 1
<~O 1
f'O 1
<0 1
<-0 1
t>>r\ i
t>n 1
^A *
«"O 1
<-*O 1
<0 1
^•01
345
The TSDR Survey contains data on
specific treatment processes at facilities.
The data enable EPA to identify specific
BDAT treatment (and treatment that
EPA has determined 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 BDAT standard, which has been
developed such that a well-designed and
well-operated BDAT treatment process
should be capable of meeting it.
EPA is concerned that there may be
insufficient incineration capacity to
treat the sludge and solid hazardous
wastes that must be incinerated to meet
BDAT standards. To establish criteria
for differentiating between a liquid and
a solid waste as it pertains to the
adequacy of existing incineration
capacity, EPA examined the way in
which these materials are fed Into
combustion systems. Solids are typfctrfly
fed in a containerized form or thmugh
an auger system. Liquid* are itemized
and fed through burners or-nozzles
(sometimes referred to aa feed guns).
Some facilities burn sludges that are not
handled as either solids or liquids in the
conventional feed mechanisms
mentioned above. Sludges are typically
fed to an incinerator by pumping them
through a lance (i.e., essentially an
open-ended pipe).
EPA considers sludges to be solids in
the context of the adequacy of existing
incineration capacity. Sludges are
pumpable but generally not atomizable.
As such, the key to differentiating
between solid and liquid feed materials
is whether or not the feed material can
be atomized.
The Agency believes that viscosity of
the waste can be used to determine if it
can be atomized. Wastes with a
viscosity of greater than 1500 to 2500
eentipoise are generally considered too
viscous to be atomized. Given that a
waste with high viscosity can be
blended with a waste with low viscosity
so that the mixture can be atomized, the
Agency is proposing a viscosity
representing the high end of the range—
2500 eentipoise—to identify "non-liquid"
waste (i.e., wastes that cannot be
atomized).
The Agency considered other criteria
for distinguishing between liquid and
solid wastes with respect to how wastes
are fed into incinerators. Criteria such
as solids content, particle size, and salt
content of the waste were considered
but ultimately rejected. Although the
Agency recognizes that these waste
parameters are important factors in
incinerator design and operation, we
believe that viscosity alone is an
adequate parameter for the purpose at
hand. EPA requests comments on this
approach for differentiating between a
liquid and a solid waste as it pertains to
the adequacy of existing incineration
capacity.
With respect to variances based on
lack of solids incineration capacity, EPA
is only proposing to grant national
capacity variances for non-atonrizable
solids fas defined above). Thus, for this
purpose, EPA is proposing to further
subcategorize the wastewater and
nonwastewater treatabifity groups that
are used as the basis for treatment
standards. Only the nonatomizable
nonwastewaters would receive the
variance. This is because (for most
waste codes) there is ample treatment
capacity in liquid injection furnaces, and
in boilers and industrial furnaces, for
atomizable nonwastewaters. EPA
realizes that this approach is different
from and more sophisticated than that
utilized in previous rulemakings.
However, there is clearly no reason to
grant national capacity variances when
EPA can define a reasonable
subcategory for prohibited wastes for
which there exists treatment capacity.
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates
Table IIlB.l.(c) presents an estimate
of the volumes of wastes that will
require alternative treatment before
land disposal to comply with the
standards proposed 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 minus the amount
used in 1986; available capacity 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. First
Third wastes, and Second Third wastes.
In general, Table III.B.l.(c) indicates
that there is inadequate capacity for
certain technologies: combustion of
sludges and solids, mercury retorting,
thermal recovery, vitrification, and wet-
air oxidation. EPA requests information
on available treatment capacity for
these specific treatments.
TABLE lll.B.t.(c) REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT (INCLUDING RECYCLING) CAPACITY FOR SURFACE LAND-
DISPOSED WASTES
(Millions of gallons/yr.:]
Technology
Alkaline Chlorinattort...:
Alkaline Chlorination antf by Chemical Precipitation
Biological and Carton Adsorption .
Carbon Adsorption and 'Chemical Precipitation.
Chemical Oxidation and Chemical Precipitafon
Chemical Precipitation „
Chromium Reduction and Chemical Precipitation,
Combustion of Atomizable Liquids
Combustion of Sludge/Solids... .
Available
capacity
41
29
79
249
4
Required
capacity
4 6
<•* 1 0
6 °
66 5
16 3
52.7
Variance
No
No
No
No
Nrt
Yes.
-------
F««Und lUgtottr / VoL 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rale* 4J475
TABLE III.B.1.(c) REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT (IMCLUOIN& RECYCUNGI CAPACITY FOR SURFACE LAHQ-
DtspoSED WASTES—Continued
EMMoneofgaAm/yr-I
Technology
NtutraHzatJon " , ,
Secondary Sn>«iting,«»w.k««.«««...-« —~ ««....
SlnhiBTiHofi
Treatment of Raactivu and Chromium Reduction
VHriff union... .uu-. -.i-ii-i -,„„--,.--., -, ._
WeWMrCWdaHoiv, .. .„.,.,„.,„„„„„.,. ^, „-„-,„-, -
Wit-AJf OxJditkn and Carbon Adeorptton and Q*
Wat-Air Oxidation and Chemical Pntit&titon
Wtt'AJf OjkmJofx and CtvofrM'* R«dMqtiao
and Gnomical Prflcipftatioiv «_...«..-
capacity
<1.Q
36
3T
479
0
2
0
<1.0
<1JB
SUWfcWRY OF PROPOSED TWO-YEAR NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE FOR SURFACE UND-OlSPOSEO WASTES
riequind aHartnlM treatment technology
Th4frftaJ Ra^ovofv
11 JULHUUJtu,, ,
VIMiIcifen. . , M i
W*t*/Ur Oxkfition ...M, ....,,...
Waste eod»
* tcactiiMa
nooa , ,...,„„„„,
KQ71 . ...,,,,—
KT06— ~ - ~
y-U51 , .,
*D006 , ,,„,, ._
P0t5 — —
POA7 . .,.,,,.,„,-,
QQQ4 — — — -
D010 '•• ,—,........
ifom
KtOt
KtQ2 „-„-,-
P010 j ;u , ,,,, ,..,.,,
P0t2 .__.—.- » __..........
POM „, ,, , „ .,,, „
Pit* ..._...._ - — —
UT36
t|?04
(J205 -
FQt9 ___._.
Physical fwm
Nemvaatewatar.
Nonwaatawater.
Nonwastewater.
McmwajCowatcr.
Nomnaatamatac.
NomwaMwater.
Noowastewater.
Nom»aata«vahw,
Nonwaatowatet.
NonMStewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nomnaatawater.
Nomvastewate;.
Nonwasiawater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastwvatof.
Nofwustewater.
Nonwaatawater.
Nonwastewater.
Nuiiwaalewater.
Nonwaatowater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
> OOQ1 (JgnitabUa UqukJ* Mixed w» Sfutfoa* and SdfOQ.
* DOOS (Cadnium Bamriaa)u
(1) Halogenatedorganic wastes. This
treatability group includes halogenated
aliphatic*, halogenated pesticides and
chlorobenzenes, halogenated pke»dics.
brominated organics, and nMseeHaneoBS
halogenated organics. These treatability
group* will reqmre the following
technologies: imaneratron; incineration
and stabiKaationr stabitiuHon: and wet-
-------
48476 Federat Register 7 Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday* November 22. 1989 / Prososed Rule.
air oxidation or chemical oxidation and
carbon adsorption. Sufficient capacity
exists for treatment of the halogenated
organic wastes by these technologies;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes. (These wastes needing
alternative incineration capacity do not
need a variance, because there is
adequate capacity for all atomizable '
liquids as well as adequate capacity for
the small quantities for sludges and
solids in this category.) The following
sections present the waste codes and
the proposed treatment standards for
each of the halogenated organic waste
groups.
(a) Halogenated Aliphatics
K017—Heavy ends (still bottoms) from
the purification column in the
production of epichlorohydrin
, K021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst
from fluoromethane production
K028—1,1,1-Trichloroethane production
wastes
K029—Waste from the product steam
stripper in the production of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane
K073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste
from the purification step of the
diaphragm cell process using
graphite anodes in chlorine
production
K095—Distillation bottoms from the
production of 1,1,1 trichloroethane
K096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of 1,1,1-
trichloroe thane
U044—Chloroform
U074—l,4-Dichloro-2-butene
U076—1.1-Dichloroethane
U077—1,2-Dichloroethane
U078—1,2-Dichloroethylene
U079—1,2-Dichloroethylene
U080—Methylene chloride
U083—1,2-Dichloropropene
U084—1,3-Dichloropropene
U131—Hexachloroethane
U184—Pentachloroethane
U208—1,1,1.2-Tetrachloroethane
U209—1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
U210—Tetrachloroethylene
U211—Carbon tetrachloride
U226—1.1,1-Trichloroethane
U227—1,1,2-Trichloroethane
U228—Trichloroethylene
U243—Hexachloropropene
For the halogenated aliphatics,
incineration is the BOAT for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of K017. K073, K021 (organics), U044,
U074, U076, U077, U078, U079, U080,
U083, U084, U131. U184, U208, U209.
U210, U211, U226, U227, U228, and U243.
K021 (inorganics) nonwastewaters with
a high level of metal constituents also
require incineration and stabilization of
metal constituents as a BOAT.
Treatment standards were promulgated
for the wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of K028 in the Second Third rule;
however, today EPA is proposing
treatment standards for the metal
constituents in K028 nonwastewaters.
The treatment standards for these
wastes are based on stabilization. The
nonwastewater forms of K029, K095, and
K096 were promulgated in the Second
Third rule. Today, EPA is proposing
concentration standards for organics in
K029, K095, and K096 wastewaters
based on incineration. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of the
halogenated organic wastes; therefore,
EPA is not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for these wastes.
(These wastes needing alternative
incineration capacity do not need a
variance, because there is adequate
capacity for all atomizable liquids as
well as adequate capacity for the small
quantities for sludges and solids in this
category.)
(b) Halogenated Pesticides and
Chlorobenzenes
D012—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Endrin
13013—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Lindane
D014—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Methoxychlor
D015—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Toxaphene
0018—Characteristic of EP Toxic for 2,4-
D
D017—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
2,4,5-TP
K032—Wastewater treatment sludge
• from the production of chlordane
K033—Wastewater treatment scrubber
water from the chlorination of
cyclopentadiene in the production
of chlordane
K034—Filter solids from filtration of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the
production of chlordane
K041—Wastewater treatment sludge
from the production of toxaphene
K042—Heavy ends or distillation
residues from the distillation of
tetrachlorobenzene in the
production of 2,4,5-T
K085—Distillation of fractionation
column bottoms from the production
of chlorobenzenes
K097—Vacuum stripper discharge from
the chlordane chlorinator in the
production of chlordane
K096—Untreated process wastewater
from the production of toxaphene
K105—Separated aqueous stream from
the reactor product washing step in
the production of chlorobenzenes
P004—Aldrin
P037—Dieldrin
P050—Endosulfan
P051—Endrin
P059—Heptachlor
P060—Isodrin
P123—Toxaphene
U036—Chlordane, technical
U037—Chlorobenzene
U038—Chlorobenzilate
U060—ODD
U061—DDT
U070—1,2-DichIorobenzene
U071—1,3-Dichlorobenzene
U072—1,4-Dichlorobenzene
U127—Hexachlorobenzene
U128—Hexachlorobutadiene
U129—Lindane
U130—Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
U132—Hexachlorophene
U142—Kepone
U183—Pentachlorobenzene
U185—Pentachloronitrobenzene
U207—1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
U240—2,4-D salts and esters
U247—Methoxychlor
For the following halogenated
pesticides and chlorobenzenes, the
BDAT for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters is incineration: D012
D013, 0014, D015, D016, O017, K032,
K033, K034, K041, K042, K085, K097,
K098, K105, P004, P037, P050, P051, P059,
P060, P123, U036, U037, U038. U060,
U061, U070. U071, U072. U127, U128,
U129, Ul3a U132, U142. U183, U185,
U207, and U247.
For U240, the BDAT for
nonwastewaters is incineration as a
method; for wastewaters the BDAT is
wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation
and carbon adsorption or incineration
as methods of treatment. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of the
halogenated organic wastes; therefore,
EPA is not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for these wastes.
(c) Halogenated Phenolics
U039—p-Chloro-m-cresol
U048—2-Chlorophenol
U081—2,4-Dichlorophenol
U082—2,8-Dichlorophenol
For U039, U048, U081, and U082, the
BDAT for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters is incineration.
Sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of the halogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(d) Brominated Organics
P017—Bromoacetone
U029-r-Methyl Bromide
U030—4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
U066—l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
U067—Ethylene dibromide (BOB)
U068—Dibromomethane
U225—Bromoform
For U029, U030, U066, U067, U068, and
U225, incineration is the BDAT for
-------
/ VoL 5*. No. 224 f Wednesday, November 22. 1988 / Proposed Rales 48477
nonwasiewaters and wastewaters. For
PO17 Donwastewaten. &e BDAT is
incineration as a method of treatment •
For P017 wastewaters, wet-air
oxidation, biodegradation. chemical
oxidation, or incineration are the
§roposed methods of treatment
ufficient capacity exists for treatment.
of the halogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(e) Miscellaneous Halogenated
Organics
P01&—bis-(Chloromethyl) ether
P023—Chloroacetaldehyde
P024—p-Chloroaniline
P028—-Ho-Chlorophenyl) thiourea
P027—3-ChloropropionitriIe
P028—Benzyl chloride
P057—Fluoracetamide
P058—Fluoracetic acid sodium salt
P095—Phosgene
P118—Trichloromethanethiol
U(X»—Acetyl chloride
U017—Benza! chloride
U020—Benzenesulfonyl chloride
U024—bi9-(2-Chloro«thoxy) methane
U025—Dichloroelhyl ether
U026—Chloronspharine
U027—b!s-{2-ChlorotspropyI) ether
U033—Carbonyl fluoride
U034—Trichloroacetaldehyde
U041—n-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane
U042—2-CWoroethyl vinyl ether
U043—Vinyl chloride
U045—Methyl chloride
U04e—Chloromethy} methyl ether
U047—2-Chloronaphthalene
U049—*-Chloro-o-tonikHne
hydrochloride
U062—Diallate
U073—3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
U075—Dichlorodifluoromethane
U097—DimethylcarbaiBoyl chloride
U121—Trichloromonofluorome thane
U138—lodomethane
U156—Methyl chlorocarbonate
Ul58-4,4-Methylene-bis-{2-
chloroanilir.e)
U192—Pronamide
U222—o-Toluidine hydrochloride
For P016. P023, P02B, P027, P02S, P057.
P058, P095, P118, UOM, U017, UOZft
U026, U033. U034. UOtt. UM2, UO»
U049, U062, U097, U156, and U222. EPA
is proposing incineration as a method of
treatment for nonwastewaters and
incineration, wet-air oxidation and
carbon adsorption, or chemical
oxidation and carbon adsorption as
methods of treatment for wastewaters.
For wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of P024, U024, U025, U027. U043,
U045, U047, U073, U075, U121, U138.
U158, and U192, EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on
incineration.
In addition to the methods of
treatment proposed for U017, EPA is
proposing a treatment standard based
on incineration. EPA is. soliciting
comments concerning the options for
U017 and will make a decision, at a later
date. For the capacity analysis, the
alternative treatment technology for
U017 is incineration. Sufficient capacity
exists for treatment of the halogenated
organic wastes; therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
(2) Additional organic, wastes. This
group includes aromatic and other
hydrocarbons, polynuckar aromatic
hydrocarbons, phenolics, oxygenated
hydrocarbons and heterocyclics, organo-
nitrogen compounds, organo-aulfur
compounds, and Pharmaceuticals.
la today's proposed rule, EPA is
proposing incineration as BOAT for all
of the nonhalogenated organics
presented below. Sufficient capacity
exists for treatment of these
nonhalogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(a) Aromatics aad Other
Hydrocarbons
U019— Benzene
U055 — Cumene
U056 — Cyclohexane
U188— 1,3-Pentadiene
U220 — Toluene (methyl benzene)
U239— Xylenes (dimethyl benzene}
For U019, U220, and U2» wastes, EPA
is proposing to transfer standards based
on incineration for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. For U065. U068, and
U186 nonwastewaters. EPA is proposing
incineration as a method of treatment
For U055, U068. and U288 wastewaters,
EPA is proposing wet-air.oxidation or
chemical oxidation or biological
degradation followed by carbon
adsorption, or incineration as methods
of treatment for wastewaters. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of these
nonhalogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(b) Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
U005 — 2-AcetylaminoOuorene
U016 — Benz(c)acridine
U018 — Benz(a}anthracene
U022— Benso(a)pvrene
U05O— Chiysene
U051— Creosote
U063— D»benio(aJ»)anthracene
U064— lA7*Dibenzopyrene
U094— 7.12-Dimethvl benz(a)anthracene
U120— Fluoranthene
U157— 3-Methykhtoantnrene
U165—Naphthalene
For U005. U018, U022; U060* U083,
U120, U137, U157, and U165
wastewaters and aonwastewaters. EPA
is proposing incineration as a BDAT. For
U016, U064, and U094 wastes, EPA ia
proposing to require the use of
incineration as a method of treatment
for nonwastewaters and wet-air
oxidation and carbon adsorption or
chemical oxidation and carbon
adsorption, or biological degradation
and carbon adsorption, or incineration
as methods of treatment for
wastewaters. For the organics in U051
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, the
concentration standards are based on
incineration. EPA is also proposing
treatment standards for lead in U051.
These standards are based on
stabilization as die BDAT for
nonwastewaters and chemical
precipitation as the BDAT for
wastewaters. Sufficient capacity exists
for treatment-of these nonhalogenated
organic wastes; therefore. EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
Cc} Phenolics
P02O—2-sec-Butyl-4,&-dinitrophenol
* •{Dinoseb}
P034—2-cyclohexyl-4.6-dinitrophenol
P047—4,6-dinitrocresol and salts
P048—2,4-dinitrophenol
U062—Cresols
U101—2,4-Dimethyl phenol
U170—4-Nitrophenol
U188—Phenol
U201—Resorcinol
For P020, PO48, V052, U101, U170.
U188, and U201, EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on
incineration. For P034 and P047, EPA is
proposing to require the use of
incineration as a method of treatment
for nonwastewaters and wet-air
oxidation and carbon adsorption,
chemical oxidation and carbon
adsorption, or biodegradation and
carbon adsorption, or incineration as
methods of treatment for wastewaters.
Sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of these nonhalogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(d) Oxygenated Hydrocarbons and
Heterocyclics
P001—Warfarin (>3%)
P003—Acrolein
POOS—Allyl alcohol
P088—Endothall
P102—Propargyl alcohol
U001—Acetaldehyde
U002—Acetone
U004—Acetophenone
U008—Acrylic acid
-------
U031—n-Butanol
U053—Crotonaldehyde
U057—Cyclohexanone
U085—1.2,3,4-Diepoxybutane
U108—1,4-Dioxane
U112—Ethyl acetate
U113—Ethyl acrylate
U117—Ethyl ether
U118—Ethyl methacrylate
U122—Formaldehyde
U123—Formic acid
U124—Furan
U125—Furfural
U126—Glycidaldehyde
U140—Isobutanol
U147—Maleic anhydride
U1S4—Methanof
U159—Methyl ethyl ketone
U161—Methyl isobutyl ketone
U162—Methyl methacrylate
U166—1.4-Naphthoquinone
U182—Paraldehyde
U197—p-Benzoquinone
U213—Tetrahydrofuran
U248—Warfarin (<3%)
For U002, U004, U031. U057, U108,
U112, UU7, U118, U140, U154, U161,
U162. U166, and U197 wastes, EPA is
proposing treatment standards based on
the performance of incineration or fuel
substitution for nonwastewaters and
incineration for wastewaters. For P001.
P003, POOS, P088, P102, U001, U008, U053,
U085, U113, U122, U123, U124, U125,
U126, U147, U1S4. U182, U213, and U248
wastes, EPA is proposing to establish
incineration or fuel substitution as a
method of treatment for
nonwastewaters (unlike other wastes in
the additional organic wastes category,
this proposed standard does not
preclude the use of fuel substitution),
and wet-air oxidation, chemical
oxidation, or biodegradation and carbon
adsorption, or incineration as methods
of treatment for all wastewaters except
POOS. Treatment standards for P003
wastewaters are based on incineration.
Sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of these nonhalogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes. (These wastes needing
alternative wet-air oxidation and
incineration capacities do not need a
variance, because there is adequate
capacity for the small quantity of wastes
in this category.)
(e) Organo-Nitrogen Compounds
(i) Nitrogen Heterocyclic Compounds
POOS—4-Aminopyridine
P018—Brucine
P054—Aziridine
P067—2-Methylaziridine
U011—Amitrole
U148—Maleic Anhydride
U179—N-Nitrosopiperidine
U180—N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
U191—2-Picoline
U196—Pyridine
(ii) Amine and Amide Compounds
P046—alpha, alpha-
Dimethylphenethylamine
P064—Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester
U007—Acrylamide
U012 Aniline
U092—Dimethylamine
UllO—Dipropylamine
U167—l-Naphthylamine
U168—2-Naphthylamine
U194—n-Propylamine
U238—Ethyl carbamate
(iii) Aminated Diphenyls and
Biphenyls
U014—Auramine
U021—Benzidine
U091—3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine
U093—p-Dimethylaminoazobenzidine
U095—3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
U236—Trypan Blue
(iv) Nitriles
P069—Methyllactonitrile
P101—Propanenitrile
U003—Acetonitrile
U009—Acrylonitrile
U149—Malononitrile
U152—Methacrylonitrile
(v) Nitro Compounds
P077—p-Nitroaniline
U105—2,4-Dinitrotoluene
U106—2,6-Dinitrotoluene
U169—Nitrobenzene
U171—2-Nitropropane
U181—5-Nitro-o-toluidine
U234—sym-Trinitrobenzene
(vi) Nitroso Compounds
P082—N-Nitrosodimethylamine
P084—N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
Ulll—Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
U172—N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
U173—N Nitroso-di-n-ethanolamine
U174—N-Nitrosodiethylamine
U176—N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
U177—N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
U178—N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
For P077, P082, P1O1, U003, U009,
U012, U093, U105; U106. Ulll. U152,
U167, U168. U169, U172, U174. U179,
U180, U181, and U196 wastes, EPA is
proposing BDAT treatment standards
based on the performance of
incineration. For P008, P018, P048. P054,
P064. P067, P069, P084. U007, U011, U014.
U021, U091, U092, U095. UllO, U148,
U149, U171, U173, U178, U177, U178,
U191, U194. U234, U238, and U238
wastes, EPA is proposing to establish
incineration as a method of treatment
for nonwastewaters; for wastewaters,
the proposed BDATs are: wet-air
oxidation and carbon adsorption,
chemical oxidation and carbon
adsorption, biodegradation and carbon
adsorption, or incineration as methods
of treatment. Sufficient capacity exists
for treatment of these nonhalogenated
organic wastes; therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
(f) Organo-Sulfur Compounds
P002—1-Acetyl 2-thiourea
P014—Benzene thiol (Thiophenol)
P022—Carbon disulfide
P045—Thiofanox
P049—2,4-Dithiobiuret
P066—Methomyl
P070—Aldicarb
P072—l-Naphthyl-2-thiourea (Bantu)
P093—N-Phenylthiourea
P118—Thiosemicarbazide
U114—Ethylene bis-dithiocarbamic acid
U116—Ethylene thiourea
U119—Ethyl methane sulfonate
U153—Methane thiol
U193—1,3-Propane sulfone
U218—Thioacetamide
U219—Thiourea
U244—Thiram
For all of these organo-sulfur wastes,
EPA is proposing to establish
incineration as a method of treatment
for nonwastewaters and wet-air
oxidation and carbon adsorption,
chemical oxidation and carbon
adsorption, biodegradation and carbon
adsorption, or incineration as methods
of treatment for wastewaters. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of these
nonhalogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes. (These wastes needing
alternative wet-air oxidation and
incineration capacities do not need a
variance, because their is adequate
capacity for the small quantity of wastes
in this category.)
(g) Pharmaceuticals
P007—Muscimol (5-Aminoethyl 3-
isoxazolol)
P042—Epinephrine
P07S—Nicotine and salts
P108—Strychnine and salts
U010—Mitomycin C
U015—Azaserine
U035—Chlorambucil
U059—Daunomycin
U089—Diethyl stilbestrol
U090—Oihydrosafrole
U141—Isosafrole
U143—Lasiocarpine
U150—Melphalan
U155—Methapyrilene
U163—N-Methyl N-nitro N-
nitroquanidine
U164—Methylthiouracil
U187—Phenacetin
U200—Reserpine
U202—Saccharin and salts
U203—Safrole
U206—Streptozotocin
U237—Uracil mustard
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1389 / Proposed Rules 48423
For all of these pharmaceutical wastes
except UI41, U155, U187, and U203. EPA
is proposing to establish incineration as
a method of treatment for
nonwastewaters and wet-air oxidation
and carbon adsorption, chemical
oxidation and carbon adsorption, or
biodegradation and carbon adsorption,
or incineration as methods of treatment
for wastewaters. For U141, U155, U187,
and U203, EPA is proposing BOAT
treatment standards based on the
performance of incineration for
waslewaters and nonwastewaters.
Sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of these nonhalogenated organic wastes;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(3) Ignitable, corrosive, and reactive
characteristic wastes, and reactive U
and P wastes. This group includes
ignitable characteristic wastes (D001).
corrosive characteristic wastes (D002),
reactive characteristic wastes (DQ03),
and potentially reactive P and U wastes.
(a] Ignitable Characteristic Wastes
(D001). EPA has identified four
treatabtlity groups for D001 wastes:
ignitable liquids, ignitable reactives,
oxidizers, and Ignitable gases. For
ignitable liquids, EPA is proposing,
incineration, fuel substitution, or
recovery as a method of treatment,
rather than proposing numerical
standards. EPA believes that the
majority of these wastes are already
being either incinerated or reused as
fuel or recovered for reuse. Sufficient
treatment capacity exists for the DQ01
ignitable liquid wastes destined for
surface disposal; therefore, no capacity
variance is being proposed for them.
EPA notes, that there may be ,
inadequate treatment capacity for these
ignitable liquid wastes if fuel
substitution capacity were not
considered. Since it makes
environmental sense for ignitable
wastes to be used as fuel substitutes,
since final boiler and furnace RCRA air
emission permit standards should be in
place relatively soon (standards were
re-proposed on October 28,1989), since
ignitable wastes are likely to be
destroyed in such units, and because the
Agency believes it is important not to
grant a national capacity variance for
this waste treatabih'ty group (during
which time the wastes would most likely
be used as fuel substitutes anyway, or
be land-disposed], EPA believes it
preferable to include fuel substitution at
a method of treatment for these wastes.
However, significant volumes of D001
sludges and solids are being surface-
disposed. These wastes would require
incineration or reuse as fuel. Presently,
EPA believes that adequate capacity
does not exist for them. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to grant a two-year national
capacity variance only to the
subcategory of D001 sludges and soMds
(which is defined as having s viscosity
of greater than 2,500 centipoise)
requiring incineration or rense as fuel.
Planned capacity could possibly become
available by May 1990 for D001 ignitable
wastes. If planned facilities become
operational by May 1990, there may be
adequate capacity for these wastes and
a variance would not be needed. EPA
requests comments on the need for and
availability capacity for incineration of
non-atomizable sludges and solids as
well as comments on the use of a
subcategory of D001 waste based on
viscosity as the basis for granting a
national capacity variance.
EPA is proposing deactivation as a
method of treatment for D001 ignitable
reactive* and oxidizers. EPA has
determined that sufficient capacity
exists for these wastes; therefore, EPA is
not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for them.
For D001 ignitable gases. EPA is
proposing recovery or incineration of
vented ignitable gases as a method of
treatment. EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists for this waste fora;
therefore, EPA is not proposing a
national capacity variance for this
waste.
(b) Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
(D002). EPA has identified three
treatability groups for DOQ2 wastes;
acids, alkalines, and other corrosives.
For the acid and alkaline subcategories,
EPA is proposing neutralization as a
method of treatment. These wastes must
be treated with chemicals and
neutralized into an insoluble salt.
However, EPA is also considering the
use of recovery of acids Sot these
wastes, and EPA requests comments on
the current use o£ recovery of acids. By
definition, wastes in these subcategories
are liquids; therefore, based on the
minimum technology requirements for
surface impoundments and th« ban on
liquids in landfills, EPA believes that
few, if any, of these wastes are surface-
disposed. EPA believes sufficient
neutralization capacity does exist for
acid and alkaline D002 wastes that are
surface-disposed; therefore, EPA is not
proposing a national capacity variance
for them.
For the D002 other corrosives
category, EPA is proposing deactivation
as a method of treatment. These wastes
can be deactivated using chemical
reagents. In addition, EPA believes that
these wastes are generated sporadically
and in low volumes. Therefore, it is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for them.
(c) Reactive Characteristic Wastes
(D003). For D003 wastes, EPA has
identified five treatability groups:
reactive cyanides, explosives, water
reactivea, reactive sulfides, and other
reactives. For D003 reactive cyanides,
EPA is considering the transfer of
numerical standards from cyanide
wastes from electroplating, heat
treating, .or acrylonitrile production.
Although reactive cyanides account for
the majority of the quantity of D003
generated, EPA believes that most are
already being treated by alkaline
chlorination, wet-air oxidation, or
electro-oxidation. Furthermore, these
wastes are already restricted from
landfills by existing regulations (40 CFR
part 264.312,2&5.31Z). EPA believes *hat
sufficient capacity does exist for the
volume of surface-disposed D003
cyanide reactive wastes and is not
proposing a national capacity variance
for them.
For D003 reactive suifides, the Agency
is proposing to require chemical
oxidation and chemical precipitation.
alkaline chlorination and chemical
precipitation, or incineration and
chemical precipitation to insoluble
sulfates rather than proposing numerical
standards. EPA believes sufficient
capacity does exist for the volume of
surface-disposed D003 sulfide wastes
and is not proposing a national capacity
variance for them.
For D003 explosive wastes, the
Agency is proposing deactivation as a
method of treatment. Because these
wastes are already restricted from land
disposal by existing regulations and are
commonly burned and/or detonated
openly, EPA is not proposing to grant a
national capacity variance for their
surface disposal.
The proposed method of treatment for
D003 water-reactive wastes is also
deactivation. EPA believes that these
wastes are generated sporadically and
in low volumes and are not typically
land-disposed. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity'
variance for their surface disposal.
For other reactive D003 wastes, EPA
is proposing deactivation as a method of
treatment. EPA believes these wastes
could be incinerated or open detonated.
EPA believes that there is adequate
capacity for the treatment of small
volumes of these wastes that are
surface-disposed. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance to surface disposal
(d) Potentially Reactive P and U
Wastes. This subgroup includes the
following waste codes:
P006—Aluminum phosphide (R.T)
POOS—Ammonium picrate (R)
-------
48460
Renter / yoL 54. No. 224 / Wednssday. No^be, 22. tag, / Proved Rules
P015—Beryllium dust
P056—Fluorine
P068—Methyl hydrazine
P073—Nickel carbonyl
P081—Nitroglycerin (R)
P087—Osmium tetroxide
P096—Phosphine
P105—Sodium azide
P112—Tetranitromethane (R)
P122—Zinc phosphide (>10%) (R.T)
U023—Benzotrichloride (C.R.T)
U088—N,N-Diethylhydrazine
U096—a.a-Dimethyl benzyl
hydroperoxide (R)
U098—1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
U099—1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
U103—Dimethyl sulfate
U109—1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
U133—-Hydrazine (R,T)
U134—Hydrofluoric acid (C,T)
U135—Hydrogen sulflde
U160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
(R,T)
U189—Phosphorus sulfide (R)
U249—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
These wastes are either highly reactive
or explosive or are polymers that also
tend to be highly reactive.
For the purpose of BDAT
determinations, EPA has identified four
subgroups: incinerable reactive organics
and hydrazine derivatives {P009, P068,
P081. P112, U023, U086, U096, U098,
U099, U103, U109, U133, and U160);
incinerable inorganics (P006, P096, P105,
P122, U135, U189, and U249); fluorine
compounds (P056 and U134); and
recoverable metallic compounds (P015,
P073, and P087). For incinerable
organics, EPA is proposing to require the
use of thermal destruction (i.e.,
incineration) as a method of treatment
for nonwastewaters and carbon
adsorption or incineration as methods of
treatment for wastewaters, rather than
establishing numerical standards.
Because EPA believes sufficient
treatment capacity exists for the small
volume of surface-disposed incinerable
organic wastes (P009, P068, P081, P112,
U023, U086, U096, U098, U099, U103,
U109, U133. U160, and U186), EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for them.
For incinerable inorganic wastes, EPA
is proposing a standard based on
thermal destruction (i.e., incineration)
for nonwastewaters and chemical
oxidation followed by precipitation to
insoluble salts (rather than numerical
standards) for wastewaters. EPA
believes sufficient treatment capacity
does exist for the small volume of
surface-disposed incinerable metallic
wastes (P006. P096, P105, P122, U135,
U189, and U249) and is not proposing a
national capacity variance for them.
For fluorine compounds, P056 and
U134 nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
to require chemical precipitation *a a
method of treatment. For P056 and U134
wastewaters, EPA is proposing
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
that adequate treatment capacity exists
for these wastes and is therefore not
proposing to grant a capacity variance
for their surface disposal.
For recoverable metallic compounds
(P015, P073, and P087), EPA is proposing
recovery as a method, rather than
numerical standards. EPA has
determined that there is not enough
capacity available for the volumes of
these wastes. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to grant a capacity variance
for them.
(4) Metal Wastes. This group includes
arsenic, selenium, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, silver,
thallium, and vanadium wastes.
(a) Arsenic and Selenium Wastes.
D004—EP Toxic for arsenic
D010—EP Toxic for selenium
K031—By-product salts generated in the
production of MSMA and cacodylic
acid
K084—Wastewater treatment sludges
generated during the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic
compounds
K101—Distillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based
compounds in the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic
compounds
K102—Residues from the use of
activated carbon for decolorization
in the production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organo-arsenic compounds
P010—Arsenic acid
P011—Arsenic (V) oxide
P012-iArsenic (IB) oxide
P036—Dichlorophenylarsine
P038—Diethylarsine
P103—Selenourea
P114—Thallium selenite
U138—Cacodylic acid
U204-—Selenious acid
U205—Selenium disulfide
For arsenic and selenium
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
concentration standards based on
vitrification. The TSDR Survey indicates
that no commercial vitrification capacity
exists. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
grant a two-year capacity variance to all
of the surface-disposed arsenic and
selenium nonwastewaters listed above.
However, the Agency is requesting
information on commercial vitrification
capacity.
For arsenic and selenium
wastewaters, EPA is proposing
treatment standard* fer-whieh chemical
precipitation may be used as an
alternative treatment. The TSDR survey
indicates that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exists; therefore,
EPA is not proposing to grant arsenic
and selenium wastewaters a capacity
variance.
(b) Barium Wastes. For D005 and P013
barium wastes, EPA is proposing acid or
water leaching followed by chemical
precipitation as sulfate or carbonate or
stabilization as methods of treatment for
nonwastewaters, and a concentration
standard based on chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. EPA is
not reopening promulgated treatment
standards for cyanides in POM for
comment. Sufficient capacity exists to
treat surface-disposed D005 and P0i3
wastes. Therefore EPA is not proposing
to grant a national capacity variance for
these wastes.
(c) Cadmium Wastes. For D006
wastes, EPA is proposing treatment
standards for three categories: cadmium
batteries, wastewaters, and
nonwastewaters. For D006 cadmium
batteries, EPA is proposing thermal
recovery as a method of treatment For
D006 wastewaters, EPA is proposing
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. For D006
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing two
options: (1) Concentration standards
based on stabilization, and (2)
stabilization or recovery as a method of
treatment EPA believes that sufficient
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
cadmium nonwastewaters and
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for them. Because cadmium
batteries are land-disposed but there is
no capacity for thermal recovery, EPA is
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for cadmium batteries.
(d) Chromium Wastes. For D007
chromium waste and U032 (calcium
chromate) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
concentration treatment standards
based on chromium reduction and lime
or sulfide precipitation and sludge
dewatering. EPA believes sufficient
treatment capacity exists for the volume
of these wastes. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for them.
(e) Lead Wastes.
D008—EP toxic for lead
P110—Tetraethyl lead
U144—Lead acetate
U145—Lead phosphate
U146—Lead subacetate
For D008 high-concentration lead
wastes, EPA is proposing thermal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48481
recovery as a method of treatment for
nonwastewaters. For D008 low-
concentration lead wastes, EPA is
proposing treatment standards based on
stabilization for nonwastewaters. For
DOGS low-concentration
nonwastewaters containing significant
concentrations of organics, EPA is
proposing that these wastes be
prtilreated by incineration prior to
stabilization. For all U145 and D008
wastewatera, treatment standards are
proposed based on chemical
precipitation with lime or sulfide, and
sludge dewatering. For D008 lead acid
batteries, EPA is proposing thermal
recovery as a method of treatment. EPA
believes sufficient capacity exists for
surface-disposed D008 wastes.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for them.
EPA solicits comment, however, on
the need for a national capacity
variance for lead-bearing wastes that
are stored in land disposal units such as
piles before being resmelted. EPA has
limited information suggesting that
secondary lead smelters may use
storage piles for lead-bearing wastes
prior to smelting. This storage is a form
of land disposal under section 3004(k).
(A« noted earlier, however, batteries
themselves are containers and so
placement of a battery in a storage pile
is not land disposal under section
3004(k), any more than placement of a
55-gallon drum. The storage standards
for containers still apply to battery
storage areas, however. See 40 CFR part
266 subpart G.) Consequently, there
must be alternative storage (i.e., tanks or
no-migration piles) for these materials. ,
EPA therefore solicits comment on the
volumes of lead-bearing wastes that are
stored in land disposal units prior to
treatment by metal recovery facilities,
and the need for a national capacity
variance for such materials.
For P110, U144. U145, and U148. EPA
is proposing treatment standards based
on chemical reduction and precipitation
with lime or sulfide and stodge'
dewatering for waste waters, and
stabilization for nonwastewaters. For
P110, U144, U145, and U148
nonwastewaters containing significant
concentrations of organics, EPA is
proposing prelreatment by incineration
prior to stabilization. EPA believes
sufficient capacity exists for the small
volume of these wastes that are surface-
disposed: therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for them.
(f) Mercury Wastes.
D009—EP toxic for mercury
K071—Chlorine production wastes
K106—Wastewater treatment sludges
from the mercury cell process in
chlorine production
P065—Mercury fulminate
P092—Phenylmereuric acetate
U151—Mercury
For D009. K071, K106, P065, P092 and
U151 wastewaters, EPA is proposing
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. Mercury-bearing
wastewaters containing hexavalent
chromium may require chromium
reduction prior to treatment of the
mercury. Likewise, wastewaters
containing organics may require
chemical oxidation prior to treatment of
the mercury.
For K106 and U151, EPA is proposing
to establish a low mercury subcategory
and high mercury subcategory for
nonwastewaters. For the high mercury
subcategory, EPA is proposing roasting
or retorting as a method of treatment.
For the low mercury subcategory, EPA is
proposing concentration standards
based on acid leaching. Residues from
the acid leaching of the low mercury
subcategory may require thermal
recovery of mercury.
Treatment standards for K071
nonwastewaters were originally
promulgated in the First Third rule. EPA
is proposing to revise the standards for
the high mercury concentration
subcategory. For these high mercury
nonwastewaters, EPA is now proposing
roasting or retorting aa a method. For
the low mercury subcategory,
promulgated standards are unchanged.
For D009, P065, and P092
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
roasting or retorting as a method for
high mercury concentrations. If the
organic content'is too high for the
roasting or retorting, incineration would
be required as a pretreatment step for
these nonwastewaters.
EPA believes sufficient capacity
exists to treat the volume of all surface-
disposed mercury wastewaters. Thus,
EPA is not proposing to grant a variance
for them. Current data do not provide
sufficient information on the volume of
mercury wastes that contain high, and
low concentrations of mercury.
Although EPA does not have any data
on these mercury waste volumes, there
is no commercial acid leaching capacity
and there is insufficient mercury
retorting capacity for DOOfl, K071, K106,
P065, P092. and U151 nonwastewaters.
Thus, EPA is proposing to grant a two-
year national variance for mercury
nonwastewaters.
(g) Silver Wastes. Treatment
standards for P099 and P104
nonwastewaters were promulgated in
the Second Third final rule. For D011,
P099, and P104 wastewaters, EPA is
proposing concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. For
D011 nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
two alternatives: (1) A concentration
standard based on stabilization; or (2)
recovery or stabilization as a method of
treatment. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
D011. P099, and P104 wastes. Therefore.
EPA is not proposing a capacity
variance for them.
(h) Thallium Wastes.
P113—Thallic oxide
Pll4—Thallium selenite
P115—Thallium (I) sulfate
U214—Thallium (I) acetate
U215—Thallium (I) carbonate
U216—Thallium (I) chloride
U217—Thallium (I) nitrate
For treating P113, P115, U214, U215,
U216, and U217, EPA is proposing
recovery or stabilization as a method of
treatment for nonwastewaters and
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation and filtration for
wastewaters. For P114, EPA is proposing
stabilization or vitrification for
nonwastewaters, and concentration
standards based on chemical oxidation
followed by chemical precipitation and
filtration for wastewaters. Based on the
TSDR Survey, adequate capacity exists
for surface-disposed thallium
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for thallium wastewaters. No
commercial capacity exists for
vitrification; therefore, EPA is proposing
to grant P114 nonwastewaters a national
capacity variance. Capacity is available
to treat other thallium nonwastewaters;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
other thallium nonwastewaters a
national capacity variance.
(i) Vanadium Wastes.
P119—Ammonium vanadate
P120—Vanadium pentoxide
For treating these wastes, EPA is
proposing thermal recovery or
stabilization as a method of treatment
for nonwastewaters, and concentration
standards based on chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. Although
no commercial vanadium recovery
capacity has been identified, adequate
stabilization capacity exists for treating
P119 and P120 nonwastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a two-year national capacity variance
for P119 and P120 nonwastewaters.
Adequate capacity exists for chemical
precipitation, and therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant P119 and P120
wastewaters a national capacity
variance.
-------
4MJg
(5) Specific Treaiabiliiy Groups. These
groups iadude wastes from pigment
production {£002 through KOOJ); cyanide
wastes (FGOa F019, KOlt K013, K014,
P031. PQ33, U246); K01S; gases {P076,
P078, U115); K086; F002 and FOB; K022.
K025, K026, K035, and K083; KG38-and
K037; F024 and F025; 10)44. KD45, K046,
K047; K060; K061; K069: KlOO wastes;
and K048 through K052.
(a) Cyanide Wastes. For F006
wastewaters, EPA is proposing BOAT
treatment standards based on alkaline
chlorination for cyanides and chemical
reduction and precipitation with lime
and sulfide and sludge dewatering for
metals. EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed F006 wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing a
variance for them.
Treatment standards for FOtt
wastewatert ace based on the
performance of wet-air «
incineration far
ititeentsand
cyanides. Treatmest standard far metals
in wastewaters are baaed oa caronnmi
reduction, chemical precipitation with
lime and salfide. and stodge dewatering.
Treatment standards for the
nonwastewaters are based OH the
performance of wet-atr oxidation for
cyanides and stabUizaUoa for metal*.
EPA believes that inadequate capacity
exists for wet-air oxidation: therefore,
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
variance to F019 nonwastewaters.
Because sufficient wet-air vxidatian
capacity exists to treat the FM8
wastewatera, EPA is not proposing to
grant a national capacity variance for
F019 wastewaters.
Treatment standards for the surface
disposal of nonwastewater forms of
K011. JC013, and K014 were promulgated
in the Second Third rule. For KB11. KQ13.
and KOI 4 wastewaters, EPA is
proposing BOAT treatment standards
based on wet-air oxidation. The TSDR
Survey shows that sufficient capacity
exists for the volume of surface-
disposed K011, K013. and ROM
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is sat
proposing to grant a capacity variance
for them.
For tne P and U wastes *^-^»^4ng
cyanide. P031 (Cyanogen). POM
(Cyanogen chloride), and U24t
(Cyanogen bromide), EPA is proposiag
incineration or alkaline chtoriBatkm as
methods for both wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. EPA has determined
that sufficient capacity exists to treat
these wastes; therefore, EPA is not
proposing to graat a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
(b) F024andF025 Waste*. EPA
promulgated standards for F034
wastewaters and noawMtewaiecs MLta*
Second Third rule based on rotarj kaVa
---— !•••»»»•»•» •.*<• ii i jvawiai i 1 ^TffifTIa nT
chemical precipitation and vacuum
filtration for metal constituents ia
wastewaters. Today, EPA is proposing
stabilization as the BOAT for treatment
of metal constituents in F024
nonwastewaters. The TSDR Survey
indicates that adequate treatment
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed FQ24 nonwastewaters
requiring treatment Therefore, EPA is
not proposing to grant a capacity
variance for them. However, the
standard for F024 includes a standard
for dioxins. There is concern that there
may not be adequate capacity for these
wastes, because facilities may not be
accepting wastes that must meet a
dioxin standard. EPA is soliciting
comments on the need for and the
availability of capacity for F024,
including information on capacity
needed and available to meet dioxin
standards.
Although listing of FQ25 waste
(condensed light ends, spent alters and
filter aids, and spent dissicant wastes
from the production of certain
chlorinated aliphatics) has not been
promulgated as a KCRA hazardous
waste, EPA believes that promulgation
of the listing for P02S wnl occur prior to
the promulgation of the Third Third final
rule. Most generators already treat FOBS
as if it were hazardous, and some
*•*• " »» ">-**•* «A««MUUtSUQt (UIU Ol/illC
facilities comingle F024 andPfteS. Today
EPA ia proposing concentration
treatment standards for aB categories of
F025 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
The BOAT for P025 wavtevrater and
nonwastewater Hght ends, spent niters,
filter aids and desvicantais incineration.
EPA has determined that no alternatite
treatment capacity is needed for ¥OK
wastes. Therefor*, EPA is not proposing
to^rant these wastes * national
capacity variance.
(c) Wastes from Inorganic Pigment
Production. EPA is proposing to revoke
the no land disposal standard previously
promulgated for KOM, fCOOS, K007, and
KOOB noBwvstevnBters. EPA is proposing
BD AT based on chromwjm redaction
and precipitation and filtration for K002,
K003, K004. Koes, KOOB. K007. and K06»
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
believe* mat sufficient capacity exists
for surface-disposed K002. K003. K094,
K005, K096. K007, and KOOB wMtewaters
and nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is
not proposing tofrant a capacity
variance for then.
(dj KOlS Wastes. EPA is proposing te-
revoke the no land disposal baaed cm no
generation standard previously
promulgated for K015 (beattyt cUwid*
distillation wastes) aorantstewatee*
becaaae of tbo reported geMEa4te»«f
ash containing tUa mate.
^aar this waste, EPA is
proposing treaauect standard* for five
organic and two metal constituent*.
Tieaiste«t rtaadarde for the organic
constituent* are based on a transfer of
the performance data of incineration for
similar wastes. Treatment standards for
metal constituents are based on a
transfer of the performance of
stabilization of incraeratar ash for
similar wastes. These technologies both
have available capacity: therefore. EPA
is not proposing a variance for K015
nonwastewaters.
(e) K022, K025, K02S, KO35, and K083
Wastes. EPA promulgated treatment
standard* for KQ22, K025 and K083
nonwastewaters ia the First Third rule.
For organic* in KQ22 wastewaters and
naawastewaters, EPA is proposing
treatment standard* based on
incineration. For metals in K022
wastewaters, EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on chemical
precipitation. Alternatively. EPA is
proposing KOZ2 treatment standards
expressed as methods of treatment
For KQ2S nonwastewaters, EPA is
revising the freatment standard of no
land disposal based on no generation.
For $025 wastewaters, EPA is proposing
concentration treatment standards for
organics based on Iiquid4iq*id
extraction aad steam stripping and
carbon adsorption. The proposed
treatment standards for K025
nonwastewaters are based en
ineineratio*. Alternatively, EPA is
proposing to require these methods of
treatment as a prerequisite for land
disposal of K025 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Incineration of K02S
wastewaters is also proposed as an
equivalent method of treatment for K02S
wastewaters.
For JC828 and K035, the treatment
standards for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are based on
incineration. Alternatively, EPA is
proposing to require incineration as a
prerequisite for land disposal of K026
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
is revising the standard of no land
disposal for KOSS nonwastewaters. For
organics identified in K083 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on
incineration, For metals in K083
wastewaters, EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on chemical
precipitation, For metals in K083
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
treatment standards based on
stabilization. Alternatively, EPA is
proposing K083 treatment standards
expressed as methods of treatment.
EPA believea-tfeat adequate capacity
exists far fOOZ wastewaters, K02S
-------
EffderalRagufiK / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rute*
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, K028
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, K035
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, and
K083 wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
and therefore, EPA is not proposing to
grant these wastes a capacity variance.
(f) K038 andK037 Wastes. EPA
promulgated a treatment standard of no
land disposal based on no generation for
K038 nonwastewaters in the First Third
rule. EPA also promulgated treatment
standards based on incineration for
K037 wastewaters and nonwastewaters
in the First Third rule. Today, EPA is
proposing revised treatment standards
for the nonwastewater form of K038
(still bottoms from toluene reclamation
distillation in the production of
disulfoton) and the wastewater form of
K037 (wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of disulfoton). EPA
is proposing to transfer the
concentration standards from K037
nonwastewaters based on incineration
to other forms of K036 nonwastewaters
(e.g., K038 spill residues). EPA believes
that adequate capacity exists for these
surface-disposed K038 nonwastewaters.
Therefore. EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for them.
For K037 wastewaters, EPA is
proposing a revised concentration
standard from one based on rotary kiln
incineration to one based on biological
treatment EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists for surface-disposed
K037 wastewaters: therefore, EPA is not
proposing a capacity variance for them.
(g) K044, K045. K048. K047 wastes. For
K044. K045, and K047, EPA is proposing
to revoke the no land disposal based on
reactivity standard promulgated in the
First Third rule. EPA is proposing
deactivation as a method of treatment
for wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
EPA believes adequate capacity exists
to treat these wastes; therefore, EPA is
not proposing to grant them a national
capacity variance.
In the First Third rule, EPA
promulgated treatment standards based
on stabilization for K046 nonreactive
nonwastewaters. Today EPA is
proposing standards for K046 reactive
nonwastewaters based on stabilization.
For K046 reactive wastewaters, EPA is
proposing the use of deactivation and
chemical precipitation, settling, and
filtration as a BOAT. For K046 non-
rcactives wastewaters, EPA is proposing
chemical precipitation, settling and
filtration for wastewaters as a BOAT.
EPA believes that adequate capacity
exists for these wastes and, therefore,
EPA is not proposing to grant them a
national capacity variance.
(h) K060 Wastes. Today EPA is
proposing to revoke the no land disposal
based on no generation standards
promulgated for K060 nonwastewaters
in the First Third rule. For K060
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
incineration as the BOAT. EPA is
proposing BOAT standards for K060
wastewaters based on biological
treatment. For K060 arsenic
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
BOAT standards based on vitrification.
EPA believes that adequate capacity
exists for the volume of surface-
disposed K060 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters requiring treatment.
Therefore, it is not proposing to grant a
capacity variance for them.
(i) K061 Wastes. In the First Third
final rule, EPA promulgated treatment
standards for K061 nonwastewaters. In
this rule, two subcategories for
nonwastewater forms of K061 were
defined. The low zinc subcategory (less
than 15 percent) and the high zinc
category (greater than 15 percent) were
defined as separate treatability groups.
BOAT for the low zinc subcategory was
based on the performance of
stabilization. For the high zinc
subcategory, the final standard was "No
Land Disposal Based on High
Temperature Metals Recovery as a
Method of Treatment" technology.
Today, EPA is proposing to revise the
promulgated treatment standard for the
high zinc subcategory to be resmelting in
a high temperature zinc metal recovery
furnace. For the First Third final rule,
K061 nonwastewaters were granted a
national capacity variance. Today's
proposed refinement in the treatment.
standard does not change the schedule
for the capacity variance for K061
nonwastewaters.
Today, EPA is proposing the BDAT
standard based on chromium reduction
and chemical precipitation with lime
and sulfide and sludge dewatering for
wastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed K061 wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a variance for them.
(j) K069 Wastes. Today. EPA is
proposing to revoke the no land disposal
based on recycling standard
promulgated in the First Third rule for
the non-calcium sulfate subcategory for
K069 nonwastewaters. For calcium
sulfate nonwastewaters, EPA is
proposing a standard based on the
performance of stabilization. For non-
calcium sulfate nonwastewaters, EPA is
proposing recycling as a method of
treatment. For wastewaters, EPA is
proposing a BDAT standard based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
adequate capacity exists to treat the
volume of surface-disposed K069
wastewaters and nonwastewaters:
therefore, EPA is not proposing a
capacity variance for them.
(k) Revisions to K088 Wastes. EPA
promulgated treatment standards for
K088 solvent washes in the First Third
Rule based on incineration and
stabilization of ash for nonwastewaters
and incineration and chromium
reduction, chemical precipitation and
filtration for wastewaters. Today EPA is
proposing to revise these standards and
propose standards for the caustic
sludges and water sludges
subcategories. EPA is proposing
treatment standards for all K086
wastewater and nonwastewater wastes
based on incineration for organics and
chromium reduction, followed by excess
lime precipitation, and filtration for
metals. As a "worst-case" analysis. EPA
included in the capacity analysis
conducted for First Third wastes all of
the K086 wastes identified in the TSDR
Survey. Consequently, no additional
capacity will be required by today's
proposal, and no capacity variance is
being proposed for K086 wastes.
(1) K10O Wastes. ForKlOO
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing to
revoke the no land disposal based on no
generation standards promulgated in the
First Third rule. Today, EPA is
proposing treatment standards based on
stabilization for nonwastewaters and
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
EPA believes adequate capacity exists
to treat the volume of surface-disposed
K100 wastes. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing a capacity variance for them.
(m) Gases. This treatability group
includes the following groups: P076
(Nitric oxide), P078 (Nitrogen dioxide).
and U115 (Ethylene oxide). For P076,
P078, and U115 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is proposing
recovery as a method of treatment. EPA
believes that these wastes are generated
as gases and industry typically reuses or
recovers compressed gases directly.
EPA also believes that these gases are
not land disposed. Although no
commercial capacity exists for recovery
of these gases, EPA is not proposing to
grant a national capacity variance for
these wastes, because the Agency
believes- these wastes will not require
commercial alternative treatment.
(n) Revisions to Petroleum Refining
Wastes (K048-K052J. For the First Third
rule, EPA promulgated treatment
standards for K048 through K052 based
on data from incineration, solvent
extraction, and treatment of the metals
in wastewater and nonwastewater
residuals. Today. EPA is proposing
additional treatment standards based on
a revaluation of the data and is
proposing that these revised standards.
-------
with five exceptions, take effect exactly
one year following tke Third Third
rulemakiag proraolfatioa date. The five
exceptions, whose standards have been
increased based on the revised data are:
benzo (a) pyrene, ortho and para
cresols, di-n-butyl phthakte, and
phenol. For these exceptions, EPA is
proposing that the new standards
become effective on August 8,1990,
when the capacity variance issued on
K048 through K052 wastes expires.
EPA is proposing treatment standards
for cyanide K048 through K052
wastewaters based on incineration. EPA
is also proposing BDAT concentration
standards for organics hi K048 through
K052 nonwastewaters based on solvent
extraction. The Agency is not proposing
revisions to promulgated BDAT
treatment standards for wastewater
constituents in K048 through K052
wastewaters, other than cyanide, nor for
any metal constituents in the K048
through K052 wastewaters or
nonwastewatera. The Agency has only
revised the concentration-based
treatment standards for K048 through
K052 nonwastewaters; EPA has not
reevaluated the selection of solvent
extraction and incineration as BOAT for
organics in nonwastewaters. Because
the capacity analysis was conducted for
these wastes in the First Third rule and
the technologies needed to achieve
BDAT treatment standards are not being
revised. EPA did not reevaluate the
alternative capacity requirements for
K048 through KD52 wastes.
(o) Additional Treatment Standards
for F002 and FOOS Wastes. Treatment
standards for F002 and FOOS were
promulgated in the Solvents and Dioxins
rule. Today EPA is proposing revisions
to the treatment standards for F002 and
FOOS to account for four newly listed
F002 and FOOS constituents. The BDAT
for wastewaters is based on biological
treatment, and liquid-liquid extraction
and steam stripping and carbon
adsorption. The BDAT for
nonwastewaters is based on
incineration. The Agency believes that
adequate treatment capacity exists for
these wastes and therefore, EPA is not
proposing a national capacity variance
for these wastes.
(p) Capacity Determination for Multi-
Source Leachate—(1) Definition and
Applicability. EPA defines multi-source
leachate as leachate that is derived from
the treatment, storage, disposal, or
recycling of more than one listed
hazardous waste. Under today's
proposed rule, such leachate will be
restricted from land disposal Residues
from treating such leachate, as well as
residues such as soil and ground water
that are contaminated by sack t^ari"^.
are also restricted Eton land ^«p»««>t
under this rate. Leachate deriving torn a
single source must meet the standard
developed for fee waste code from
which it is derived: therefore, such
leachate is not subject to the standards
developed for multi-source leachate.
(EPA is also soliciting comment on
modifying the definition of multi-source
leachate.)
(2) Previous Treatment Standards.
EPA originally imposed a land disposal
restriction on multi-source leachate
under the First Third of the land
disposal restrictions (LDRs). Under the
LDRs, multi-source leachate would have
to be treated to satisfy all the standards
applicable to the original wastes from
which the leachate is derived (see 53 FR
31146-150 (August 17,1988)), EPA
revisited the issue of treatability of
multi-source leachate to address
concerns raised by die hazardous waste
management industry, and rescheduled
promulgation of a land disposal
restriction for multi-source leachate to
the Third Third of the LDRs in order to
fully study the most appropriate section
3004(ia) treatment standards for raidti-
source leachate (see 54 FR.82B4 fjaaaary
27.1989)). Leachate derived from
disposal of the listed dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes and California list
wastes were not rescheduled.
(3) Proposed Treatment Standard*. In
section 7.b of mis preamble, EPA is
proposing two options for the
development of treatment standard* for
multi-source leachate. Under the fast
option, EPA would continue the
application of the carry-through
principle under which malti-source
leachate must meet the standards
established for all die waste codes from
which it is derived. Under the second
option. EPA would establish one set of
wastewater standards and one set of
nonwastewater standards for malti-
source leachate; these standards would
also apply to residuals derived from the
storage, treatment or disposal of multi-
source leachate. For treating multi-
source leachate in die form of
wastewater, EPA is considering
recommending the treatment of
wastewaters by wet-air oxidation or
biological treatment, followed by carbon
adsorption, or incineration. For
nonwastewaters derived from treating
multi-source leachate, EPA is
considering a treatment standard based
on incineration for organic constituents
and on stabilization for metals.
(4) Determination of Volumes
Requiring Alternative Treatment or
Recovery Capacity. EPA relied
primarily on data from the TSDR Snnrey
and fram tfae GgH°mtiT Survey to
determine whether sufficient alternative
treatment or wee very capacity is
available for multi-source leachate.
Multi-source leachate is primarily
generated in landfills. All the active
regulated facilities generating and
managing leachate are accounted for in
the TSDR and Generator Surveys
because (1) the TSDR Survey is a census
of all the hazardous waste treatment,
storage, disposal, and recycling facilities
in the country; and (2) the Generator
Survey, white it is a sample of
hazardous waste generators, includes
every facility that responded to the
TSDR Survey.
EPA recognizes that multi-source
leachate can also be generated at closed
facilities. However, only sparse data
characterizing leachate currently exist
for those facilities and how much is
presently land-disposed in surface
disposal units. The Agency requests
comments on the characterization of
multi-source leachate at closed facilities
and how mnch is presently land-
disposed hi surface disposal units.
EPA also welcomes the submission of
current data from interested parties on
the volumes of multi-source leachate
generated, the current management of
such leachate, the amount of residuals
generated, and the waste constituent
composition of multi-source leachate.
In addition to data from the TSDR and
Generator Surveys, EPA examined data
submitted as part of a leachate study
plan by four major companies managing
hazardous wastes at 17 facilities. These
companies included Chemical Waste
Management (CWM)/Waste
Management of North America
(WMNA), Browning Ferris Industries
(BFIJ/CECOS, DuPont, and Dow
Chemical.
Based on evaluation of this
information, EPA estimated volume of
multi-source leachate requiring
alternative treatment or recovery. EPA
recognizes that the actual total quantity
of multi-source leachate generated,
managed, and land-disposed may be
much larger than the volumes reported
in the surveys upon which this analysis
is based. Consequently. EPA welcomes
comments by interested parties on the
current generation, management, and
land disposal of multi-source leachate.
(5) Determination of National
Variances for Multi-Source Leachate.
EPA analyzed the alternative treatment
or recovery capacity for two categories
of multi-source leachate: wastewaters
and nonwastewaters.
Treatment standards for wastewaters
are based on wet-air oxidation and
carbon adsorption, biodegradation and
-------
/ Vat 5S Mat 23* / Wi
carfaca idh •>[<••, imj tneineiaiioo Jar
conctiiocBii. treatotmt stasdanls ace
based on chemical pracipiiagsa. Gives
the very low volumes of surface-
disposed multi-source leachate
wastewalers and the adequate capacity
to treat these wastes using the above
treatment technologies, EPA w not
proposing to grant a variance for
surfaceMiisposed multi-source leachate
wastewaters.
Treatment standard* for
nonwastevvatera are based orr
Incineration as a method for wastes
containing organic constituents, and on.
stabilization for wastes containing
inorganic constituents. EPA is proposing
to grant a two-year variance for surface-
disposed multi-source leachate
nonwastewaters in the form of non-
atomizable sludges and solids, because
there is insufficient incineration
capacity for these wastes. However,
EPA is not proposing- to grant a national
capacity variance to nonwastewater
multi-source leachate in the form of
atomizable organic liquids became
there are very low volumes of such
wastes and there is sufficient capacity
for them.
(q) Capacity Determination for Mixed
Radioactive Wastes — fl) Background.
EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste. as any matrix
containing a RCRA hazardous waste
and a radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (S3 FR 37045, 3764S.
September 23, 1388). Regardless of the
type of radioactive constituents that
these wastes contain (e.g., high-level.
low-level. ortransuranic)kthey are
subject to RCRA hazardous- waste
regulations, including the hmd disposal
restrictions.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent solvents, dioxina, or
California list wastes are subject to the
land disposal restrictions already
promulgated for those hazardous.
wastes. EPA has determined, however,
that radtoactive wastes that are mixed
with First Third and Second Third
wastes will be included in the Third
Third rulemaking (40-CFR 288.12{c)}.
Thus, today's proposal addresses
radioactive wastes that contain First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third
wastes.
(2) Data Sources, The Department of
Energy (DOE) is a major generator of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. For
data on DOE wastes. EPA ased a data
set submitted by DOE. The data set,
which is based on a recent DOE survey,
contains information on mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste inventories,
generatroo rates, and existing and
planned treatment capacity at 2TDG&
facitttfes-.
A variety of non-DOE facilities aJse
generate mixed RCRA/radfoactive
wastes, including, nucfear power plants.
academic and medical institutions, and
industrial facilities. A variety of
information sources were used to
identify the non-DOE generators.
, estimate the quantities-and types of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes that
they generate, and determine current
management practices and treatment
capacity. Thess sources included the
TSDR Survey, the Generator Survey,
and other studies.
EPA believes that these sources
provide the best available information
on noa-DOE mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes. However, EPA is interested in
obtaining additional information on
their generation, characterization, and
management
(35 Determinations of National
Variances for Mixed RCRA/
Radioactive Wastes. After investigating
the data sources noted above, EPA
estimated that approximately 363
mHlion gallons of radioactive waste-
mixed with First, Second, and Third
Third wastes will require treatment
This volume includes wastes generated
annually as well as untreated wastes hi
storage and contaminated soit and
debris. EPA has also determined that
alternative treatment capacity is not
available for mixed RCRA/radioactl're
wastes. Consequently, EPA proposes to
grant a national variance for mixed
RCRA/radioective wastes. Although;
DOE has plans to- increase its capacity
to treat mixed RCRA/ radioactive.
wastes, data: supplied by DOE indicate
that DOE currently lacks, adequate
capacity to treat its mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. In addition,
adequate commercial treatment
capacity is not available. Thus, EPA has
determined that sufficient alternative
treatment capacity is not available and
i» proposing a two-year national
capacity variance for mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes.
EPA recognizes that its information on
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes
generated and managed by non-DOE
facilities may be incomplete.
Consequently, the Agency requests
comments by interested parties on the
current generation of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. Of particular
interest to EPA is information on
mixtures of radioactive wastes and
First Second, or Third Third waste
streams.
Z. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates, for
Underground Injected Waste. The
Agency is totfejr proposing, effective
dates farth* restriction* against the
undergnnanaV injection of virtually all
remaining BCRA section 30M(g} wastes,
including- chxtacteriatic wastes, for
which aa effective; dates have been set
EPA is not acting o» certain newly listed
or newly identified wastes. EPA solicits
comment on the volumes and
characteristics of the wastes
represented in (his section, as well as
any information on the characteristics
and volumes of any multi-source
leachate that is currently being injected.
a. Proposed Effective Date
Determinations for Wastes With
Treatment Standards Proposed in
Today's Rule
Consistent with the policy established
in previous land disposal restrictions,
the Agency is proposing to restrict on
MayS, 1990, trie anderground injection
of all wastes, with treatment standards
proposed in today's rule, that are not
currently being deepwell-injected. This
decision is- consistent with the intent of
RCRA ia moving hazardous wastes
away from disposal aad toward
treatment Wastes that are not currently
being deepwell-mfected are listed in
TaWeIH.a2.faJ.
The volumes of deepweH-iajected
wastes- that vequire alternative
commercial treatment and/or recycling
capacity are presented in Table
III.B.2.(b). Thi* table does not include
wastes tfret are currently being
deepweH-fnjeeted, and the facility has
an appropriate on-site alternative
treatment technology for treating the
waste.
The Agency m proposing effective
date determinahooe for all underground
injected wastes in treatability groups. If
there is adequate available alternative
treatment capacity for afl the injected
volume in a single treatability group.
then every waste ia that group will be
restricted from underground injection on
May 8,1990. if there is inadequate
available alternative treatment capacity
for the injected volume in a single
treatability gronp. then the Agency is
proposing to allocate as much of the
available capacity to the wastes
requiring treatment. All remaining
wastes in the treatability group, for
which no capacity exists, will receive a
two-year national capacity variance.
EPA believes this is most consistent
with Congressional intent, which both
favors treatment over disposal, and
minimal use of capacity variances. EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
approach. Table HI.B.2.(c) indicates the
amount of capacity available for treating
underground injected wastes, the
-------
4848ft Federal Register / -VoL 54. No.- 224 •/ Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
demand from these injected wastes on
each treatability group, and which
treatability groups require capacity
variances. More information on the
Agency's procedure for apportioning
treatment capacity in these treatability
groups can be found in the Third Thirds
Background Document for the
treatability groups.
TABLE III.B.2.(a)— WASTES (WITH PROPOSED
TREATMENT STANOARDS)THAT ARE NOT UN-
DERGROUND INJECTED
[Banned from underground injection on May 8,
19901
U071. U072, U075, U076. U079. U081, U082,
U084, U085, U090, U091. U096, U117, U120,
U121, U123, U125, U126. U132, U136, U139,
U141, U145, U148, U152, U153. U156. U166,
U167, U181, U182, U183, U184, U188, U187,
U191, U201, U202, U204, U207, U222, U225,
U234. U236, U240, U243, U247
Newly Listed Wastes:
F025
Tabfe III.B.2.(b) — REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE
COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECYCLING
CAPACITY FOR UNDERGROUND INJECT-
ED WASTES
[Million gallons/year]
Waste code
First Third Code:
F006
F019 _
K01 1
K013
K014
K031
K086
POOS
P011
P020
P048
POSO
P058
P059
P069 _
P102
P122
U007
U009. ™
U012
U019
U031
U037.
U044- _ __
U074
U 103 _
U134 „ _
U154 .
U157.
U1S9
U200
U210
U21 1 -
U220
U226 - -
Capacity
required for
underground
injected
wastes
5.0
<0.1
433.2
407.2
131.0
1.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
0.4
0.1
-------
Federal Register / Vd. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1£8» / Projpoaed Rutes
4M8?
TABLE III.B.2.(c)—REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT OMCLUBIMG RECYCLING) CAPACITY FOR UNDERGROUND
INJECTED-WASTES—Continued
Technology
/*»««*« .^IbM «* Afnm-MM* 1 H-MW4« . „ ,„„„,„„,._, u .,-._„„„.„-*.„—.—..-—.,...«—....«»«
TrMtnwnt ofRMCtivM aiid Chromkim Reduction arid Chemical Recipitfltiow«« ~
War..A»r n*ktifr«i anri £!*fhon Xf&oratton ± X1, Jiu..... ,...»...«....-.......-....-. —..———««—"T — » -
Wot-Ar OkJation Fottowtd by Chemical Precipitation •-•
Auattatate
capacity
339
T2
233
<.OT
13
• 329
<1
-------
48488 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989f / Proposed Rules
this type of treatment. The Agency is
proposing to grant a two-year treatment
capacity variance to the D002
wastewaters, restricting this waste from
underground injection on May 8,1992.
(10) Stabilization. For residuals
containing D005, D006, D007, DOOBa
[Lead-non-battery), D011, K002, P056,
U002, U032, U055, and U188, the
treatment standard being proposed is
based on stabilization. As shown in
Table III.B.2.(c), the 345 million gallons
per year of available capacity are
adequate to treat the quantity of
hazardous waste residuals requiring this
type of treatment. These residuals will
be restricted from land disposal on May
8,1990.
(11) Treatment ofReactives and
Chromium Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation. Treatment standards
based on treatment of reactives and
chromium reduction and chemical
precipiiation are today being proposed
for D003 (explosives/reactives). As
shown in Table III.B.2.(c). the less than 1
million gallons per year of available
capacity are inadequate to treat the
quantity of D003 (explosives/reactives)
waste annually deepwell-injected
requiring this type of treatment. The
Agency is proposing to grant a two-year
treatment capacity variance to this
waste, restricting D003 (explosives/
reactives) wastewaters from
underground injection on May 8,1992.
(12) Wet-Air Oxidation. K011, K013,
and K014, represent all of the
underground injected hazardous wastes
addressed in today's rule that are best
treated by wet-air oxidation. As shown
in Table III.B.2.(c), the less than 1 million
gallons of available capacity are
inadequate to treat the quantity of K011
wastewaters, K013 wastewaters, and
K014 wastewaters annually deepwell-
injected requiring this type of treatment;
therefore, EPA is proposing to grant a
two-year treatment capacity variance to
the wastewater forms of K011, K013, and
K014, restricting these wastes from
underground injection on May 8,1992.
(13) Wet-Air Oxidation And Carbon
Adsorption. For P058 wastewaters,
treatment standards based on wet-air
oxidation and carbon adsorption are
being proposed today. As shown in
Table III.B.2.(c), the less than 1 million
gallons of available capacity are
adequate to treat the quantity of P058
annually deepwell-injected requiring
this type of treatment; therefore, EPA is
not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for this waste.
(14) Wet-Air Oxidation And Chemical
Precipitation. Treatment Standards
based on wet-air oxidation and
chemical precipitation are today being
proposed for F019 wastewaters. As
shown in Table III.B.2.(c), the less than 1
million gallons of available capacity are
adequate to treat the quantity of F019
wastewaters annually deepwell-injected
requiring this type of treatment;
therefore, the Agency is not proposing to
grant a two-year treatment capacity
variance to F019 wastewaters,
restricting this waste from underground
injection on May 8,1990.
Table III.B.2.(d) summarizes the
wastes for which EPA isproposing to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance for underground injected
wastes.
b. A Request for Data on Underground
Injected K014 Nonwastewaters
EPA addressed the underground
injection of K011 and K013
nonwastewaters in the June 8,1989,
Second Third final rule. In that rule, a
two-year capacity variance was granted
due to the lack of alternative
incineration capacity (54 FR 26642).
Action of K014 nonwastewaters was
deferred so that the Agency could
evaluate information on the
composition, characteristics, and
volumes associated with this waste.
EPA currently has no information
indicating that K014 nonwastewaters
are being underground injected. The
Agency Specifically solicits information
on this situation. EPA is proposing to
restrict the underground injection of
K014 nonwastewaters on May 8,1990.
EPA will take into account any data
received before finalizing this date.
TABLE llt.B.2.(d)—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TWO-YEAR NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTED WASTES
Required alternative treatment technology
Alkaline Chlorination
Chemical Oxidation and Chemical Precipitation ;.
Chromium Reduction and Chemical Precipitation
Mercury Retorting
Tieatment of Reactives and Chromium Reduction ft Chemical Practoitatfon.
Wet-Air Oxidation
Wet-Air Oxidation and Carbon Adsorption, Biological Treatment and Carbon Adsorption.
or Incineration.
Waste coda
D0034
00031
0007-
0009
0002
0003'
K0t1
K013
K014
Uachate' ,
Physical form
Nonwastewater.
Wastewater.
Wastewater.
Wastewater.
Wastewater.
1 D003 (Cyanides).
* rrjo3 (Sutfides).
' D003 (Explosives, Reactives).
' Multi-Source Leachata.
c. Deepwell Injected Multi-Source
Leachate. EPA is estimating that multi-
source leachate containing both organic
and inorganic constituents are currently
underground injected. The Agency is
proposing a treatment standard for
multi-source leachate wastewaters
based on wet-air oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption, biological treatment-
followed by carbon adsorption, or
incineration for wastes' containing
organic constituents, and on chemical
precipitation and filtration for wastes
containing inorganic constituents.
Because there is insufficient capacity to
treat wastewaters based on these
treatment technologies, EPA is-
proposing. to grant a two-year variance
for multi-source leachate that is
underground injected.
A. Mixed Radioactive Wastes. EPA
requires radioactive wastes mixed with
RCRA regulated solvents and dioxins to
meet LDRs and treatment standards
established for those solvents and
dioxins- when mixed with radioactive
wastes. EPA currently has no
information on mixed radioactive
wastes that are underground injected;
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for these
wastes. EPA is requesting comments on
mixed radioactive wastes that are being
underground injected.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 48489
3. Capacity Variances for Contaminated
Soil and Debris
EPA is proposing today to grant an
extension of the effective date for
certain First. Second, and Third Third
contaminated soil and debris for which
the treatment standards proposed today
are based on combustion, wet-air
oxidation, vitrification, or mercury
retorting. RCRA section 3004(h)(2)
allows the Administrator, to grant an
extension to the effective date based on
the earliest date on which adequate
alternative capacity will be available,
but not to exceed two years " * * * after
the effective date of the prohibition
which would otherwise apply under
subsection (d), (e), (f), or fg)." For First
Third and Second Third wastes that
have heretofore been subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions (see section I.B.9)
but for which treatment standards are
being promulgated today. EPA is
interpreting the statutory language
" " * effective date of the prohibition
that would otherwise apply to be the
date treatment standards are
promulgated for these wastes (i.e.. May
8,1989), rather than the date on which
the "soft hammer" provisions took effect
(Le., August 8,1988, and June 8,1989.
respectively)." EPA finds this the best
interpretation for two reasons.
Extensions of the effective date are
based on the available capacity of the
BOAT for the waste, so it is reasonable
that such an extension begin on the date
on which treatment standards based on
performance of the BDAT are
established. Furthermore, EPA does not
intend, in effect, to penalize generators
of First Third and Second Third wastes
by allowing less time (i.e., 28 months
and 37 months, respectively) for the
development of needed capacity, while
generators of 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 proposed capacity extension
would therefore commence for First,
Second, and Third Third wastes on May
8,1990, and would extend (at maximum)
until May 8.1992.
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. EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether all or
portion* of such mixtures should be
considered soil (52 FR 31197. November
8,1988).
Debris is defined as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin, such as
grass, trees, stumps, shrubs, and man-
made materials (e.g., concrete, clothing,
partially buried whole or crushed empty
drums, capacitors, and other synthetic
manufactured items).
Debris may also include geologic
materials (1) identified as not
indigenous to the natural environment at
or near the site, or (2) identified as
indigenous rocks exceeding a 9.5mm
sieve size that are greater than 10
percent by weight, or that are at a total
level that, based on engineering
judgment, will affect performance of
available treatment technologies. In
many cases, debris will be mixed with
liquids or sludges. EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether all or
portions of such mixtures should be
considered debris.
Analysis of the TSDR Survey data
indicated that a volume of
approximately 17 million gallons of soil
contaminated with wastes subject to
this proposal were land-disposed in
1986. However, the Superfund
remediation program has expanded
significantly since that time. Plans for
remediation at Superfund sites indicate
that the excavation of soil and debris
requiring treatment (including
incineration and subsequent land
disposal) will be far greater in 1990 than
in 1986. Because of the major increase in
the Superfund remediation program,
EPA believes that capacity is not
adequate for combustion of Third Third
contaminated soil and debris. In
addition, the TSDR Survey indicates
that inadequate capacity exists for soils
requiring vitrification, mercury retorting,
and wet-air oxidation. A two-year
extension of the effective date is
proposed for Third Third contaminated
soil and debris for which BDAT is
combustion, vitrification, mercury
retorting, or wet-air oxidation.
EPA is also proposing to grant a two-
year national capacity variance to all
soil and debris contaminated with
mixed RCRA/radioactive waste. EPA
has estimated that insufficient treatment
capacity exists to handle soil and debris
contaminated with mixed radioactive
waste.
EPA notes that if soil and debris are
contaminated with Third Third
prohibited wastes whose treatment
standard is based on incineration and
also with other prohibited wastes whose
treatment standard is based on a non-
combustion type of technology, the soil
and debris would remain eligible for the
national capacity variance. This is
because the contaminated soil and
debris would still have to be treated by
some form of combustion technology
that EPA has evaluated as being
unavailable at present. However, there
is one exception to this principle. If the
soil and debris are contaminated with a
prohibited waste (or wastes) that is no
longer eligible for a national capacity
extension, such as certain types of
prohibited solvent wastes, then the soil
and debris would have to be treated to
meet the treatment standard for that
prohibited waste (or wastes). Any other
interpretation would result in EPA's
extending the date of a prohibition
beyond the dates established by
Congress, and therefore beyond EPA's
legal authority.
C. Characteristic Wastes
1. General Considerations
In today's rule, EPA is proposing
treatment standards for those wastes
which exhibit one or more of the
following characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity or EP toxicity (40
CFR 261.21-24). For the purpose of
setting BDAT treatment standards, each
characteristic waste is subdivided into
subcategories which correspond to
waste treatability groups. For example,
an ignitable characteristic waste may be
subcategorized as an ignitable liquid,
ignitable reactive, oxidizer or ignitable
gas.
EPA is developing a new toxicity
characteristic, known as the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP), that is scheduled for
promulgation in late 1989. Upon its
effective date, this revised characteristic
will include a number of additional
organic hazardous constituents, and a
new extraction protocol will replace the
current extraction procedure (EP). The
revised toxicity characteristic will
include the same 14 hazardous
constituents (six pesticides and eight
toxic metals) that are now regulated
under the existing EP toxicity
characteristic. EPA is proposing that the
BDAT levels for wastes that exhibit EP
toxicity for these 14 hazardous
constituents remain the same when the
TCLP replaces the EP toxicity
characteristic since the extent of
achievable treatment should not change.
The Agency received several
comments in response to its solicitation
in the Second Third rulemaking
regarding treatment standards for
characteristic wastes. These comments
addressed two general areas. First
several commenters questioned the
Agency's assertion that the hard
hammer provision applies to
characteristic wastes. The Agency
continues to believe that the statutory
-------
Fecfetaj Register / Vol 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22> 19fl& t Proposed Rales
language is unclear, but that the
legislative history for HSWA clearly
indicates that wastes which exhibited a
characteristic of hazardous waste on
November 8,1984 are subject io the hard
hammer provision. The issue is of no
practical significance in any case, since
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for all hazardous wastes that
exhibited characteristics as of the date
of enactment of HSWA.
Second, several commenters also
questioned the use of a "No Land
Disposal" treatment standard in any of
its forms for characteristic wastes. EPA
is not using this standard for
characteristic wastes in the proposal.
2. Treatment Below Characteristic
Levels
EPA is today proposing standards for
certain characteristic wastes which
require treatment below the
characteristic level. The issues
concerning this approach are discussed
below.
The threshold question in establishing
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes that are prohibited from land
disposal is whether the treatment
standard can be established at a level
that is lower than the characteristic
level. The legal argument would be that
the characteristic level itself imposes a
jurisdfctional limitation on the extent of
treatment because section 3004(m)
applies only to wastes that are
hazardous, and by EPA's regulations,
wastes that no longer exhibit a
characteristic are not hazardous wastes.
An alternative reading, however, is
that once wastes become subject to
section 3004(m>, they remain subject to
the requirements of that section until the
section 3004(m> standard is satisfied.
This is in fact the most literal reading of
section 3004(m), in the context of toxic
characteristic hazardous wastes, this
alternative reading also supports the
statutory goals and policies of seeking to
reduce the uncertainties inherent in the
land disposal of hazardous waste by
substituting a system whereby
hazardous wastes are pretreated in such
a way that minimizes threats to human
health and the environment associated
with land disposal. See RCRA sections
1002(b)(7), 3004 (d), (e), (fj, (g), and (m).
There are a number of differences
between characteristic wastes, and
listed wastes that make it important to
consider the issue of further treatment
for characteristic wastes. First-the EP
toxicity characteristic is defined by
levels higher than the health-based
levels that have been the basis for
delisting many hazardous wastes.The
Agency has always stated tint the EP
toxicants* concentration* are levels at
which a waste clearly presents a
substantial hazard, and that the lower
levels also may pose a hazard (see, e.g.,
45 FR 33088, May 19,198O). Thus, in
most cases, treatment below the
characteristic level would clearly result
in further minimization of threats to
human health and the environment
Second, delisting is a waste-specific
process that allows EPA to consider a
number of factors, including
concentrations of all Appendix VIE
constituents in the waste. On the other
hand, characteristic wastes are no
longer hazardous when they stop
exhibiting a single property or fall below
a constituent concentration leveL Thus,
only under a broad reading of section
3004(m) could EPA address treatment
for all Appendix VIII constituents in
characteristic wastes, and thus reduce
the prohibited waste's toxicity and
mobility in a way that further minimizes
the threat to human health and the
environment. These features of the
characteristic waste designation compel
the Agency to carefully evaluate the
reach of Agency authority under section
3004(m).
EPA beheves one permissible
construction of the statute is that waste
which is hazardous at the point of
generation and is destined for land
disposal (i.e. a prohibited hazardous
waste) remains subject to the
requirements of section 3004{m}
regardless of its concentration at any
subsequent time, or at least must be
treated to the section 3004fm} level to
avoid violation of section 3004|m}.
Indeed, this construction is a necessary
approach to vindicate the Congressional
admonition against dilution in hen of
treatment. See Section D1(D} below,
Once subject to section 3004{m>, soch
wastes nrast be treated by methods
which substantially reduce toxicity and
minimize threats to human health and
the environment.
Thus, EPA believes it is a permissible
construction of RCRA that Congress did
not intend to curtail treatment under this
standard by the definitional provisions
relating to the term "hazardous waste"
in 4O CFR part 281. Indeed, the authority
in section 3004{m) to subject
characteristic, wastes to treatment
methods contemplates treatment to
levels below the characteristic level.
since treatment methods—fear example,
combustion—often cannot be neatly
curtailed at the characteristic level. EPA
has also stated in other contexts that
Subtitle C regulations can continue to
apply to management of wastes that no
longer exhibit a characteristic. For
example, the clean closure standards for
regulated units that bold characteristic
wastes require removal of hazardous
constituents even if the waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic. See 53 FR 8705
(March 19,1987). Thus, the continued
regulation of such units under Subtitle C
depends on the degree of environmental
hazard but not on the continued
presence of "hazardous waste". EPA
also believes the recent decision in
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
No. 83-1657 (D.C. Cir. September 15.
1989} supports the view that EPA has
considerable flexibility m setting
standards under section 3004{m) and
that section 3004(m) can operate
independently of other RCRA provisions
which do not have the same ultimate
standard.1
Significant technical differences and
gaps in data, however, can make the
task of utilizing a more expansive view
of EPA authority under section 3004(m)
for characteristic wastes—i.e.,
developing treatment standards that
minimize threats below characteristic
levels, or that address other toxic
constituents—very difficult at this time.
The task is not the same as for listed
wastes. A listed waste comprises
relatively discrete waste types. EPA
often segregates listed waste into
treatability groups to set section 3004(m)
standards. Wastes under a single
characteristic designation, however, can
cover an enormous range of waste
matrices. Segregating the matrices into
treatability groups is a difficult task
even when considering treatment of
only the single characteristic property,
let alone the treatment of other BOAT
list constituents. Moreover, specifying
the lowest achievable level that
1 EPA has, thin far. set section 3004(m)
performance standard* for lilted hazardous wastes
based on the limits of demonstrated available
technology, and not oa standards adopted under
other statutory standards and provisions. This
approach was challenged by industry petitioners in
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. U.S.
Enrtronmentof Protection Agency. No. 86-1667 (IXC.
Clr. September 15.1988). fa this recent opinion, the
Court found EPA's approach to be a permissible .
construction of RCRA. Specifically, the Court held
thai section 30M{mJ requires EPA to set treatment
standards so-that "threats to human health and the
environment are minimized." The Court found that
this standard provides EPA flexibility to establish
treatment standards that need not be identical to
other regulatory decisions establishing health-bused
screening level* ptusuant to different statutory
standards.
Although the Court {bund EPA's approach to be
permissible, it also herd that EPA had not
adequately articulated a- rationale for the Agency's
policy choice between a technology-based regime
and one which capped treatment levels bj risk-
based sctmning levels, the Court thus nmandtd the
rule (leaving treatment standard* in place! and
directed EPA to artfcalate the rationale behind any
policy dMic* • this area. EPA is tnerougMy
stuchjfaeth* Courts decision and its owapeMcM* (•
respond to the Court's remand.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 484W
minimizes threats may vary from matrix
to matrix. As more data are gathered,
the Agency may be in a better position
to consider more constituents, different
trcatability groups, and more specific or
lower treatment standards.
There are also significant technical
and policy questions which may
differentiate the limits of treatment for
wastes with the properties of
ignitability. corrosivity, and reactivity,
as opposed to those with specific
concentrations of hazardous
constituents. The definitions and units
of measurement for the properties
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity
are different from the measurement of
EP toxic constituents. For example, EP
toxic wastes are defined by a
concentration level for a given
constituent Wastes with the
characteristic of ignitability, on the
other hand, are defined by a flash point
below 60 degrees Celsius, and other
. narrative descriptions. See 40 CFR
281.21. Similarly, wastes with the
characteristic of reactivity are described
by narrative standards. See 40 CFR
261.23. It is easy to describe a lower
concentration as a potentially more
protective standard. Changing narrative
standards, on the other hand, would
involve considerably different technical
and policy considerations.
In today's proposal, EPA is both
proposing methods of treatment and
proposing concentration levels for
characteristic wastes. Where EPA is
proposing a constituent concentration
level it is based on the lowest
achievable level without regard to the
characteristic level. Where EPA is
proposing methods of treatment for
certain characteristic wastes the Agency
believes that these treatment methods,
such as incineration of organics or
stabilization of metals, will also treat
some of the other BOAT list constituents
which may be present. In addition, if a
waste is identified as carrying more
than one characteristic, it would need to
meet each treatment standard or utilize
each method.
In light of the above discussion, the
Agency requests several types of
comments. First, commenters should*
carefully read the technical background
documents and comment on what they
believe to be the lowest achievable
treatment level. Second, commenters
should comment on any legal or policy
reasons to curtail the treatment
requirement at the characteristic level. It
may be that the policy considerations
make setting standards lower than the
characteristic level difficult in light of
EPA's current regulations and
enforcement mechanisms. These
regulations may simply need revision.
Thus, EPA may consider providing a
final rule which does not go below
characteristic levels as an interim
approach until EPA can fully address
any significant implementation
problems. Commenters should address
the validity of a final rule which does
not require treatment below
characteristic levels as a potential
interim approach. Finally, commenters
should suggest levels beyond which
there is no further minimization of risks
to human health and the environment.
For some of the EP toxic wastes, the
Agency is considering a treatment level
higher than the EP toxic level. In this
case, if a waste is treated to meet BDAT,
but still exceeds the characteristic level,
the waste is still a RCRA hazardous
waste and remains subject to subtitle C
regulation. In the event treatment
reduces the toxic constituent
concentration to below the
characteristic level, and the waste does
not exhibit any other characteristic, the
waste is no longer considered a RCRA
hazardous waste.
3. Overlap of Standards for Listed
Wastes That Also Exhibit A
Characteristic
Whichever option EPA chooses,
further issues remain regarding
situations where a waste could be
identified for more than one
characteristic waste code, and
situations where a listed waste also
could be identified for one or more
characteristic waste code. In the event a
waste could carry more than one
characteristic waste code, the Agency
proposes that the waste must be treated
to meet the treatment standard for each
characteristic. EPA believes this reading
satisfies the goal of significantly
reducing waste toxicity or mobility for
the untreated constituent, and
consequently satisfies the mandate of
section 3004(m).
If a listed waste could also be
identified for one or more characteristic
waste codes. EPA proposes that the
waste would have to be treated to meet
the treatment standard for each (of
those) waste code(s), with one
exception. Under that exception, if the
relevant constituents or narrative
characteristics are specifically
addressed in the treatment standard for
the listed waste, then the standard for
the listed waste operates in lieu of the
standard for the relevant characteristics.
Thus, if nonwastewater FOOB is EP
toxic for lead, it would not have to be
treated to meet the EP toxicity lead
standard because the treatment
standard for nonwastewater FOOB
already contains a standard for lead. On
the other hand, if the F006 waste were
EP toxic for mercury, it would have to
be treated to meet the mercury EP
toxicity treatment standard, since
mercury is not addressed in the F006
standard. The general principle EPA is
proposing is that the more specific
treatment standard takes precedence.
Treatment standards for listed wastes
are the more specific because they
reflect the Agency's waste-specific
determination. This is the same principle
FJ>A adopted with respect to California
list wastes that are covered by another
treatment standard, an analogous
situation. See 52 FR at 25773, 25776 (July
8,1987). At the same time, when a listed
waste exhibits a characteristic that is
not addressed by the listed waste's
treatment standard, EPA believes it
necessary for that characteristic to be
treated to meet the characteristic
treatment standard. To ignore the
characteristic would mean that the
Third Third prohibition for that
characteristic is being ignored, and that
with respect to that constituent, the
waste's toxicity or mobility is either not
being reduced or not being minimized.
Since this outcome would satisfy neither
the statutory language nor its policy,
EPA is proposing to require treatment.
(For the same reason, EPA would also
require treatment of listed wastes that
are ignitable, reactive, or corrosive to
address the characteristic property.) As
with the California list wastes, EPA
would apply this principle at the point of
generation, since otherwise the
treatment standard for the characteristic
constituent could be ignored by
removing the characteristic (assuming
the Agency ultimately adopts an
approach whereby treatment standards
for characteristic hazardous wastes are
lower than the characteristic level). See
52 FR at 25766.
EPA notes that under this approach.
waste generators must determine not
only whether their waste falls under a
prohibition for a listed waste, but also a
prohibition for a characteristic. EPA is
not proposing any amended language to
§ 268.7(a) to require generators to make
this examination (i.e., determining if the
listed waste also exhibits a
characteristic) because the existing
regulatory language requires the
generator to determine the
"appropriate" treatment standards (i.e..
those that are applicable). EPA,
however, solicits comment on whether it
should promulgate explicit regulatory
language in § 268.7 (or perhaps in
§ 282.11) to address this issue.
Finally, EPA is proposing to
implement one further principle 'with
respect to potential overlap of treatment
-------
40492
Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. Mas / Proposed Rules
standards for listed wastes- that also
exhibit a characteristic. This is where
the listed waste does not address a
characteristic constituent or property.
disposal of a waste which at the point of
disposal exhibits a characteristic is
prohibited unless the treatment level for
that characteristic component is above
the characteristic level This approach is
again essentially the same that EPA
adopted for the analogous situation
involving California list wastes (see 52
FR at 25767), and is needed to insure
that the statutory prohibition against
disposal of characteristic hazardous
wastes is not violated. Although EPA
does not anticipate that this type of
situation will arise often, if it should,
EPA believes that further treatment to
address the characteristic would
normally be feasible, and therefore
necessary to minimize threats to human
health and the environment
EPA solicits comment on the best
implementation mechanism for ensuring
against disposal of these characteristic
wastes. The Agency's preference would
be for treatment facilities to test or
otherwise determine that residues sent
to disposal have not somehow acquired
a characteristic not previously present,
and certify that the wastes have not
done so.
The following examples illustrate the
principles involved in the paragraphs
above:
Example 1. Generator A generates a
listed, prohibited waste "A" which has a
wastewater standard for lead of 1 ppm
in the TCLP extract. Waste "A" is also
EP toxic for lead, and the treatment
standard for lead characteristic wastes
(for the sake of this example) is .5 ppm
in the TCLP extract The treatment
residue from waste "A" is EP toxic for
chromium, a constituent not addressed
by the standard for the listed waste "A".
The treatment standard for lead in the
wastewater is 1 ppm, because this is the
more specific standard for lead in the
waste. However, the treatment residue
must be treated to meet the treatment
standard for chromium before it can be
disposed, since there is no more specific
treatment standard for that constituent
Examples. Generator B generates a
listed waste for which the
nonwastewater standard for mercury is .
1 ppm. The waste exhibits the EP
toxicity characteristic for mercury, and
the treatment standard for that
characteristic (for the sake of this
example) is a specified treatment
method.
The more specific treatment standard
would still control, even, though a
treatment method is the standard for the
characteristic. Thus, this waste would
have to be treated to below 1 ppra. the
numerical limit
EPA solicits comments on. the legal
and policy implications of the above
approach. Moreover. EPA requests
comments which, discasa mechanisms
which can provide for enforcement and
monitoring of the above scheme.
D. Mixed Hazardous/Radioactive
Wastes
On July 3.1986 (51 FR 4504). EPA
determined that mixed wastes (waste
that satisfies the definition of
radioactive waste subject to the Atomic
Energy Act and contains hazardous
waste that is either fisted as a
hazardous waste in Sufapart D of 40 CFR
part 261 or exhibits any of the
hazardous waste characteristics
identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR part
261) were subject to the RCRA
regulations. This created a dual
regulatory framework for mixed wastes
because the hazardous component
would be regulated under RCRA. and
the radioactive component would be
regulated under the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA). RCRA applies to all radioactive
mixed waste, independent of the
classification of the radioactive
component as low level, high level or
transuranic, but only to the hazardoan
portions of the mixed waste stream.
Statutorily and administratively, the
management of the radioactive
component differs. While EPA may
develop ambient health and
environmental standards, the specific
standards for radioactive material
management developed under the
Atomic Energy Act are administered
through the Department of Energy (DOE)
for government-owned facilities, and
through regulations of the Nudear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for
commercially owned facilities.
There are approximately 30 DOE
installations that generate mixed waste,
Of these, 13 generate the majority of.
waste containing low-level, high-level,
and transuranic radionuclides. These
installations have complex and diverse
waste management facilities and
generally have RCRA interim status.
The site audits, sampling, and analytical
studies that have been performed by
DOE at these sites provide some
information to characterize the mixed
wastes.
Approximately 26,000 NRC licensees,
including hospitals, universities, and
nuclear power plants, generate mixed
waste. The radioactive component of
this mixed waste primarily consists of
low-level radionuclides. The principal
RCRA hazardous constituents include
solvents, tead. chromium, and other
hazardous constituents generated by the
biomedical and nuclear power
Industrie*. It is estimated that
commercially generated mixed waste
constitutes about 2 to 30 percent of the
low-level radioactive waste generated
annually.
There are not adequate government or
commercial facilities permitted by both
NRC and EPA to dispose of nixed
waste. As a result much of the mixed
waste is being managed by either
recycling (e#, mixed wastes containing
lead) or incineration, (e.g., scintillation
cocktails containing solvents). Most
mixed waste is being stored by
generators, who require a RCRA permit
for storage beyond 90 days.
As noted in section ffi-B above, after
reviewing data collected in the National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment.
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities, the Agency has determined
that there is inadequate nationwide
capacity available for mixed wastes.
Therefore. EPA is proposing to grant a
two-year national capacity variance
under section 3004(h)(2) for the
scheduled wastea Since adequate
treatment capacity is not expected to be
available immediately, these wastes will
continue to be stored Mixed wastes
contaaiiiig listed hazardous waste are
expected to be generated in small
volumes. Larger volumes of mixed
wastes which contain spent solvents
and EP toxic metals, such as lead and
chromium, are expected to be generated.
Mixed wastes containing spent solvents
or dioxins. or that are California list
wastes, are still subject to the applicable
treatment standards once the effective
date has passed. For mixed wastes
containing certain spent solvents and
dioxios, or that are California list
wastes, the Agency may also consider
petitions for one-year extensions of the
effective date. HSWA provides a
maximum of two- one-year extensions
under section 3004(h)(3). Such
extensions are determined on a case-by-
case basis after consultation with
appropriate State agencies, and public
notice and comment.
The Agency is performing studies to
characterize the mixed waste volumes,
characteristics, and treatment options.
The Agency also expects to receive
treatment data for mixed waste from
DOE for review. DOE has been studying
how to treat store, and dispose.of waste
at its sites. Once received, such data
will be made available for public notice
and comment
E, AppKcabiHty of Today's Proposed
Rule to Mineral Processing Wastes
Section 300t(bK3)(AHii) of RCRA
excludes froa the hazardous waste
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rulaa
regulations (pending completion of
studies by the Agency) solid wastes
from the extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals. On
September 1,1989, EPA published a final
rule in the Federal Register (54 FR 36592)
that narrowed the scope of this
temporary exclusion as it applies to
mineral processing operations to 25
enumerated wastes that meet the
exclusion criteria of "high volume/low
hazard." as specified in the September 1
rule. EPA determined that five specific
mineral processing wastes clearly
remain within the scope of the
exclusion, and that 20 additional
specified mineral processing wastes
remain within the exclusion, pending
collection of further volume and hazard
data. All previously excluded mineral
processing wastes, other than these 25
specified wastes, that exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste will no longer be excluded from
the hazardous waste regulations when
the final rule becomes effective. (On
September 25,1989 (see 54 FR 39298-
30318), EPA proposed to remove an
additional 7 of these wastes from the
exclusion based on additional volume
and/or hazard data.)
EPA believes that the wastes are
"newly identified" for the purposes of
determining applicability of the land
disposal prohibitions. Although
technically the wastes are not being
identified by anew characteristic, they
are being brought into the subtitle C
system after the date of enactment of
the HSWA on November 8,1984. The
clear sense of RCRA section 3004(g)(4] is
that wastes brought into the system
after the 1984 RCRA amendments are to
be prohibited from land disposal under a
potentially different schedule than those
wastes that were hazardous on the date
of enactment of HSWA, and are not to
be subject to the statutory hard hammer.
Because these wastes are newly
identified, the Agency must develop
treatment standards for them within six
months of their being identified as
hazardous wastes (RCRA section
3004{g)(4)(C)).
However, as stated above, these
wastes are hazardous because they
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste.
Today's rule proposes treatment
standards for characteristic wastes. The
question, therefore, is whether the
treatment standards for characteristics
should apply to these mineral processing
wastes recently determined not to fall
within the Bevill exclusion. Put another
way, although as newly identified
wastes they are not subject to the hard
hammer, EPA still has the choice of
whether or not to apply the treatment
standards for characteristic wastes to
them at this time.
The Agency has not yet performed the
technical analyses necessary to
determine if the treatment standards
proposed today as BOAT for EP toxic
hazardous wastes can be achieved in
treating the various mineral processing
wastes. Therefore, EPA is proposing that
these newly identified mineral
processing wastes not be subject to the
BDAT standards proposed today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. The
Agency plans to study the mineral
processing wastes in the near future to
determine BDAT for these newly
identified hazardous wastes. EPA also
solicits comment on whether the BDATs
proposed today for the EP toxic metals
are appropriate for the newly identified
mineral processing wastes. Commenters
should provide data showing whether
particular mining wastes can be treated
to meet the proposed standards.
There are circumstances when newly
identified mineral processing wastes
can, however.-be subject to existing
hazardous waste prohibitions. Thus, if
the mineral processing waste is mixed
with other prohibited wastes (i.e., any
prohibited solvent, dioxin, First or
Second Third hazardous waste), it
becomes subject to the prohibition for
the prohibited waste with which it is
mixed. EPA also is soliciting comment
on the applicability of California list
prohibitions to newly identified and
listed hazardous wastes. See section
m.M below.
Whether any of these prohibitions
would have immediate regulatory effect
would be determined by the
authorization status of the State in
which the waste is managed. Because
the final rule removing wastes from the
scope of the Bevill exclusion is not being
adopted pursuant to HSWA, it does not
take effect immediately in authorized
States. Thus, in these States, these
mineral processing wastes would only
be hazardous wastes if they are
included within the scope of the State's
authorized program. If they are not. they
would not be hazardous wastes until an
amended State's program including them
is authorized. Only after authorization
would the land disposal prohibitions
apply in that State. These mineral
processing wastes would be hazardous
wastes in unauthorized States as soon
as the rule removing them from the
exclusion becomes effective. At that
time, any land disposal prohibitions that
apply to them also would take effect
F. Clarification of "P"and "U" Solid
Wastes
EPA is proposing amendments to
clarify the existing language of 40 CFR
261.33. The first amendment involves
S 261.33(c), a provision that lists
residues from containers and inner
liners of containers that have held
commercial chemical products listed in
§ 261.33{e). This language is partially in
error in that it does not also include
residues and inner liners contaminated
with the § 261.33(0 materials. All of the
other provisions in 40 CFR 261.33 refer
to both S 261.33 (e) and (f) wastes, and
there is no reason that S 261.33(c) should
not as well. The omission results in fact
from an oversight, and is not based on
any choice by the Agency.
EPA is also proposing a change to
clarify when contaminated soil, water,
and spill debris contaminated with 40
CFR 261.33 (e) and (f) materials can be
solid wastes. Ordinarily, § 261.33
materials are solid wastes only when
"discarded" by being abandoned, or by
being burned or placed on the land
when this is not the materials' normal
manner of use (see first sentence of
§ 261.33). Thus, these materials are not
normally classified as RCRA solid
wastes when they are recycled. See
S 261.2(c) and Table 1. Contaminated
spill residues, water, and debris
resulting from clean-up actions normally
result from the abandonment of S 261.33
materials that have been spilled on land
or water, remained there, and eventually
necessitate clean-up. Certainly, the
reasons behind the statement that
§ 261.33 materials are not solid wastes
when recycled—their near product-like
status due to being unused commercial
chemical products and their easy means
of recycling—do not apply to
contaminated soils and other
contaminated clean-up residues covered
by S 261.33(d). Not only are these
materials difficult to recycle and not
product-like, but delaying their
classification as solid wastes to the
moment when a determination as to
recycling is made could encourage
uncontrolled or haphazard spilling of
these materials onto land or water, and
discourage their clean-up.
Although such spilled materials
already may be considered to be
abandoned, the Agency is proposing to
amend the. rules to make clear that spill
residues, and other materials covered by
S 261.33(d), are considered to be solid
wastes. Thete could conceivably,
however, be some circumstances when
a material can be spilled and the
contaminated soil or water matrix could
be quickly returned to production. EPA
-------
4S494 Federal ftegbter i Voi 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22; 198» / Proposed Rule*
believes that some allowance ought to
be made for such situations to avoid
interfering with production-related spills
that can be returned to the process, or
otherwise put to direct use. in a short
time. The maximum period for which a
spill residue eould be returned to the
process would appear to be 9O days.
This is the maximum length of
accumulation time the Agency has
recognized, in other contexts, as
providing a legitimate accommodation
between avoiding disruption with
production decisions versus the
environmental protection afforded under
the RCRA permit process. See 4OCFR
262.34 and 45 FR12730 (February 26,
1980). Thus, under the clarified proposed
regulation, unless contaminated soils or
other § 261.33(d) residues are recycled
within 90 days of the spill, they would
be considered to be solid wastes even if
there is a bona fide intent to recycle.
Absent a bona fide intent to recycle, the
materials are solid wastes immediately
upon being spilled because they have
been abandoned. The person claiming
that spill residues are not solid wastes
would have the burden of showing that
the spill will be recycled and that
recycling has occurred within the
specified period fsee 40 CFR 261.2(fJ—
the Agency's prima facie case Is
established by the fact of the spill itself,
which is a type of disposal). In addition,
any § 261.33(d) material that is not
recycled is being disposed, thus
triggering all of the Subtitle C
requirements for hazardous wastes that
are disposed. See 50 FR 28712-713 (Jury
15,1985).
EPA further solicits comment on
whether the spill residues should
automatically continue to be considered
solid wastes if they are removed after 90
days for legitimate recycling (even if the
spill area itself would be a regulated
unit after that time). For example, if the
spill residue were to be used aa a
feedstock in an industrial process, then
should the spill residue still be
considered to be a solid waste once it is
removed? (Cf. 40 CFR 281.1(c)(8). final
sentence, noting that materials that are
accumulated speculative^ do not
necessarily remain solid wastes once
they are removed from accumulation.)
EPA also solicits comment on whether
such spill residues should be considered
to be inherently waste-like pursuant to
§ 261.2(d), in which case they would
remain solid wastes regardless of their
method of subsequent recycling.
G. Determining When Dilution Is
Permissible
EPA believes that its existing rules
regarding impermissible dilution of
prohibited wastes require further
clarification when applied to situations
involving aggregation for centralized
treatment of more than one waste. By
way of background, current regulations
provide that wastes that are prohibited
from land disposal may not be diluted
"* * * as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with [a
treatment standard! * * *, to
circumvent the effective date of a
prohibition. * * *, to otherwise avoid a
prohibition * * *, or to circumvent a
[statutoryf prohibition. {see
§ 268.3). Section 268.41(b), which was
added as a means of making this
dilution prohibition workable (see 51 FR
40823, Nov. 7,1986), states that" * * *
when wastes with differing treatment
standards for a constituent of concern
are combined for purposes of treatment,
the treatment residue must meet the
lowest treatment standard for the
constituent of concern."
EPA has further stated in preambles
that not all dilution of prohibited wastes
is impermissible, and acknowledged a
number of times that dilution that occurs
as a necessary part of the process to
treat a waste is permissible. 51 FR 40592
(Nov. 7,1986); see also 54 FR 28801-602
(June 23,1989}. EPA has also indicated
that certain forms of treatment that
result in phase separations that make
each phase easier to treat can be
permissible forms of treatment. 53 FR
31145 (August 17,1988) and 54 FR 28603,
26612 (June 23.1989).
The Agency's concern, echoing
Congress' concern in indicating that
dilution to avoid proper treatment was
impermissible {H.R. Rep. No, 198, Part I
98th Cong., 1st Sess. 38 (1983)), is that
individual prohibited wastes not be
mixed with larger volumes of other
wastes (whether prohibited or not) to
meet treatment standards without
undergoing treatment that substantially
reduces the prohibited wastes' toxicity
or mobility. Another of the Agency's
objectives is that heavily concentrated
streams amenable to a particular type of
treatment technology should be
segregated for treatment by that
technology rather than being aggregated
for less appropriate treatment that does
not substantially reduce the waste's
toxicity or mobility. See 52 FR 25768,
middle column (July 8,1987).
Consequently, it appears to the
Agency that any dilution diet fails to
meet the standard in | 3004fm) of
substantially reducing the prohibited
waste's toxicity or mobility is
impermissible. To achieve this objective,
the Agency believes that there aust be
some actaaJ reduction in the toxicity or
mobility of at least one BDAT
constituent in-each prohibited waste
that is treated, to the extent that these
constituents are present in initial
concentrations that exceed the
treatment standard for that prohibited
waste. Further, with respect to organic
constituents, "reduction in toxicity"
means actual removal of or chemical
change to the constituent.
The following examples illustrate how
the Agency would apply this
interpretation:
Example 1. Facility A mixes a small
volume of prohibited nonwastewater
containing five percent TOG with a
larger volume of wastewaters containing
less than one percent TOC. The wastes
all contain organic BDAT constituents,
but the only treatment the mixture
undergoes is for removal of total
suspended solids, not for removal of the
organic constituents. The treatment
system generates a nonwastewater and
wastewater treatment residue. The
nonwastewater is treated further to
achieve BDAT. The wastewater meets
the treatment standard for wastewaters.
EPA view* this situation as involving
impermissible dilution because the
treatment system is not removing BDAT
constituents, but simply diluting them,
such that they are below a BDAT level
Moreover, the initial nonwastewater
ordinarily would be amenable to direct
treatment and need not be mixed The
result is simply the dilution of the initial
nonwastewater. Cf. 53 FR 31145 (Aug.
17.1988} ("* * * a facility is not allowed
to dilute or perform partial treatment on
a waste in order to switch the
applicability of a nonwastewater
standard to a wastewater standard or
vice versa.").
Example 2. Facility B generates a
prohibited nonwastewater that is a bi-
layered waste with an organic phase
and a liquid phase. The BDAT
constituent in the waste is cyanide.
These phases can be separated by
skimming the organic phase, after which
the nonwastewater organic phase is
amenable to incineration treatment and
the wastewater phase to wastewater
treatment Instead of doing so, generator
B mixes the waste with other
wastewaters and generates a
wastewater that meets all cyanide
treatment standards, although cyanide is
not being removed by the treatment
system.
This example also involves
impermissible dilution due to the lack of
removal of the BDAT constituent
EPA solicits comment on this issue,
and asks that commenters provide
specific examples where they believe
that aggregation for centralized
treatment is legitimate even if some
dilution is involved. EPA also notes, as
-------
Fiscal Rogfafctr / Vof. 54. No. 22< / Wednesday Novem&er 22. 1969 / fftepeserf Rtfer 48*98
recently explained in a correction notice
to the Pint Third final regulation, that
the dilution prohibition in § 268.3
generally only applies to prohibited -
waste* disposed via a prohibited form of
land disposal. See 54 FR 38967-36972
(September 6,1989). In applying this
principle, one looks to the treatability
group that is generated and ascertains
whether that treatability group is
destined for management in a prohibited
form of land disposal. For example, if a
generator generates a hazardous
wastewater that is being mixed in tanks
before discharge to a POTW or to
waters of the United States, the
wastewater is not a prohibited
hazardous waste, and the dilution
prohibition would not apply to it (If
noo-wastewaters are derived from the
management of the wastewater. those
non-wastewaters are prohibited
hazardous wastes because they are
destined for a prohibited form of land
disposal.) On the other hand, if the
wastewater were to be managed in any
type of surface impoundment before its
discharge, it would be a prohibited
hazardous waste, and the dilution
prohibition would apply.
Of course, even where one BOAT
constituent is treated to reduce its
toxic! ty or mobility, impermissible
dilation might occur. For example, a
waste with treatable concentration* of
metals as well as extremely high
concentrations of hazardous organics
could be mixed with large volumes of
other metal-bearing wastes for metals
treatment To the extent that the high
concentrations of organics are diluted
by this treatment to below treatable
levels, this would constitute
impermissible dilution if there is an
appropriate organics treatment
technology that could be applied prior to
metals treatment In this example, there
is an actual reduction in the toxicity or
mobility of one BOAT constituent, but
dilution to avoid treating organics.
Thus, the requirement that one BDAT
constituent be treated so as to
substantially reduce itstoxitity or
mobility is a minimum requirement hi all
cases. It should not be interpreted as
validating all other dilution that may
occur.
H. Other Dilution Issues
The second major issue regarding
dilution on which EPA is soliciting
comment is whether dilution can be
used as a means of supplanting a
section 3004(m) treatment standard by
being used to render a prohibited waste
non-hazardous in lieu of actually
treating the prohibited hazardous waste
prior to land disposal. The issue is most
pressing with respect to wastes that
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste, but can also arise with respect to
listed wastes for which delistmg is
sought
EPA believes that the standards of
section 3004(m) apply to all wastes
destined for a prohibited form of land
disposal It is not permissible to dilute a
waste to render it nonhazardous in lieu
of proper treatment under section
3004(m) (unless dilution is a part of
proper treatment under section 3004(m)).
With respect to dilution of
characteristic hazardous wastes, EPA is
clearly given authority to establish
treatment standards for hazardous
wastes that exhibit a characteristic.
RCRA section 3004(g)(4)(C). This
authority includes prescribing methods
of treatment for characteristic
hazardous wastes. Section 3004(m) (1)
and (2). Yet this authority would be
largely meaningless if a person could
dilute the waste to remove the
characteristic rather than treating it
(even assuming EPA determines that
treatment standards are bounded
jurisdictiqnally by characteristic levels).
The same" reasoning holds true for listed
wastes, except it is more difficult to
remove listed wastes from the subtitle C
system because delisting requires an
administrative determination.
Nevertheless, the possibility exists for
evading a treatment standard for a
listed waste by diluting the waste and
seeking a delisting.
The legislative history of HSWA
clearly indicates Congress* intention
that dilution not be used as a substitute
for treatment standards of the land
disposal restrictions program
promulgated pursuant to RCRA section
3004(m). The legislative history further
indicates mat a prohibition of this type
of dilution "is particularly important
where regulation* are based on
concentration* of hazardous
constituents*" (H.R. Rep. No. 198, Part I,
98th Cong., 1st Sen. 38 (1983)). This is
consistent with the overall policy of
requiring hazardous wastes to be
treated before they are land disposed.
EPA therefore is of the view that it is
illegal to render a prohibited waste non-
hazardous by engaging in impermissible
dilution. An important issue raised by
this proposal is the relation of the
section 3004 treatment standards and
corollary dilution prohibition and the
rules implementing RCRA section 3001
that define a hazardous waste. These
rules do not prohibit dilution to remove
a hazardous waste characteristic or to
achieve a delisting level. See
5§ 261.3(d)(l) and 26*22 (c) and (d).
EPA does not intend to address today
the broad question about whether
dilution should ever be allowed as a
means of rendering a waste non-
hazardons. (Were the Agency to
regulate such dilution, it might do so
based on concerns about mass loadings
of hazardous constituents and the
statutory preference for proper
treatment of hazardous wastes, as well
as the statutory goal of waste
minimization.) Rather, today's proposal
is limited to a context where the land
disposal prohibitions apply and is
intended to preserve the integrity of
treatment standards for prohibited
hazardous wastes.
Consequently, under the rules
proposed today, if an impermissible
form of dilution occurs that renders a
toxic hazardous waste non-hazardous,
the act of dilution would be illegal but
the waste would be non-hazardous for
subsequent management purposes. That
is, EPA is not today redefining
hazardous waste, but is instead
imposing a condition on how hazardous
wastes can be managed. Thus, penalties
for impermissibly diluting a prohibited
hazardous waste could include fines and
injunetive relief such as digging up the
waste and treating it properly. However.
a enit receiving a diluted waste which is
no longer defined as hazardous would
not become a regulated unit subject to
subtitle C regulation.
EPA solicits comment on this
approach, and also on the broader
question of whether the Agency should
approach this question as a section 3001
issue relating to whether certain
impermissibly diluted hazardous wastes
would still be considered to be
hazardous in order to reduce mass
loadings of toxic constituents. EPA is
also interested in comments on what
mechanism the Agency should use to
determine whether a hazardous waste is
to be managed by means other than land
disposal, and is thus able to be diluted.
EPA realizes that this interpretation
could require some changes in existing
hazardous waste management practices,
particularly for wastewaters that exhibit
a hazardous waste characteristic and
that are diluted to remove the
characteristic before reaching a land
disposal unit To the extent such
wastewater streams are small volume.
they could be drummed for off-site
treatment or treated on a batch basis.
Larger volume wastewaters could
require segregated pretreatment. It
appears to the Agency that that is a
necessary corollary of prohibiting
dilution of prohibited hazardous wastes.
EPA solicits comment, however, on the
volumes of wastes that may be affected
and the availability of treatment for
waste streams that may need to be
-------
48496 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. "224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rufe8
diverted. In addition, the Agency solicits
comment on whether the reasons for the
dilution prohibition apply equally to the
non-toxic characteristic hazardous
wastes or whether dilution should be
considered to be a permissible type of
treatment in some circumstances for
these wastes (see the earlier discussion
in section III.A.5 regarding the Agency's
reasons for believing that such dilution
is not appropriate treatment).
/. Storage Prohibition
Section 3004{j) provides that storage
of prohibited hazardous wastes is itself
prohibited "unless such storage is solely
for the purpose of the accumulation of
such quantities of hazardous waste as
are necessary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment or disposal." This
language applies only to storage of
prohibited wastes in non-land based
storage units (like tanks and containers),
land-based storage being a type of
disposal.
The intent of RCRA section 3004(j)
and 40 CFR 26S.SO is to prohibit use of
long-term storage to circumvent
treatment requirements imposed by the
LDRs. 129 Cong. Rec. H8139 (daily ed.
October 6,1983. As the court recently
stated in Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council v. EPA ("HWTC ///") (No. 88-
1657, D.C. Cir. September 15,1989):
Congress believed that permitting storage
of large quantities of waste as a means of
forestalling treatment would involve health
threats equally serious to those posed by
• land disposal, and therefore opted in large
part for a "treat as you go" regulatory regime.
Slip op. at 5.
No firm time limit is established.
Generators and owners or operators can
store as long as necessary if such
storage is solely for the purpose stated
above. However, if prohibited wastes
are stored beyond one year, the owner/
operator has the burden of proving (in
the event of an enforcement action) that
such storage is for the allowable reason;
prior to one year, EPA maintains the
burden of proving that storage has
occurred for the wrong reason.
Because EPA is aware of concerns
that some legitimate storage technically
may be prohibited under the current
approach, the Agency is requesting
comment on alternative approaches for
prohibiting storage. Under one
alternative, where prohibited wastes are
stored in tanks or containers pending
the utilization of proper treatment,
recovery or disposal capacity, the
storage would not be prohibited. Two
examples of allowable storage under
this alternative approach are provided
below:
(1) Where a generator is storing
wastes in tanks for six weeks because
of a backup at an incinerator which the
generator has .a contract to use; and
(2) Where a treatment facility treats a
prohibited waste to a level that does not
meet the treatment standard and then
stores the waste before treating it again
to meet the standard.
EPA is soliciting views on these issues
today because a literal reading of the
statute would likely condemn such
storage as unlawful. This is because the
statutory language and 40 CFR 268.50
draw a connection between the amount
of waste being stored and the purpose of
facilitating proper management.
Virtually no storage except that
undertaken to promote under-utilized
proper management capacity would
satisfy this literal reading of the
provision.
EPA recognizes that under the
alternative approach proposed today,
the phrase "utilization of proper
treatment, recovery or disposal
capacity" would need to be further
defined. The Agency also seeks
comment on how a temporal element
might be added to the phrase "pending
the utilization * * * " in order to define
the limits of the proposed approach.
Accordingly, EPA is soliciting
comment on the alternative
interpretation (i.e that the storage
prohibition only applies if storage is
surrogate disposal, for example due to
failure to utilize existing treatment
capacity, or if storage is otherwise
undertaken for purposes of evading a
land disposal prohibition). Commenters
should also address other potential
situations where they believe that an
overly literal reading of section 3004(j)
may have consequences they believe
Congress did not intend.
/. Generator Notification Requirements
The generator notification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 268.7
specify that when the generator has
determined, either through testing or
through knowledge of the waste, that the
waste is restricted and does not meet
the applicable treatment standards, the
generator must, with each shipment of
waste, notify the treatment facility in
writing of the appropriate treatment
standards. This notice must include the
EPA Hazardous Waste Number, the
corresponding treatment standards and
all applicable prohibitions set forth in
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d), the
manifest number associated with the
shipment of waste, and waste analysis
data, where available (40 CFR
268.7{a)(l)). If the generator has
determined that the waste being shipped
is restricted, but can*be land disposed
without further treatment, he must
submit to the land disposal facility the
same information, as well as a
certification stating that the waste meets
the applicable treatment standards (40
CFR 268.7(a)(2)).
The Agency has had a number of
questions on whether the actual
treatment standards {Le., the actual
number or method) must be placed on
the generator notification form, or if it is
sufficient to reference the appropriate
treatment standards by citation to the
applicable part of 40 CFR 268.41, .42, or
.43. EPA's interpretation has been that
all applicable treatment standards must
be listed completely on the generator
notification form sent to the treatment,
storage or disposal facility. A number of
commenters have indicated that they
believe the current regulations can be
interpreted to allow referencing, rather
than listing the specific treatment
standards as part of the generator
notification. The commenters argue that
referencing the standards serves the
same purpose as listing the specific
treatment standards. Furthermore, they
find that the notification forms are
becoming longer, more complicated, and
unwieldy as new wastes and
corresponding treatment standards are
added to the list of wastes restricted
from land disposal, and thus pose a
burden on the generator when each
treatment standard must be listed on the
notification form.
The Agency is considering changing
the interpretation of § 268.7 to allow
referencing the treatment standards. The
following information would be included
in the reference: EPA Hazardous Waste
Number, the treatability group(s) of the
waste(s) (e.g., wastewater or non-
wastewater), and the CFR section where
the treatment standards appear. This
information replaces only the listing of
the applicable treatment standards; all
other information would still be required
in the notification. EPA is soliciting
comment on this proposed re-
interpretation to determine if the
regulated community anticipates any
problems with allowing the option of
referencing the treatment standards, and
to determine the effect this action would
have on hazardous waste generators.
In addition, some commenters have
raised concerns about notification
requirements in S 268.7, particularly
shipments subject to the March 24,1986
small quantity generator (SQG) rule.
This rule exempts SQGs (100-1000 kg/
mo.) with tolling agreements (as defined
in 40 CFR 262.20(e)) from the full part
262 manifesting requirements pursuant
to 40 CFR 262.20(e). EPA is proposing to
amend § 268.7 to require a one-time
notification and certification for SQG
shipments subject to tolling agreements. •
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 198Q / Proposed Rule*
48487
Such agreements, as well as the one-
time notifications and certifications,
must be maintained by the generator for
five years in keeping with the five-year
retention period established in the First
Third rule.
The Agency is proposing this
amendment because it believes the
subsequent handler of the waste under
the contractual tolling arrangement has
sufficient notification and knowledge of
the nature of the wastes being handled.
Tolling agreements provide for the
collection and reclamation of a specified
waste and for redelivery of regenerated
material at • specified frequency. The
Agency believes that since the same
waste is picked np at regular intervals,
one notice will suffice for the duration of
the agreement to apprise the subsequent
handler of the land disposal restrictions
applicable to the waste.
JK. Modification to the Framework:
Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
Treatment and disposal facilities
managing prohibited hazardous wastes
must test the wastes for compliance
with treatment standards at a frequency
specified in the facility's waste analysis
plan (512S&7 (b) and (c)). The wast*
analysis plan must be sufficient to
comply with all requirement* of part 286
(§284.13(8X1)).
A comment in section 264.13(3^2)
states that" * * * the owner or
operator of an off-site facility may
arrange for the generator of the
hazardous waste to supply part or all of
the [waste analysis] information
required by paragraph (aXl) of this
section." This language hat been
mistakenly construed to preclude
requiring the owner or operator of a
treatment or land disposal facility' to.
conduct a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the waste at a specific rate of
frequency, without regard to whether
information supplied by the generator is
sufficient to assure compliance with part
2SS. Although there are certainly
situations where the data submitted by
the generator, or the knowledge of the
generator, may constitute an essential
part of the necessary information, the
Agency is today proposing to amend the
rules to more clearly specify the
circumstances when EPA may require
the owner or operator of a treatment or
disposal facility to conduct such testing.
The Agency believes that, ordinarily,
treatment and disposal facilities should
do some corroborative testing to ensure
compliance with treatment standards.
This is because a crosscheck that
treatment has been conducted
successfully is needed to ensure that
ultimate disposal does not violate the
statute and regulations. Corroborative
testing will maximize the likelihood of
ultimate disposal being legal The testing
will also provide useful records for
ascertaining compliance. The Agency
does not have the resources to perform
such facility-by-facility testing itself;
thus, the normal situation should be that
treatment and disposal facilities should
do some independent testing of
prohibited wastes, even if the generator
also tests or otherwise certifies. See
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA (No. 86-1657. D.C. Cir. September
15.1989) (slip op. pp. 31-2) finding it
reasonable for EPA to require treatment
and disposal facilities to do back-up
testing.
The Agency further believes that the
frequency of testing is best determined
on a case-by-case basis by the permit
writer. This is because the range of
variables (e-g, variety of wastes treated.
different types of matrices, number of
treatment processes involved) is too
broad to realistically evaluate on a
national level Allowing permit writers
to make the determination as to
frequency of testing sa part of die waste
analysis-plan allows mavimnm
flexibility to take individual facility's
circumstances into account and go
clearly appears to EPA to be the correct
way to proceed. The Agency is seeking
comment on the following two-
approaches that would specify the
circumstances under which EPA may
require testing.
The first approach is- to amend the
comment in 40 CFR 264.13(a](2) to
specify that the owner or operator of an
off-site facility may arrange for the
generator of the hazardous waste to
supply part or all of the waste analysis
information only if an EPA-approved
waste analysis plan affirmatively allows
the generator to supply this information.
Further, the Agency is proposing to
amend S§ Z8&7 (b) and (c) to reflect this
change. Specifically, the Agency is
specifying that the frequency with which
the owner or operator is required by the
Regional Administrator or his designee
to test will be based on. but not limited
to, the criteria included in S 26413. EPA
believes that today's amendment only
clarifies existing requirements, since the
waste analysis plan regulations already
require that the plans be adequate to
ensure compliance with part 268, and
EPA considers it unlikely that a plan •
requiring no testing at all could
adequately ensure such compliance. If
EPA selects this option in the final rule,
the sentence in the 1261.13(a)(2}
comment that allows the owner or
operator of an interim status facility to
arrange for the generator to supply part
or all of the waste analysis information
will be deleted because waste analysis
plans for interim status facilities are
self-implementing, and approval by EPA
is not required. Consequently, under this
approach, interim status facilities would
no longer be able to rely on the
generator's knowledge of the waste.
The second approach also seeks
maximum flexibility to take into account
individual facilities' circumstances by
providing that for purposes of
compliance with part 268. testing
frequency will be determined by the
Regional Administrator or his designate,
but requires that owners/operators of
treatment and disposal facilities must
conduct waste analyses a minimum of
once each year. Under this approach,
the requirement to obtain a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of a
representative sample of the waste
(§5 264.13(a){l) and 265.13(a)(l)}, would
be revised to require owners/operators
of treatment and disposal facilities to
conduct detailed chemical and physical
analyses of a representative sample, and
to do so a minimum of once each year.
In addition. 1268.7 (b) and (c) would be
revised to reflect this change. The
Agency notes that this second approach
would be self-implementing, and would
not require revision to existing permits.
The Agency also notes that the Regional
Administrator or his designate would
have the discretion to require more
frequent testing in the waste analysis
plan based on site-specific .
circumstances. The Agency believes
that the testing being proposed under
the second approach is already being
conducted by the regulated community
since the current waste analysis plan
regulations require the plans to be
adequate to ensure compliance with part
268. Therefore, although a minimum
testing frequency is being established
under the second approach, the Agency
does not believe that any new
requirements are actually being imposed
upon the regulated community.
L. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
Under § 268.7(b). treatment facilities
treating prohibited hazardous wastes
must test the treatment residues that
they generate at a frequency determined
by their waste analysis plan in order to
ascertain compliance with the
applicable treatment standards. All
treatment facilities operating pursuant
to interim status or a full permit must
have a waste analysis plan.
There is a regulatory gap, however.
with respect to treatment of prohibited
wastes that is conducted in so-called 90
day tanks (or containers) regulated
-------
48498
Federal Register/ Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules.
under § 282.34. This is because such
tanks (or containers) are not subject to a
waste analysis plan requirement. Thus,
there is presently no regulatory vehicle
for determining testing frequency in
such circumstances (although the
existing testing requirement obviously
applies, and continues to apply, to
persons conducting treatment of
prohibited wastes in § 262.34 tanks and
containers).
In order to close this regulatory gap,
EPA is proposing today that persons
treating prohibited wastes in § 262.34
tanks and containers must prepare a
plan justifying the frequency of testing
that they choose to adopt. This plan
would be based on a detailed chemical
and physical analysis of a
representative sample of the prohibited
waste(s) being treated, and must contain
all information necessary to treat the
waste(s) in accordance with
requirements of part 268 (this language
is drawn from the standard for waste
analysis plans in §5 264.13 and 265.13),
including the selected testing frequency.
The plan would be self-implementing, in
the sense that there is no requirement of
prior approval from any regulatory
entity. There would, however, be a
requirement that the plan be retained as
a facility record, where it would serve
as the means of justifying to
enforcement officials why the frequency
of testing selected by the facility is
reasonable. Examples of factors EPA
would expect to be included in the plan
would be discussion of the number of
prohibited wastes treated, their
variability, and the variability of the
treatment process.
M. Relation of California List
Prohibitions to Other Standards and
Effective Dates
One further issue meriting discussion
is what remains of the California list
regulatory and statutory prohibitions
after promulgation of the Third Third
final rule. The Agency has already
indicated that California list
prohibitions are superseded by more
specific prohibitions and treatment
standards. See 52 FR 29993 (August 12,
1987) and 52 FR 25773 (July 8,1987); see
also 40 CFR 268.32(h) (HOC prohibition
superseded by treatment standard and
effective date for a particular HOC).
Thus, almost all of the California list
prohibitions will be superseded when
the Third Third rule is promulgated. The
only continued applicability of the
California list appears to be for (1)
Liquid hazardous wastes that contain
over 50 ppm PCBs, where PCBs are not
regulated by the treatment standard; (2)
HOC-containing wastes identified as
hazardous by a characteristic property
that does not involve HOCs, as, for ' -
example, an ignitable waste that also
contains greater than 1000 ppm HOCs
(but not an EP toxic waste that exhibits
the characteristic because it contains
one of the six chlorinated organic
pesticides covered by the EP tbxicity
characteristic or for liquid wastes that
exhibit the EP toxicity characteristic for
metals and also contain greater than
California list metal concentrations);
and (3) liquid hazardous wastes that
exhibit a characteristic and also contain
over 134 mg/1 of nickel and/or 130 mg/1
of thallium. As discussed in detail
below, California list prohibitions also
normally apply during national capacity
variance periods for wastes in the First,
Second, or Third Third.
1. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions During Capacity Variances
Based on Superseding Standards
The Agency has previously indicated
that California list regulatory and
statutory prohibitions are superseded by
more specific prohibitions and treatment
standards. See 52 FR 29993 (August 12,
1987), 52 FR 25773 (July 8,1987) and 53
FR 31187 (August 17,1988); see also 40
CFR 268.32(h) (HOC prohibition
superseded by treatment standard and
effective date for a particular HOC). The
Agency continues to believe this general
approach is appropriate. In order to
make clear to die regulated community
the implications of the California list for
the Third Third prohibitions
(particularly characteristic wastes) and
effective dates, the Agency wishes to
reiterate how this approach operates
during the period of a national capacity
variance for a waste subject to a ,
superseding standard.
As established in the First Third final
rule, more specific standards supersede
the California list prohibitions only after
the actual effective date of the more
waste-specific prohibition; During the
period of any capacity variance for the
more specific waste, however, the
California list prohibition would
continue to apply. See 53 FR 31188
(August 17,1988): As discussed below,
the Agency believes this approach
avoids having a window of time where
the waste is not subject to any
standards. In some cases, this approach
also avoids situations of the Agency
effectively granting a capacity variance
of over two years to certain California
list wastes.
As an example, the prohibition on
surface disposal of California list
mercury wastes above 20 mg/1 level
was in effect on July 8,1987 and would
be in effect on August 8,1990 for
injected wastes. See 52 FR 25760 (July 8,
1987); 40 CFR 148.12(b). Today, EPA is
proposing BDAT methods and standards
for wastes exhibiting.the characteristic
of EP toxicity for mercury and proposing
a two-year national capacity variance
for both certain surface disposed and
injected wastes. BDATs for other wastes
may also specifically address treatment
of mercury. Under EPA's current
approach, these superseding BDAT
standards would take effect after the
date of the capacity variance. During the
period of any variance, however, the
California list prohibition would remain
in effect, so that liquid wastes
containing greater than 20 mg/1 of
mercury could not be land disposed.
As another example, EPA has
previously provided a two-year capacity
variance for injected wastes subject to
the California list prohibition on liquid
hazardous wastes with pH less than 2.
See 52 FR 30908 (August 10,1988). The
effective date for this California list
prohibition for injected wastes is August
8,1990. Today, EPA is proposing to set
neutralization to a pH level in the range
of 6 to 9 as the BDAT standard for
wastes which exhibit the characteristic
of corrosivity under 40 CFR 261.22. EPA
is also proposing a national capacity
variance to May 8,1992, for injected
corrosive wastes, but is proposing no
capacity variance for corrosive wastes
disposed in surface units.
Under the Agency's current approach,
injected California list waste with a pH
of less than 2 would be prohibited from
land disposal on August 8,1990. Injected
corrosive waste with a pH of 9 or above
would not be prohibited until May 8,
1992 (the effective date of the corrosivity
characteristic BDAT standard for
injected wastes) because there is no
California list prohibition on this waste.
Surface-disposed waste with a pH of 6
or less and 9 or above would be
prohibited from land disposal on May 8,
1990 because the more specific
standards for corrosive wastes apply.
The legal basis for EPA's existing
approach is that without it, in the case
of a waste which received a national
capacity variance under the California
list rule, EPA would effectively grant a
national capacity variance for a
California list wastes for longer than
two years. For instance, in the example
involving corrosive acids given above,
the injected corrosive wastes would
receive a national capacity variance for
three years and nine months from the
otherwise applicable California list
statutory prohibition. This result may be
inconsistent with the express language
of section 3004(h)(2). In situations where
a California list prohibition has already
taken effect but EPA promulgates a later
treatment standard with a national
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed. Rules 48499
capacity variance that overlaps the
California list waste, ft makes little
sense for the California list prohibition .
(with which people are already
complying) to be nullified by a later
treatment standard until the treatment
standard actually takes effect. See 53 FR
at 31188. The Agency repeats that in
such cases, some interim prohibition is
better than none at all, and that the
express role of the California list
prohibitions is to serve as an interim
prohibition level or standard. See S.
Rep. No. 284,98th Cong. 2d Sess. 17.
The Agency believes, however, that it
is a permissible reading of RCRA that
Congress gave the Agency independent
authority to reevaluate national
capacity for corrosive waste with a pH
of less than 2 when setting standards for
such wastes, since the Agency has
authority to make such determinations
for corrosive wastes. If the Agency
reads the California list prohibition as
controlling for this specific group of
wastes, it effectively deprives itself of
its section 3004(g)(4) authority to make
capacity determinations for corrosive
acids in the Third Third rule. Thus, EPA
specifically solicits comments on the
legal and policy issues as they may
relate to California list wastes with a pH
of less than 2.
EPA's approach may not be fully clear
from a simple reading of the language
currently codified at 40 CFR 288.32(h) for
HOC wastes. Under that provision, the
California list prohibitions for HOC-
containing wastes specified in 40 CFR
268.32{a) (3) and (e) do not apply where
the waste Is subject to a more waste-
specific prohibition and effective date.
The Agency notes, however, that none
of the several examples in the preamble
to the California list rule at 52 FR 25760.
25773.25775, and 25776 (July 8,1987)
addressed the situation where there is a
subsequent waste-specific standard
which also has a capacity variance..
Indeed, one of the functions of the rule
at 40 CFR 268.32(h) was "to avoid
situations where the Agency would be
granting a national capacity variance for
a period longer than two years." Id at
25773. Moreover, EPA'a clarification in
the First Third rule was clear and
unchallenged.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
modify the language of 268.32(h)
explicitly to preclude any periods of
time where neither California list nor
superseding HOC standards would
operate.
2. Application of California List
Prohibitions to Newly Identified or
Listed Wastes
EPA also solicits comment on whether
the California list prohibitions apply to
newly identified and listed hazardous
wastes. The California list statutory
prohibitions, on the one hand, can be
read as applying to all hazardous
wastes, regardless of when they become
identified or listed. In addition, Congress
viewed these prohibition levels as a first
step in the prohibition process, and so
the California list prohibitions and
treatment standards might be viewed as
appropriate to fill the gap until the
Agency develops more specific
treatment standards for the newly
identified or listed wastes.
On the other hand, the statute
contemplates that the Agency will have
six months to develop treatment
standards for newly identified and listed
wastes, and that there will be no
statutory hammer if the Agency fails to
establish such treatment standards.
(RCRA section 3004(g)). Given this
scheme, it does not appear that
Congress necessarily contemplated that
these wastes be subject to an immediate
California list prohibition. Furthermore,
the fact that the California list provision
contains a 1987 hard hammer suggests
that the provision only was meant to
apply to wastes hazardous at that time,
rather than to wastes not yet identified
or listed.
It thus appears to the Agency that it
has a choice as to whether California
list prohibitions apply to newly
identified or listed wastes. Policy
reasons supporting the reading that the
prohibitions apply would be the earlier
implementation of either treatment
standards or interim controls on certain
types of land disposal (such as
treatment in minimum technology
surface impoundments). On the other
hand, the Agency is concerned that
there not be massive dislocations in the
regulated community due to legitimate
expectations that land disposal
prohibitions for newly identified or
listed wastes not.take effect until EPA
had taken some action specifically
directed toward those wastes, normally
a waste-specific rulemaking establishing
treatment standards.
If EPA determines that California list
prohibitions do apply to newly
identified or listed wastes, the Agency
anticipates the necessity of granting a
two-year national capacity variance for
certain wastes (e.g.. sludge-solids
contaminated with HOCs) exhibiting the
revised toxicity characteristic that are
newly subject to subtitle C.
In addition, if EPA issues a national
capacity variance, the Agency would
have to reconcile the four-year
impoundment retrofit provision in RCRA
section 3005(j)(6) with the requirement
in section 3004(h) that national capacity
variance wastes be placed in minimum
technology'surf ace impoundment onHs.
It appears to the Agency, at least at this
time, that the two provisions are in
conflict. EPA therefore has discretion to
craft a reading that best furthers
statutory goals. Citizens to Save
Spencer County v. EPA, 600 F. 2d. 844
(D.C. Cir. 1979). EPA's proposed .
resolution would be to allow
impoundments up to four years to
retrofit, but to require the wastes to use
available treatment capacity if it
becomes available sooner (i.e., if no
case-by-case variance were to be'
granted after the two-year national
capacity variance is over).
On the other hand, if the Agency
ultimately determines that California list
prohibitions do not apply to newly
identified or listed wastes, then the
Agency would delete the existing
requirement that California list HOCs be
treated in either boilers, furnaces, or
incinerators (see 53 FR 31138-31222,
August 17,1988), and instead limit the
treatment method to burning in
incinerators. EPA amended the
treatment standard for HOCs to include
boilers and furnaces in significant part
to assure available treatment capacity
for HOCs and to allow a prohibition to
take effect at an earlier date (U.S. EPA,
"Comment Response Background
Document for the First Third Proposed
Land Disposal Restrictions, Volume I."
August 8,1988, page 12-4). Once the
Third Third rule is promulgated, and
assuming that California list
prohibitions do not apply to newly
identified and listed wastes, there are
virtually no wastes (and possibly none
at all) to which the HOC standard
would apply. Therefore, it is not
necessary- that there be additional
combustion capacity in the form of
boilers and furnaces for these wastes,
and EPA can determine on a more
particularized basis whether fuel
substitution should be a basis for BOAT.
EPA therefore solicits comment on
whether it should delete the August 17,
1988 rule amending the treatment
standard for HOCs to include burning in
boilers and industrial furnaces should it
determine that California list
prohibitions do not apply to newly
identified and listed hazardous waste.
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
-------
48590
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed RuJes
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
. Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State.
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)}. new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
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.
With one exception, today's rule is
proposed pursuant to sections 3004(d)
through (k), and (m), of RCRA [42 U.S.C.
6924{d) through (k), and (m)). Therefore,
it will be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR
27l.l(j), which identifies the Federal
program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all States, regardless of
their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
in Table 1, as discussed in the following
section. When this rule is promulgated,
Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1(j) will be
modified also to indicate that this rule ia
a iself- implementing provision of HSWA.
The exception is the proposed
clarifying amendments to §§ 281.33 (c)
and (d). These clarifications are not
effective in authorized States since the
requirements are not imposed pursuant
to HSWA. Thus, these requirements will
be applicable only in those States that
do not interim or final authorization. In
authorized States, the requirements will
not be applicable until the State revises
its program to adopt equivalent
requirements under State law.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's proposal in authorized States
until their programs are modified to
adopt these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006{g)(2) or 3008(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 proposed 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
RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
proposal. These State regulations have
not been assessed against the Federal
regulations being proposed today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lien 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 regulations being proposed today
need not affect the State's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) primacy status.
A State currently authorized to
administer the UIC program under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) 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(f) 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
7,1988, rule (51 FR 40572) affect State
implementation of today's proposal and
impact State actions on the regulated
community:
1. Under part 268, subpart C, EPA is
proposing land disposal restrictions for
all generators, 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 sn
analysis of available alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity. Under 5 268.5, case-by-case
extensions of up to one year (renewable
for one additional year) may be granted
for specific applicants lacking adequate
capacity.
The Administrator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective dates because these
determinations must be made on a
national basis. In addition, it is dear
that RCRA section 3004{h){3) intends for
the Administrator to grant case-by case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the basis of national concerns
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore, States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. Under § 288.44. 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48501
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
treatabllity group. All wastes meeting
the criteria of these new waste
treatability groups may also be subject
to the treatment standard established by
the variance. Granting such variances
may have national impacts; therefore,
this aspect of the program is not
delegated to the States at this time.
4. Under § 268.6. EPA may grant
petitions of specific duration to allow
land disposal of certain hazardous
wastes where it can be demonstrated
that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. States
which have the authority to impose
restrictions may be authorized under
RCRA section 3006 to grant petitions for
exemptions from the restrictions.
Decisions on site-specific petitions do
not require the national perspective
required to restrict wastes or grant
extensions. EPA will be handling "no
migration" petitions at Headquarters,
though the States may be authorized to
grant these petitions in the future. The
Agency expects to gain valuable
experience and information from review
of "no migration" petitions which may
affect future land disposal restrictions
rulemakings. In accordance with RCRA
section 3004(i), EPA will publish notice
of the Agency's final decision on
petitions in the Federal Register.
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 Third Third wastes to
discharge to publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) in order to avoid
incurring the costs of alternative
treatment. In shifting from land disposal
to discharge to POTWs, an increase in
human and environmental risks could
occur. Also as a result of the land
disposal restrictions, hazardous waste
generators might illegally discharge their
wastes to surface waters without
treatment, which could cause damage to
the local ecosystem and potentially pose
health risks from direct exposure or
bioaccumulation.
Some generators might treat their
wastes prior to discharging to a POTW.
but the treatment step itself could
increase risks to the environment. For
example, if incineration were the
pretreatment step, metals and other
hazardous constituents present in air
scrubber waters could be discharged to
surface waters. However, the amount of
Third Third waste shifted to POTWs
would be limited by such factors as the
physical form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatment required prior to discharge,
and State and local regulations.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
There could be a potential demand for
some of the hazardous wastes included
in today's proposed rulemaking to 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 seem to
be an attractive alternative. In addition,
ocean-based disposal could seem
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. Wellhead Protection Regulated
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
Section 1428 of the SDWA contains
requirements for the development and
implementation of state Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Programs to protect
wells and wellfields which are used, or
may be used to provide drinking water
to public water systems. Under section
1428, each state must adopt and submit
to EPA for approval a WHP program
that, at a minimum:
(1) Specifies the duties of state
agencies, local governments, and public
water systems in the development and
implementation of the WHP program;
(2) For each wellhead, determines the
wellhead protection area (WHPA). as
defined in section 1428(e) of SDWA,
based on all reasonably available
hydrogeologic information on ground-
water flow, recharge, and discharge and
other information the state deems
necessary to adequately determine the
WHPA;
(3) Identifies within each WHPA all
potential human sources of
contaminants which may have any
adverse health effects;
(4) Describes provisions for technical
assistance, financial assistance,
implementation of control measures,
and education, training, and
demonstration projects to protect the
water supply within WHP As from such
contaminants;
(5) Includes contingency plans for the
location and provision of alternate
drinking water supplies for each public
water system in the event of well or
wellfield contamination by such
contaminants;
(6) Requires that state and local
governments and public water systems
consider all potential sources of human
contamination within the expected
wellhead area of a new water well
which serves a public water system; and
(7) Requires public participation in
developing the WHP program.
SDWA required all states to submit a
WHP program to EPA by June 19,1989.
for EPA review and approval. EPA has
received 29 state submittals for review.
SDWA requires that all Federal
agencies having jurisdiction over any
potential source of contaminants
identified by a state program under this
section shall comply with all the
requirements of the state program.
Any private or public entity subject to
the land disposal restrictions regulations
must also be in compliance with the
appropriate state's wellhead protection
program. The Agency reiterates that the
land disposal of hazardous wastes must
comply not only with the land disposal
restrictions and other RCRA regulations,
but with other environmental programs,
such as the Wellhead Protection
Program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
D. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act fCAA)
There are two air emission concerns
with respect to the land disposal
restrictions. The first is a cross-media
concern about air emissions that occur
as a result of waste treatment such as
incineration of metal-bearing wastes
causing metal emissions to the
atmosphere. Another concern is with air
emissions from the land disposal of the
treatment residue. Air emission control
programs are under development using
both the CAA and RCRA to address
these concerns as discussed below.
Specific cross-media air emission
concerns have been identified for
treatment technologies applicable to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1969 / Proposed Rules
48502
Third Third wastes, but EPA believes
that existing Clean Air Act controls
adequately address the potential
problems. Retorting of mercury sulfide
wastes can result in air emissions of
both elemental mercury and sulfur
dioxide (SCfe). The Agency has
promulgated a National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPJ for mercury emissions under
section 112 of the CAA (40 CFR part 81,
subpart E). There are no industry-
specific national CAA control standards
for SOi emissions from retorting
mercury sulfide wastes. There are,
however, regulations for the prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) of air
quality that would address not only
these SQz emissions but also any
mercury emissions that are not
regulated by the NESHAP.
The NESHAP limits mercury
emissions to the atmosphere from
mercury processing facilities, mercury
cell chlor-alkali plants, and plants that
incinerate and/or dry wastewater
treatment plant sludges. In all these
cases, the NESHAP limits mercury
emissions across the entire processing
facility to the extent necessary to
protect human health. The NESHAP
would not apply to a dedicated mercury
sulfide waste retorting facility that is not
located in an ore processing or a
mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.
Under section 165(a) of the CAA, all
new major stationary sources and major
modifications to existing sources of air
pollution must obtain a PSD permit If
the mercury or SO» emissions from the
retorting process were to come from a
major stationary source or a major
modification subject to the PSD
regulations and would be emitted in
significant amounts (greater than 0.1
tons per year of mercury or 40 tons per
year of SOi), then such emissions would
be subject to best available control
technology (BACT) requirements. An air
quality analysis for mercury and SOi
would also be required under PSD.
Moreover, an air quality analysis must
be conducted to demonstrate that the
SG> emissions would neither cause nor
contribute to violations of any national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
or PSD increment for SOi. Facilities that
are located in areas that have failed to
meet any NAAQS for SO» (i.e.,
designated nonattachment areas) and
emit more than 100 tons per year of SOi,
must not only apply emission controls
that meet the lowest achievable
emission rate but also offset their
remaining SO» emissions by acquiring
federally enforceable emission
reductions from other nearby SCfe
emissions, sources.
The Agency is also concerned
whether incineration of wastes
containing brominated organics or
organo-nitrogen compounds may
adversely affect air quality. The
presence of bromine complicates the
evaluation of incineration of these
wastes. A detailed discussion of the
Agency's approach for brominated
organics is contained in section III.A.2.e
of today's preamble. A discussion of
potential nitrogen oxide emissions from
organo-nitrogen wastes is contained in
section IH.A.3.f.
There are several general regulatory
development programs under RCRA that
address treatment technology air
emissions. The Agency has initiated a
three-phased program under section
3004(n) of RCRA to address air
emissions from hazardous waste
management units other than
incinerators. The first phase addresses
organic air emissions as a class from
two types of emission sources. The first
source category is process equipment
(pumps, valves, etc.) that contact
hazardous waste that contain greater
than 10 percent organic compounds,
including such as distillation units and
incinerators. The second source
category is certain vents on various
treatment technologies, such as air or
steam strippers. These standards were
proposed in the Federal Register on
February 5,1987 (52 FR 3748) and are
scheduled to be promulgated in fall of
1989.
The second phase of standards
development under section 3004(n) of
RCRA addresses organic air emissions
as a class from tanks, containers, and
surface impoundments. Treatment
technologies that occur in tanks or
containers that are not controlled by the
Phase I standards would be controlled
by these standards. Wastes that would
be prohibited from land disposal may
continue to be managed in a surface
impoundment as long as the treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standards are removed from
the impoundment within one year of
entry into the impoundment. These
• standards will control air emissions
from the management of wastes in the
surface impoundment. These standards
are scheduled to be proposed in the
Federal Register in fall of 1989.
In the third phase of the section
3004(n) standards development, the
Agency will develop additional
standards for the sources addressed in
the first two phases as necessary to
address residual risks.
In addition to the section 3O04(n)
standards, general standards to control
both organic and metal emissions from
the combustions of hazardous waste in
incinerators and other types of
combustion devices are under various
stages of development.
In certain cases, waste treatment may
occur in treatment technologies that are
not required to obtain RCRA permits.
Guidance for the control of air emissions
from these sources, such as exempt
biological treatment tanks and recycling
units, is being developed under the
CAA.
None of the regulatory efforts
discussed above address air emissions
from the land disposal of treatment
residue in landfills, land treatment units,
or waste piles because the Agency
presently presumes that these units will
only receive wastes that have been
treated to meet the BDAT requirements
and that this level of treatment
comments on this presumption. In a
separate rulemaking, the Agency is
considering to propose regulations
limiting air emissions from land disposal
units seeking to land dispose of wastes
under a no migration variance.
E. 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
land disposal restrictions 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 technology-
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 wastes 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 standard (| 268.44) or
-------
Fedaod Register /-Vol. 54,. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 2fc 1989 ( Proposed Rales 48503
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 (51FR 40577. November 7,
1986). See also Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA. 869 F.2d at 1535-37
(D.C. Cir. 1989). For example, if a waste
is excavated from a unit, treated, and
redlsposed, EPA has indicated that
"placement" (see RCRA 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, December 21,1988).
However, if the waste is capped in
place, removal or "placement" has not
occurred, and the treatment standards
are not legally applicable.
F. 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 proposed 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 fanners
and commercial pesticide applicators.
The provisions of 40 CFR 262.70 and
268.1 exempt fanners 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 proposed rule,
these generators must comply with the
requirements of the land disposal
restrictions if they dispose a restricted
hazardous waste.
G. Regulatory Overlap of
Polychlorinated Biphenyla (PCBsJ
Under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCAJ and RCRA
Certain P and U listed wastes contain
PCBs. The PCB component of such a
waste mixture is regulated primarily
under TSCA (although it may also be a
California list waste, and subject to
RCRA regulation (both substantive and
administrative as well)), while 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 go to an
incinerator permitted under 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—Surface
Disposed Wastes
In accordance with Executive Order
No. 12291, the Agency has reviewed the
costs and benefits of today's rule and
has determined that today's rule
constitutes a "major regulation" because
it is likely to result in an annual cost to
the economy in excess of $100 million.
As a result of this determination, the
Agency has conducted a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) in support of
today's rule. The complete RIA
document, "Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes Proposed
Rule (Draft)," is available for review in
the public docket for today's rule. The
complete document was also submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
for review, as required by Executive
Order No. 12291.
This section of the preamble
summarizes the results of the regulatory
impact analysis of the proposed rule, as
detailed in die draft RIA document.
Section VLA.1 below describes the
universe of wastes and facilities
affected by today's rule. Section VLA.2
below-summarizes the analysis of
human health and environmental
benefits attributable to today's rule.
Section VLA.3 summarizes the economic
cost and impact analysis performed for
today's rule.
It is important to note that the
summary analysis presented in this
section of the preamble and in the draft
RIA document does not completely
reflect the current status of the proposed
rule or the regulated community. For
example, when the RIA was begun, the
latest data available to describe the
universe of facilities managing Third
Third wastes was EPA's 1986 "National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities." Between the time of data
collection for this survey and today,
there have been changes at particular
facilities regarding waste practices and
volumes. The most dramatic change has
been with surface impoundments that
have subsequently been closed or no
longer receive hazardous wastes. The
Agency has updated the data base to
reflect these changes wherever possible,
but some differences may still exist.
Because the data were revised, the
Agency believes that this source of
discrepancy is small.
As another example, proposed
treatment standards had not been
established for all affected wastes when
the RIA began. Thus, in order to
complete the regulatory analysis in time
to accompany the proposed rule, the
Agency had to make certain
assumptions as to what would be
selected for proposed treatment
standards. Consequently, the standards
modelled in the regulatory impact
analysis and the standards actually
proposed were not identical for 17 of the
more than 300 waste codes addressed in
the proposed rule. The differences are
not expected to have a significant effect
on the cost estimates because the
technologies assumed for these 17 waste
codes were similar in cost to that
actually proposed. These and other
discrepancies will be addressed in the
regulatory impact analysis of the Third
Third final rule.
The Agency analyzed benefits, costs
and economic impacts 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 proposed rule were estimated by
comparing post-regulatory management
practices and conditions with those
occurring under baseline conditions. The
baseline was defined as continued land
disposal of wastes in units meeting
minimum technological requirements.
The baseline for future years was not
adjusted to reflect hard hammer
provisions that would prohibit land
disposal in the absence of the proposed
rule after May 8,1990.
The Agency did adjust reported waste
management practices to reflect
compliance with the provision of
promulgated land disposal restriction
rules covering solvents and dioxins,
California list wastes, and First and
Second Third scheduled wastes. In
making these adjustments, EPA
assumed that facilities would comply
with these other rules by the least costly
methods allowable.
1. Overview of Affected Wastes,
Facilities, and Management
The universe of waste and facilities
examined for the RIA was developed
from EPA's 1986 "National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities"
(hereafter, the TSDR Survey) and EPA's
1 For detailed information on the cost
methodology, see Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Land Disposal Restrictions on First Third Wastes:
Final Report. August 1988. ICF Incorporated.
-------
43504
_Fgdggd_Rgjigter / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rtdes
1984 "National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Regulated under RCRA in 1981"
(hereafter, the RIA Mail survey). Data
regarding waste management in surface
impoundments in the TSDR Survey has
been adjusted to reflect changes in
industry practices since 1986. Most
treatment and storage surface
impoundments in the TSDR Survey have
been closed or have been exempted
from hazardous waste management
regulations.
As with past land disposal restrictions
RIAs, the TSDR and RIA Mail surveys
provide an overview of the number of
facilities treating, storing, or disposing of
waste; the quantities and types (by
RCRA waste code) of waste managed at
each facility; and the current practice or
method of treatment The adjusted
information contained in the two
surveys is accepted as the baseline (i.e..
pre-Third Third rule) practice for this
RIA.
Quantity of Affected Waste. Today's
rule will potentially affect
approximately 379 million gallons of
waste per year as shown in Figure VI-1.
TABLE VI-1.—THIRD THIRD RULE
QUANTITY BY WASTE TYPE
[In mWion galon* per year]
TABLE VI-2.—Predominant Characteristic
Wastes by Volume—Continued
Ignitable (D001), Corrosive (0002), and Re-
active Wastes (0003)
EP Toxic Wastes (D004-O017)
Listed Wastes
Mixtures of Wastes __„. „..
C8I Wastes
Total
Vol.
36
141
3
136
64
379
Characteristic wastes constitute the
largest volume of wastes covered by the
proposed rule. In addition to the 47
percent identified as D001-D017, the
waste mixtures category is dominated
by characteristic wastes. For instance,
two mixtures of characteristic wastes
(D002/D007/D009 and D002/D006/D008)
alone account for 110 million gallons,
more than 80 percent of the waste
mixtures volume. Table VI-2 gives the
volumes of the predominant
characteristic wastes affected by the
proposed rule.
TABLE VI-2.—Predominant Characteristic
Wastes by Volume
tin million salons per year}
im moon ganons per year I
D007 (EP Toxic far chromium)
D001 (Ignitable)
D002 (Corrosive} .._
D004 (EP Toxic for arsenic)
Mixture of D002. 0006, 0008 _
Other characteristic, wastes and mixtures
Total
VoL
47
15
14
12
11
52
312
Affected Facilities. A total of 111
waste management facilities and over
1,300 waste generators are affected by
today's proposed rule. Table VI-3
provides a breakdown of affected
facilities and their volumes managed.
TABLE Vl-3.—Third Third Rute Volumes
by Facility Type
[in million gallons per year]
TSDFfacWfes
Commercial FaoWes
Noncommercial Facilities
Subtotal TSDFs
Generators
Tp»al „„-,„„,_,
Vol.
229
150
379
**N/A
379
NO. Of
affected
fttCBtMA
31
84
•111
1,386
1,500
•Some TSDFs are both commercial and noncbm-
Mixture of 0002.0007 & 0009....
0008 (EP Tow toe lead)
Vol.
_. 99
62
•• All generator volumes are managed at commer-
The affected facilities represent a
wide variety of industries in 23 major
industrial group*. A further examination
of the TSDR survey data reveals the
following information about the range of
industries with large volumes of Third
Third wastes.
The volume of noncommercial process
waste, which accounts for 39.6 percent
of the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following Standard Industrial
Code (SIC) groups:
• SIC 28, Chemical and Allied
Products (71%)
• SIC 33, Primary Metals Industries
(11%)
• SIC 49, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary
Services (8%)
• SIC 29, Petroleum Refining and
Related Industry (4%)
• CBI (4%)
• other industry groups (2%).
The volume of commercial process
waste, which accounts for 60.4 percent
of the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following SIC groups:
• SIC 49, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary
Services (38%)
• CBI (26%)
• SIC9ftNoncla«sifiable
Establishments (8%)
• SIC 89, Services, not classified (8%)
• SIC 28, Chemicals and Allied
Products (6%)
• SIC 33. Primary Metals Industries
(5%)
• other industry groups (8%).
Waste Management Practices. Based
on the TSDR survey, the RIA examined
five land disposal baseline management
practices: disposal in landfills, disposal
by land treatment, disposal in surface
impoundments, treatment in waste piles,
and storage in waste piles. Table VI-4
provides a breakdown of these baseline
management practices by volume and
number of facilities. As shown on the
table, almost two thirds of the waste
volume covered by the proposed rule is
currently managed in landfills or
disposal surface impoundments.
Landfills are also the most prevalent
baseline practice, occurring at over 35
percent of the affected facilities. About
30 percent of the wastes are managed in
disposal surface impoundments.
TABLE Vt-4.—THIRD THIRD RULE
BASELINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Baseline Practice
lartdfiff ,-„-,„.,.,,..„. ,, ,
Land <^fl*pi^rft
Storage waste pitas
Treatment waste piles
Disposal surface impound-
mortal 14.
Confidential business infor-
mation «
Total
VoMMG)
134.0
5.0
35.0
27.0
7.1
64.0
379.0
Facilities
35.4
21.0
22.0
14.0
12.0
18.0
111.0
Treatment practices in compliance
with today's rule significantly
redistribute the quantities of waste
among management practices. Most
important, while 379 million gallons of
waste per year are land disposed under
baseline management practices, 209
million gallons of waste per year would
be disposed of in landfills after
treatment as a result of today's rule.
Thus, the proposed rule would result in
a 45 percent reduction in the volume of
Third Third wastes being land disposed.
Most of the wastes covered by the
proposed rule would be treated by
precipitation or stabilization.
2. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would result in
several benefits including reduced
human health risks, improved safety at
facilities, and reduced ecological effects.
As with previous land disposal
restrictions, the Agency quantified the
human health benefits and conducted a
qualitative analysis of the other
benefits.
-------
Federal Ragater / Vol. 54, N
and chromium (D007) aa well aa
mixtures with these metals or nickel,
mercury or barium. Treatment of these:
wastes account for about 44% of the cost
of the rule.
The Agency notes that these estimates
are uncertain and may overstate or
underestimate the human-health
benefits of the proposed rule. The RCRA
Risk-Cost Analysis model does not
contain enough data to model about 90.
of the more than 250 constituents found
hi the Third Third wastes. As a result,
benefits of regulating wastes with one of
more of these missing constituents may
be underestimated. At the same time.
benefits may be overestimated due to
conservative exposure assumptions.
Exposure scenarios are based on
drinking 2 litres/day for seventy years
of contaminated water or inhalation o£
20 cubfc meters/day of air for seventy
years.
Safety Benefits. In addition to adverse
human-health effects, ignitable (DOOI]
and reactive (TD003) wastes may pose a
general safety hazard. Land disposal of
these wastes1 are currently only aRnwed
if the waste is- either deactivated or
precautions are taken to prevent
accidental ignition or reaction.
Approximately 22 million gallons- of
DOOI and D003 are currently being land
disposed without deecfivatfon. Until
they am deactivated, there is some on-
going risk that the safety precautions
may fail, resulting in fires, explosions, or
release of toxic gases. The proposed rede
would require deactivatioa. thereby
terminating the safety risk.
Environmental Benefits. The proposed
rule would result in an overall reduction
in toxic releases to the environment,
thereby reducing adverse effects1 to-
ecosystems. The- resulting improvement
in ecological health is extremely difficult
to quantify due to-uncertainty in
estimating! exposure krefa and specie*
populations. However, the sensitivity of
certain species, to hszaxdow-
constituents of wastes covered by the
proposed rule suggest a very Ugh.
potential for ecological effect*.
As an example; aquatic species are at
least two aiders of nmgmhrtfa more
sensitive than humans to arsenic {DOM),
mercury (D009L silver f QCttlX nndane
(D013).methoxychkr(D014), and
toxanhene (DM5>. Therefore* to the
extent that these wastes are released to
waterbodies, aquatic ecosystem* may
be a.t some risk even when there is no
human health risk.
Another way to look at the potential
for ecological effects is to consider the
proximity of land disposal facilities to
waterbodies. A recent Agency stady on.
ecological risks showed that for a
sample of 52 National Priorities List
sites, almost 90 percent of the sites
posed a threat to freshwater ecosystems
due to their proximity to watobodies.2
Wastes removed from some of these
sites may be sabject to the treatment
standards proposed in tfais rule. Thus,
the proposed rule would reduce
ecologies) risk associated with any
Third Third wastes managed at these
sites.
3. Costs
The proposed rule would resttk in an
annual incremental coats of
approximately $259 million, and would
affect over 140O facilities in 17 industrial
sectors. Table VI-5 summarize* the
estimated incremental costs- associated
with today's rule by waste typ*.
As expected based on vofaaesv the
largest incremental cost is attributed to
the management of characteristic
wastes. Although the bated wastes are a
small volume and have the lowest total
cost, expensive treatment technologies
such as incineration result in a •nrfa
highex coat pet volume treated,
Conversely, the corrosive waste* and
mixtures with coraasive waste* ate very
inexpensive to neutralize, resulting in a
very low coat per voluaae treated.
TABLE VI-6.—THIRD THIRD RULE VOL-
UMES AND (HCREMeWTA*. COST BV
WASTE TYPE
tin mffltbn gallons and milSon. ctoHaa per year!
Ignttabto (D001), cocrosw*
(D002). ind reactive
WMW* (D003).
EP tnac muttm (DOM-
DOIT) - ,
Listed waste*
Vet-
3*
t4t
a
Cost
S9M
1.1OS
1*4
4/VoL
sate
6.13
TABLE VI-6.— THIRD THIRO RULE VOL-
UMES AND INCREMENTAL COST BV
[in million gallon^ and. million dollar* per jtearl
Mixtures 0* wastas _..
CBI wastes...
Total-
Vol-
ume
13S
6*
J79
Incremental
Coal
3S.7
e&s
25&.»
S/VoL
0.25
1.03
0..6*
Five characteristic wastes contribute
over 49 percent of the incremental cost
of the rule as shown in Table VI-7. EP
Toxic wastes for chromium (D007) and
lead (DOOS) are the two single wastes
that would incur the most incremental
cost primarily due to their volumes. By
volume, D007 and DOCK are the two
largest individual wastes addressed by
the proposed rule. D007 wastes are
generally treated by chromium reduction
in combination with other treatment
steps depending on their characteristics.
Similarly, DOOS wastes would be
treated by several different techniques,
primarily involving precipitation and
stabilization.
TABtE VI-7.—WASTES INCUWWNG THE
MOST INCREMENTAL COST
CBI Waaa«
0007, EP toxic for
cnrofvtiUfn „ M
DOCe,Ef» twte for load
0004, EP toxic tat
arsanic
DOQ1. ignitabla
000? r@actiV6 -
Coat
($M!Uyc):
66
36
^ ' 36
te
13
IT
% of total
incr. coat
25
t4
t4
&
5
4
* Summary ef Fmlegirnl Riila, Antnnrnt
Methods. aadRisk Management Decition ia
SuperfundatntlKRA (EPA-231MMSM)«J) Jam
1989.
The coat of treating DQQ2 corrosive
wastes attributed to the proposed rale
may be overestimated by as much as $6
million per year because some of these
wastes may be treated due to the
California List Land Disposal
Restrictions rate f52 FR 25780}. That rule
established a performance standard
prohibiting land disposal of wastes with
a pH tern than 2, while the proposed rate
would establish a technology-based
standard1 of neutralization. The Agency
does not have data on how facilities are
meeting the California List standard.
Rather than make assumptions about
the post-California List practices, Ac
Agency chose to overestimate costs by
attributing the entire cost of neutralizing
D002 acidic wastes to this proposed rale.
4. Economic Impacts
Table VI-9 summarizes the cost and
economic impact of the proposed role.
-------
48506 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
Compliance costs are the tax-adjusted
revenue requirements needed to fund
the incremental costs discussed above.
Significantly affected facilities are those
who either need to increase costs by
more than 5 percent or their compliance
costs exceed 5 percent of their cash from
operations.
TABLE Vl-8.—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACILITY
Economic
impact
Compli-
ance
cost
(SMill.)
Affected
facilities...
Significant-
affected...
Estimated
closures..
Affected
industry
groups
Type of facility
Noncom-
mercial
29
72
8
2
15
Com-
mercial
230
39
NA
NA
15
Gener-
ator
221
1,389
554
10
17
Total
•251
1.461
562
12
"23
* Total tax-adjusted compliance cost Is less than
the sum of compNanc* cost by facility type because
there are noncommercial processes at commercial
facilities.
*• Some industry sectors are included under more
than one type of facility. Therefore the sum of the
three facility types is more than the total.
The economic analysis estimates that
the effects of the proposed rule would be
distributed over a wide range of
industries rather than concentrated in a
few. Facilities in 23 major industrial
groups (two-digit SIC) are affected by
the proposed rule. Significantly affected
facilities are found in 8 of these
industrial groups. The two groups most
affected by the proposed rule are SIC 34
and SIC 28, with 168 and 84 significantly
affected generators, respectively.
The analysis estimates that 12
facilities would close as a result of the
proposed rule. By comparison, the First
Third rule was estimated to result in
almost 200 closures.
Generators are the type of facility that
incurs the largest economic impact. The
analysis estimates that 88 percent of the
compliance cost will be borne by
generators. Also, almost 40 percent of
the affected generators will be
significantly affected. Of the 12 potential
closures discussed above, 10 are
generators, which is less than 2 percent
of the 554 significantly affected
generators.
The TSDR survey identified only 3
small businesses that currently land
dispose Third Third waste. None of the 3
are significantly affected under the
proposed rule.
For the Third Thirds Final Rule RIA,
the Agency expects the results of the
1988 "National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Regulated under RCRA" to be available
to support the analysis. Also, a plant-
specific analysis for generators will be
considered if the data are available in
time for the analysis. Additional small
businesses possibly affected by the rule
may be identified at that time.
BI Regulatory Flexibility Analysis— •
Surface Disposed Wastes
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., whenever an
Agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for a proposed rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) that describes the effect
of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). This
analysis is unnecessary, however, if the
Agency's Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
EPA evaluated the economic effect of
the proposed rule on small entities, here
defined as firms employing fewer than
50 persons. Because of data limitations,
the Agency was unable to include
generators of large quantities of Third
Third wastes. The small business
population therefore included only two
groups: all noncommercial TSDFs
employing fewer than 50 persons and all
small quantity generators (SQGs) that
were also small businesses. As a result,
the effect of the proposed rule on small
businesses is underestimated. However,
the Agency would not expect the
conclusions of the small business
analysis to change significantly if the
generator data were available.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting an RFA, if over 20 percent of
the population of small businesses,
small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions is likely to
experience financial distress based on
the costs of the rule, then the Agency is
required to consider that the rule will
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities and to perform
a formal RFA. EPA has examined the
proposed rule's potential effects on
small entities as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The economic analysis identified only
six small businesses potentially affected
by the proposed rule. None of these six
would be significantly affected. The
Administrator therefore certifies that
Part 268 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. Regulatory Impact Analysis—
Underground Injected Wastes
The Agency has completed a separate
regulatory impact analysis for
underground injected wastes affected by
today's proposed rule.
Sixty-five injection facilities, injecting
approximately 6.5 billion gallons of
Third Third wastes annually, will be
required to either treat wastes or file
"no migration" petitions as outlined in
40 CFR 148.20 (See 53 FR 28118). The
addition of these facilities will
contribute substantially to compliance
costs already incurred by injection well
owners and operators managing
hazardous wastes regulated by previous
rulemaking.
The Agency analyzed costs and
benefits using the same approach and
methodology developed in the
"Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Underground Injection Control Program:
Proposed Hazardous Waste Disposal
Injection Restrictions" used for the July
26,198ft final rule (53 FR 28118) and
subsequent rulemaking. An analysis
was performed to assess the economic
effect of associated compliance costs for
the additional volume of injected wastes
attributable to today's proposed rule.
Total compliance costs for injected
wastes are estimated at $54 million
annually. Alternative treatment costs
are estimated at $53.7 million annually
and petition costs are annualized at $0.3
million.
The RIA estimates that 17 facilities
will eventually treat their wastes, and
therefore be significantly affected
economically by today's proposed rule.
The benefits outlined in the RIA are
generally defined as the reduced human
health risk resulting from fewer
instances of groundwater
contamination. Potential health risks
from Class I hazardous waste injection
wells are low, except in a few isolated
cases depending on proximity to well
location, the geologic setting, unplugged
boreholes, and injection well grout seal
failure.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—
Underground Injection Wastes
The economic analysis identified only
six small businesses potentially affected
by part 268 of the proposed rule. None of
these six would be significantly
affected.
Owners and operators of hazardous
waste injection wells are generally
major chemical, petrochemical, and
other manufacturing companies. The
Agency is not aware of any small
-------
Federal R^fetar / VoL 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rulea 48667
entities of injection weft* feat wxwtd b*
affected b? part 143 of today's propoaed
rule.
Tbu Administrator therefore certifies
that part 148 and part 268 will not have
significant economic effects on a
substantial number of matt entities. As
a result of this finding, the Agency has
not prepared m formal RFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
All iafotmatJon coUec&n
requirements in this proposed rule were
promulgated in prevjowa land disposal
restrictions roJemakings and approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB} at that time. Since there
are no new information collection
requirements being promulgated today.
(including those for the Underground
Injection Control Program), an.
Information Collection Request has not
been prepared.
F, Review of Supporting Documents
Ths primaiy source of information OB
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by this rule was-
EPA's 1966 "National Surrey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities" (the
TSDR Survey}. The average quantity of
waste contributed, by generator fealflfei
was obtained from EPA's. "National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators.
and Treatment. Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated under RCRA in.
1981" (April 19B4).
Waste- stream characterization data
and engineering costs of waste
management were based on the
following EPA documents:
• "Characterization of Waste Streams
Listed in 40 CFR part 261 Waste
Profiles;1 Vols. I and II (August 1985};
• "Characterization of Constituents.
from Selected Waste Streams Listed in
40 CFR pert 261," Vols. I and H (Angus*
1985);
• RCRA background and listing
document* for 40 CFR part 261;
• RCRA Section 3007 industry studies;
• "RCRA Risk-Coat Analysis Model
Appendix A: Waste Stream Data Base"
(March 1984);
• Source assessment documents for
various industries; aad
• "1986-1987 Survey of Selected Firms
in the Commercial Haaardovs Waste
Management Industry: Final Report"
(March 1988}.
Financial Information for (be
economic impact analysis was obtained
from tno 1962 Censas of Marmfsetoew
and 1964 Annual Sarvey of
Manufacturers. Producer price indices
were used to restate 1084 dofiara in 1917
terms. For the final rule RIA, the Agency
will use these producer pncc indices to
restate 1984 dollars in 1990 terms.
VII. List of. Subjects in 40 CFR Part 148,
261,264 26?, 288; and m
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Environmental protection*
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials* transportation, Iluzertruus
waste. Imports-, Indian lands, Insurance-,
Intergovernmental relations, LabeHng,
Packaging' and containers, Penalties',
Recycling, Reporting and reewdkeeptng
requirements, Security measures, Safety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal.
Water poOunon control, Water supply.
Dated: November 9,1989.
F. Henry Hablcht,
Acting Adnriofstrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Title 40, Chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 30M, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act 42.US.G
6901 et teq-.
2. Section 148.14 is amended by
redMgna-ting paragraphs jd), (a* (I), and
(g) as paragraph* (ej, ffll (g* and pftby
revising tne irrtrodectory text of newly
redesignated paragraph (i); and by
addio« new parsgrapka (d) aad prj to
read aa fallow*:
§148.14 WasUspacf&pfohlbfaans—first
third wastes*
• « * * »
Cd} Effective May 8» 19QQ» the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste number F006
wasfewatera andFOlS wasfewatersi the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as>
K004, KOOa. RDM nonwaatewaters, K015
nonwastewaterSi KOI7, KD21
wastewaters. K022waalewatera, K031,
KD35, KD48 reactive nonwastewaters
and all waatewatets, K06Q wastewaters,
K061 wastewalers, K069 calcium surfate
nonwastewaters and all waatewaters.
K073. K083, K084. KOS5, K088 all bat
solvent washes, K101 high arsenic
nonwastewaters, K102 high arsenic
nonwastewatera, and KlOSf and tme
wastes specified in 4OCFR Part 261J3
as EPA Hazardous Waste number* PKH,
poo4, PINK, Pma Pim, POIZ PUS, poift
P018, P02a P03SV P087, WH* VOSO, POSft.
POSR rose. POOR POTB. POW, POK; POM.
P087, POD2v PIOZ; PlKvPlO*. Plia H15.
piza Piza Pi23, w»7, UBOft. urn
U012, U016, U018, U019, U022, U02*.
U031. U036, U037, U041, U04& U044\
UOfiA. UQG3. UOttL U063.
U046,
U064, U066, U067, U074, UO37. UOBt,
U086, U089, U103, U105, U108, U115,
U122. U124, Ul2a U130,. U133. U134v
U137, U151. U154, U1S5, U1S7. UlSa
Ul58w U171. U177. U180. U18S, U188,
U192, U200, VI208, U210, U211.U219.
U220, U226, U227. U228. U237, U238.
U248. and U249 are prohibited from.
underground injection.
(h) Effective May 8, 19SZ t&e wastes
specified in 40 CFR 263.32. as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K011
wastewaters, K01S wastewaters» and
K014 wastewaten are prohibited from
underground injection.
(i) The retjnfrements of paragraphs (af
through (h) of this section do not appiyr
« » * » «
3. Section 148O5 is. amended by
redesignatmg paragraphs (d) and (e) as
paragraphs (e) and (f); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (ffc and by adding adding new
paragraph (d> to read as follows:
5148.15 Wa*1* specific prohlbttfons—
temiKf mail »«!««.
* * * • • •
(d) Effective May 8, 1990, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as, EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K025
waatewaters, K02S wastewaters, K041,
K042, K095 wastewaters, K096
wastewaters,. KQ87, KQ98, and K10S; and
the wastes specified in 4O CFR 261-33 as-
P002. P003, P007. P008, P014, P026, P027,
P049, P054. PQ57, P060. P066, P067. P07Z,
P107, P112. P113. P114, U002. U003, U005.
U008, U011, U014. U015. U020, U021.
U023. U025, UQ26. U032. U035, U047.
U049, U057. U059. U060, U062, U070.
U073. U080. UOSS, U092, U093, U094,
U095, U097, U098, U099, U101, U106,
U109. U110t UI11, U114, U116. U113,
U127, U128, U131. U135, U138, U140,
U142, U143, U144. U146, U147, U149,
U150, U161. U162, U163, U164, U165,
U168, U169. U17O. U172. U173, U174,
U17B, U17», U179. U189. tf!93, U19e,
U20J. U2Q5. U206, U208, U213. U214.
U215, U218. U217, U218, U239. U244 are
prohibited from underground injection.
«••***
(fJThe requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this section do not apply:
*****
4. Section 14838 u amended by
redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (g); by revising the
introductoty text of newly redesignated
paragraph (g); and by adding new
paragraphs (c), (d}, (e}. and (f} to read as
follows:
-------
48508
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
§148.16 Waste specific prohibitions—
third third wastes.
(c) Effective May 8,1990, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K002, K003.
K005 wastewaters, K006, K007
wastewaters, K023, K028, K032, K033,
K034, K093, K094 and KlOO wastewaters;
the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33 as
P006, P009, P017, P022. P023, P024. P028.
P031, P033, P034, P038, P042, P045, P046,
P047, P051, P058, P064, P065, P073, P075,
P076, P077, P078, P088. P093, P095, P096,
P099, P101, P103, P109. P116, P118, P119,
U001, U004, U006, U017, U024, U027,
U030, U033, U034, U038, U039, U042,
U045, U048, U052, U055, U056, U068.
U071. U072. U075, U076, U079, U081,
U082, U084. U085, U087, U088, U090,
U091, U096, U112, U113, U117, U118,
U120, U121, U123, U125. U128, U132,
U138, U139. U141, U145, U148, U152,
U153, U156, U160. U166, U167, U181,
U182, U183, U184, U188, U187, U191,
U194, U197, U201. U202, U204, U207,
U222, U225. U234, U238. U240, U243, and
U247; and the wastes identified in 40
CFR 261.23 or 261.24 as hazardous based
on a characteristic alone, designated as
D001, D002 (nonwastewaters), D003
(nonwastewaters), D004, D005, D006,
D007 (nonwastewaters), D008, D010,
D011, D012, D013. D014, D015, D016. and
D017 are prohibited from underground
injection.
(d) Effective May 8,1992, the wastes
identified in 40 CFR 261.23 or 261.24 as
hazardous based on a characteristic
alone, designated as D002 wastewaters,
D003 wastewaters, D007 wastewaters,
and D009 nonwastewaters are
prohibited from underground injection.
(e) Effective May 8,1992, multi-source
leachate that is derived from disposal of
any listed waste and leachate that
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste is prohibited from underground
injection.
(f) Effective May 8.1990, mixed
radioactive/hazardous waste in 40 CFR
268.10, 268.11, and 268.12. that are mixed
radioactive and hazardous wastes, are
prohibited from underground injection.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this section do not apply:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
I. In Part 261:
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C.6905.6912(a), 6821,
6922, and 6938.
Subpart A—General
§261.2 [Amended]
2. Section 261.2(b) is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
***.**
(b) * * *
(4) Residues from spills of commercial
chemical products (as defined in
§ 261.33(d)) that are not legitimately
recycled in accordance with 5 261.2(e)
within 90 days of the date of the spill.
Such residues that are legitimately
recycled in accordance with § 261.2(e)
after 90 days of the date of the spill will
cease to be solid wastes when recycled.
*****
3. Table 1 in § 261.2(c) is revised by
adding a line at the end to read as
follows:
Residue* from «ptU» of comnwrcal
cMflvcBl p^>Ajcti o dMcribod tA
40 CFR 261.(2)(b)(4)
n n n <•>
4. The introductory text and
paragraph (c) of § 261.33 are revised to
read as follows (the comment paragraph
remains):
§261.33 Discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification spedes,
container residues, and spill residues
thereof.
The following materials or items are
hazardous wastes if and when they are
discarded or intended to be discarded
as described hi S 261.2(a)(2)(i), when
they are mixed with waste oil or used oil
or other material and applied to the land
for dust suppression or road treatment,
when they are otherwise applied to the
land or are contained in products that
are applied to the land in lieu of their
original intended use or when, in lieu of
their original intended use, they are
produced for use as (or as a component
of) a fuel, distributed for use as a fueUor
burned as a fuel, or when they are
residues described hi 9 261.33(d) and are
not recycled in accordance with
§ 261.2(e) within 90 days of the initial
spill event.
.*****
(c) Any residue remaining in a
container or inner liner removed from a
container that has held any commercial
chemical product or manufacturing
chemical intermediate having the
generic name listed in paragraph (e) or
(f) of this section, unless the container is
empty as defined in } 261.7(b)(3) of the
chapter.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
I. In Part 264:
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924. and
6925.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
2. The comment following paragraph
(a)(2) of § 264.13 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 264.13 General waste analysis.
(a)(l) * * •
(2) * * *
[Comment: For example, the facility's records
of analysis performed on the waste before the
effective date of these regulations, or studies
conducted on hazardous waste generated
from processes similar to that which
generated the waste to be managed at the
facility, may be included in the data base
required to comply with paragraph (a)(l) of
this section. The owner or operator of an off-
site facility may arrange for the generator of
the hazardous waste to supply part or ail of
the information required by paragraph (a)(l)
of this section. For purposes of compliance
with Part 268, however, the generator may
supply such information only if EPA has
specifically authorized the generator to do so
in approving the waste analysis plan. If the
generator does not supply the information,
and the owner or operator chooses to accept
a hazardous waste, the owner or operator is
responsible for obtaining the information
required to comply with this section.]
Subpart K—Surface Impoundments
3. The introductory text of § 264.229 is
revised to read as follows:
{264.229 Special requirements for
(gnttable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed in a surface impoundment,
unless the waste or impoundment
satisfies all requirements of part 268,
and:
Subpart L—Wast* Piles
4. The introductory text of § 264.256 is
revised to read as follows:
§264J56 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed hi a waste pile unless the
waste or waste pile satisfies all
requirements of part 268, and:
-------
Federal Resistor / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 48500
Subpart M—Land Treatment
5. The introductory text of 9 264.281 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 2*4,281 Special requirements for
fBflttaWe or reactive watt*.
The owner or operator must not apply
Ignitable or reactive waste to the
treatment zone unless the waste or the
treatment tone meets all applicable
requirements of part 288, and:
* « - * * *
Subpart N—Landfills
8. The introductory text of paragraph
(a) of i 264.312 is revised to read as
follows:
264.312 Special raquktflwnts for Ignttabl*
or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, and in § 264.318.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed in a landfill, unless the waste or
landfill meets all applicable
requirements of part 268 and:
*****
7, In S 284.316. paragraph (f) is added
to read as follows:
i264J1( Disposal of amaN containers of
hazardous waste hi overpacked drums (tab
packa).
*****
(f) Hazardous waste in the inside
containers meets the applicable
treatment standards under §§ 268.41 and
268.43. [Lab packs which contain only
waste codes listed in Appendix IV to
part 268 may be incinerated according to
the provisions of 9 268.42. The residuals
from such incineration are no longer
prohibited from land disposal. Lab
packs which contain only waste codes
Hated in Appendix V to part 268 may be
stabilized according to the provisions of
S 268.42. The residuals from such
stabilization are no longer prohibited
from land disposal]
PART 2t5—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
I. In part 285:
1. The authority citation for part 285
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 US.C. 6005,6812(a), 6924.
6925. and 6835.
Subpart B—Genera) Facility Standard*
2. The comment at the end of
paragraph (a) of i 265.13 is revised to
read as follows:
§ 265.13 General waste analysis.
(a)(l) * * *
(2) * * *
[Comment: For example, the facility's records
of analysis performed on the waste before the
effective date of these regulations, or studies
conducted on hazardous waste generated
from processes similar to that which
generated the waste to be managed at the
facility, may be included in the data base
required to comply with paragraph {a)(l} of
this section.]
Subpart K—Surface Impoundments
3. The introductory text of § 265.229 is
revised to read as follows:
§265.229 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed in a surface impoundment,
unless the waste or impoundment
satisfies all requirements of part 268,
and:
Subpart L—Waste Piles
4. The introductory text of 9 265.256 is
revised to read as follows:
§26&258 Special requirements for
fenttaMe or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed in a waste pile unless the
waste or waste pile satisfies all
requirements of part 268, and:
Subpart M—Land Treatment
5. The introductory text of 9 265.281 is
revised to read as follows:
S26&2S1 Special requirements for
IgnttaMe or reactive waeta.
The owner or operator must not apply
ignitable or reactive waste to the
treatment zone unless the waste or the
treatment zone meets all applicable
requirements of part 268, and:
Subpart N—Landfills
8. The introductory text of 9 265.312 is
revised to read as follows:
S26&312 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, and in 9 285.316,
ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed in a landfill, unless the waste or
landfill meets all applicable
requirements of part 268, and:
*****
7. In section 265.316, paragraph (f) is
added to read aa follows:
§ 265.316 Disposal of small containers of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
* . * * *
(F) Hazardous waste in the inside
containers meets the applicable
treatment standards under §§ 268.41 arid
268.43. [Lab packs which contain only
waste codes listed in Appendix IV to
part 268 may be incinerated according to
the provisions of 9 268.42. The residuals
from such incineration are no longer
prohibited from land disposal. Lab
packs which contain only waste codes
listed in Appendix V to part 268 may be
stabilized according to the provisions of
§ 268.42. The residuals from such
stabilization are no longer prohibited
from land disposal.]
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
I. In part 268:
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921, and
6924.
Subpart A—General
2. In 9 268.7, paragraphs (a) (7), (8),
and (9) are added, and paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (c)(2) are revised
to read as follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.
(a) * ' *
(7) If a generator is managing a lab
pack which contains only organic
hazardous wastes specified in Appendix
IV of this part, with each shipment of
waste the generator must certify that the
lab pack contains only the waste codes
identified in Appendix IV. The generator
must also comply with the requirements
in (a)(l), (b)(2) and (c) of this section.
(i) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that to
support this certification I personally have
examined and am familiar with the waste
through analysis and testing or through
knowledge of the waste, and that the lab
pack contains only waste codes specified in
Appendix IV to part 288.1 am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting
a false certification, including the possibility
of fine or imprisonment.
(8) If a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains only the constituents
identified in Appendix V to this part, the
generator must certify that the lab pack
contains only constituents identified in
Appendix V. The generator must also
comply with the requirements in (a)fl),
(b)(2) and (c) of this section.
-------
48510 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
(i) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that to
support this certification I personally have
examined and am familiar with the waste
through analysis and testing or through
knowledge of the waste, and that the lab-
pack contains only those constituents
specified in Appendix V to part 268.1 am
aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of fine or imprisonment.
(9) Small quantity generators with
tolling agreements pursuant to 40 CFR
262.20(e) must comply with the
applicable notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section for the initial shipment of the
waste subject to the agreement. Such
generators must retain on-site a copy of
such notification and certification,
together with the tolling agreement, for
at least five years from the date of the
original shipment The five year record
retention period is automatically
extended during the course of any
unresolved enforcement action
regarding the regulated activity or as
requested by the Administrator.
{b) The frequency with which
treatment facilities must test their waste
will be determined by the Regional
Administrator or his designate, and will
be based on the criteria included in
§§ 264.13 or 265.13, and will be specified
in the facility's waste analysis plan as
required by § 264.13 or § 265.13.
*****
(c) * * *
, (2) Test the waste, or an extract of the
waste or treatment residue developed
using the test method described in
Appendix I of this part or using any
methods required by generators under
§ 268.32 of this part, to assure that the
wastes or treatment residues are in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standards set forth in subpart
D of this part and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in § 268.32 of this
part or in RCRA section 3004[d). The
frequency with which disposal facilities
must test their waste will be determined
by the Regional Administrator or his
designate, and will be based on the
criteria included in § 264.13 or $ 265.13,
and will be specified in the facility's
waste analysis plan as required by
§ 264.13 or | 265.13.
*****
3. Section 268.9 is added to read as
follows:
§288.9 Special rules regarding waste*
that exhibit a characteristic.
(a) The initial generator must
determine each waste code applicable
to the waste in order to determine the
applicable treatment standards under
subpart D. For purposes of part 268.
waste will carry a waste code
designation for any listing under part
261 subpart D, where appropriate, and
also one or more waste code
designations under part 261 subpart C,
where the waste exhibits the relevant
characteristic.
(b) Where a prohibited waste is both
listed under part 261 subpart D and
exhibits a characteristic under part 261
subpart C, the treatment standard for
the waste code listed in part 261 subpart
D will operate in lieu of the standard for
the waste code under part 261 subpart
C, provided that the treatment standard
for the listed waste covers the
constituent that causes the waste to
exhibit the characteristic. Otherwise, the
waste must meet the treatment
standards for all applicable waste
codes.
(c) In addition to any applicable
standards determined from the initial
point of generation, no prohibited waste
which exhibits a characteristic under
part 261 subpart C may be land disposed
unless the treatment level under part 268
is higher than the relevant level in part
261 subpart C and the waste meets the
part 268 level.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
4. Section 268.35 is added to read as
follows:
§268.35 Waste specific prohibitions-third
third wastes.
(a) Effective May 8,1990, the
following wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos,
F006 (wastewaters) F019 (wastewaters);
the wastes specified fan 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K002; K003;
K004 (wastewaters); K005
(wastewaters); K006; K008
(wastewaters); K011 (wastewaters};
K013 (wastewaters); K014
(wastewaters): K017; K021
(wastewaters); K022 (wastewaters);
K025 (wastewaters); K026; K029
(wastewaters); K031 (wastewaters);
K032; K033; K034; K035; K041; K042;
K046 (wastewaters); K060
(wastewaters); K061 (wastewaters);
K069 (wastewaters); K071
(wastewaters); K073; K083
(wastewaters); K084 (wastewaters);
KD85; K095 (wastewaters); K09B
(wastewaters); K097; K098; K100
(wastewaters); K101 (wastewaters);
K102 (wastewaters}; K105; K106
(wastewaters); Kill; and K112; the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 2B1.33(e) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. P001; P002;
P003? P004; POOS; POOfc P007; POOft POOS',
P010 (wastewaters); P011 (wastewaters);
P012 (wastewaters); P014; P015
(wastewaters); P016; P017; P018;
(wastewaters); P019 (wastewaters);
P020; P022; P023; P024; P028; P027; P028;
P031; P033; P034; P036 (wastewaters);
P037; P038 (wastewaters); P042; P045;
P046; P047; P048; P049; P050; P051; P054;
P056: P057; P058; P059; P060; P064iP065
{wastewaters); P066; P067; P068; P069;
P070; P072; P073 (wastewaters); P075;
P076; P077; P078; P081; P082; P084; P087
(wastewaters); P088; P092
(wastewatersj; P093; P095; P096; P101;
P102 P103 (wastewaters); P105; P107;
P108; P109; PllO; P112; P113; P114
(wastewaters); P115; P116; P118; P119;
P120; P122; and P123; and the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. U001; U002;
U003; U004; U005; U006; U007; U008;
U009; U010; U011; U012; U014; U015;
U016; U017; U018; U019; U020; U021;
U022; U023; U024; U025; U026; U027;
U029; U030; U031; U032; U033; U034:
U035; U036; U037; U038; U039; U041;
U042; U043; U044; U045; U046; U047;
U048; U049; U050; U051; U052: U053;
U055; U056; U057; U059; U060; U061;
U062; U063; U064; U066; U067; U068:
U070; U071; U072; U073; U074; U075;
U078; U077; U078; U079, U080; U081;
U082; U083; U084; U085; U086; U089;
U090; U091; U092; U093; U094; U095;
U096; U097; U098; U099; U101: U103;
U105; U108; U108; U109; UllO; Ulll;
U112; U113; U114; U115; U116; U117;
Ullft U119; U120 (wastewaters); U121:
U122; U123; U124; U125; U126; U127;
U128; U129; U130; U131; U132; U133;
U134; U135; U138 (wastewaters); U137;
U138; U139; U140; U141; U142; U143;
U144; U145; U148; U147; U148; U149;
U150; U151 (wastewaters); U152; U153;
U154; U155; U156; U157; U158; U159; '
U160: U161; U182; U163; U164; U165;
U186; U187; U168; U169; U170; U171;
U172; U173; U174; U176; U177; U178;
U179; U180; U181; U182; U183; U184;
U185; U188; U187; U188; U189; U191;
U192; U193; U194; U196; U197; U200;
U201; U202; U203; U204 (wastewaters);
U205 (wastewaters); U206; U207; U208;
U209; U210; U211; U213; U214; U215;
U218; U217; U218; U219; U220; U222;
U225; U228; U227; U228; U234; U236:
U237; U238; U239; U240; U243; U244;
U246; U247; U248; U249; and the
following wastes identified as
hazardous based on a characteristic
alone: D001 (other than combusted
sludge/solids) D002, D003. D004
(wastewaters), D005. D006
(wastewaters); D007, D008, D009
(wastewater), D010 (wastewaters), D011,
D012, D013, D014, D015, D016, and D017
are prohibited from land disposal.
(b| Effective August 8* 1990. the
following constituents contained in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rulea 48511
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K048
(nonwastewaters); K049
(nonwastewaters]; K050
(nonwastewaters); K051
(nonwastewaters]: and K052
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal: benzo(a)pyrene; ortho-
cresols; para-cresols; di-n-butyl
phthalate: and phenol.
(c) Effective May 8.1991. the following
constituent contained in wastes
specified In 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K04S
(wastewaters); K049 (wastewaters);
K050 (wastewaters}: K051
(wastewaters); and K052 (wastewaters)
is prohibited from land disposal:
cyanide.
(d) Effective May 8, 1991, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 281.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste NOB. K04S
(nonwastewaters): K049
(nonwastewaters); K050
(nonwastewaters); K051
(nonwastewaters); and K052
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effective May 8,1992. the following
wasta specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F019
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K031 (nonwastewaters);
K071 (nonwastewaters); K084
(nonwastewaters); K101
(nonwastewaters}; K102
(nonwastewaters); K108
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. P010 (nonwastewaters);
P011 (nonwastewaters); P012
(nonwastewaters); P015
(nonwastewaters); P019
(nonwastewaters); P038
(nonwastewaters]: P03S
(nonwastewaters); P065
(nonwastewaters); P073
(nonwastewaters); P087
(nonwastewaters); P092
(nonwastewaters); P103 -
(nonwastewaters); P114
(nonwastewaters]: the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(1) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. U138 (nonwastewaters);
U151 (nonwastewaters); U204
(nonwastewaters]; and U205
(nonwastewaters); and the following
wastes identified as hazardous based on
a characteristic alone: D001
(nonatomizable sludge/solids); D004
(nonwastewaters); D006
(nonwastewaters); D009
(nonwastewaters]; and D010
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal.
(f) Effective May 8,1992, multi-source
leachate nonwastewaters in the form of
non-atomizable sludges and solids that
are derived from disposal of any listed
waste and leachate that exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste is
prohibited from land disposal.
(g) Effective May 8,1992, hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10,268.11,
and 268.12 that are mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal.
(h) Effective May 8,1992, the wastes
specified in this section having a
treatment standard in subpart D of this
part based on incineration, mercury
retorting, vitrification, or wet-air
oxidation and which are contaminated
soil and debris are prohibited from land
disposal.
(i) Between May 8,1990 and August 8,
1990, wastes included in paragraph (b)
of this section may be disposed of in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if
such unit is in compliance with the
requirements specified in 5 268.5(h)(2).
(j) Between May 8,1990 and May 8,
1991, wastes included in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section may be disposed
of in a landfill or surface impoundment
only if such unit is in compliance with
the requirements specified in
S 268.5(h)(2).
(k) Between May 8,1990, and May 8,
1992, wastes included in paragraphs (e),
(f), (g), and (h) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface •
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with die requirements
specified in S 268.5(h)(2).
(1) The requirements of paragraphs (a),
and (b) of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
standard* specified in subpart D of this
part; or
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under 9 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the petition.
(m) To determine whether m
hazardous waste listed in 55 268.10,
268.11. and 268.12 exceeds the
applicable treatment standards
specified in 55 268.41 and 268.43, the
initial generator must test a
representative sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste, depending
on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or the waste, or the
generator may use knowledge of the
waste. If the waste contains constituents
in excess of the applicable subpart O
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of part
268 are applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
. 5. In 5 268.41, Table CCWE is
amended by adding the following
subtables to Table CCWE in
alphabetical/numerical order by EPA
Hazardous Waste Number:
§ 269.41 Treatment standards expressed
a* concentration* In waste extract
(a) * * *
TABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
0004 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachata):
Arsenic
0006 nonwastewaters:
• Cadmium
0007 nonwastewaters
Chromium (Total) :.
D008 nonwastewaters; Low Lead
Subcategory—less than 2.5%
Load:
Lead
0009 nonwastewaters; Low Mercury
Subcategory—toss than 16 mg/kg
Hff
Mercury ....H
0010 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachata):
Selenium
0011 nonwastewaters:
Silver
F019 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
F024 nonwastewaters (See also
Table CCW In 268.43):
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
K001 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCW in 268.43):
Lead
K002 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K003 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K004 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K005 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K006 (anhydrous) nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K006 (hydrated) nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
K007 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K008 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead .....
K01S nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCW In 268.43):
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
K021 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate) (see also Tabte CCW in
268.43):
Antimony
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
56
14
.094
.51
.025,
5.6
.072
5.2
.073
.021
.088
.51
.094
.37
.094
.37
.094
.37
.094
.37
.094
.37
5.2
.094
.37
.094
.37
1.7
.0*3
.23
-------
48512 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
TABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT CONCEN-
TRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT—Contin-
ued
K028 nonwastewaters (se« also
Table CCW in 268.43):
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
K031 nonwastewatars (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic
K046 nonwastewaters:
Lead
K069 nonwastewaters; Calcium Sul-
lats Subcategory:
Cadmium -..-—..—...„....-......,„..,
Lead
K071 nonwastewaters; Low Mercury
Subcategory—less than 16 mg/kg
Hg:
Mercury
K083 nonwa»tswaters (se« also
Table CCW irr 268.43):
Nickel
KOS4 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic „..
K086 nonwastewaters (sea also
Table CCW in 268.43):
Chromium (Total)._
Lead
K100 nonwastewaters:
Cadmium _....
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K101 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic _... „
K102 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic - -. ...—.
K106 nonwastewaters; Low Mercury
Subcategory—less than 16 mg/kg
Hg:
Mercury _ _ _
P010 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic - „ _,
P011 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic _
P012 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic _ —..
P036 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic - ,
P03£l nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic ,
P103 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Selenium .,
P110 nonwastewaters:
Lead
P114 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Selenium „..
U032 nonwastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
U051 nonwastewaters (sea also
Table CCW in 268.43):
Lead
U136 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Arsenic ,
11144 nonwastewaters:
Lead _ „
Concentra-
tion (In mg/l)
.073
.021
.088
5.6
'.18
.14
.24
.025
.088
5.6
.094
.37
.068
5.2
.51
5.6
5.6
.025
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
51
5.6
.094
.51
5.6
.51
TABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT CONCEN-
TRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT—Contin-
ued
U145 nonwastewaters:
Lead _
U146 nonwastewaters:
Lead
U151 nonwastewaters; Low Mercu-
ry Subcategory—less than 16
mg/kg Hg:.._._....._..__._ _.
Mercury .——..I....—„.-.-.-..„..-.„.
U204 nonwastewaters (based on
EP leachate): _
Selenium _
U205 nonwastewaters (based on EP
leachate):
Selenium
Multi-Source Leachata non-
wastewatars (*aa also Table CCW
in 268.43):
Antimony............
Arsenic
Barium „ -.- -.
Cadmium,
Chromium (Total).,
Lead
Mercury
Nick*
Selenium .-
SHvar
Thaltium—
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
.51
.51
.025
5.6
5.6
£3
5.6
100
.066
5.0
51
.2
32
5.6
.072
5.6
6. In S 268.42. paragraphs (a)[5), (6),
and (7) are added to read as follows:
§268.42 TraatomM standard* mprMMd
— ' __
(a) * * *
(5) Lab packs as defined in 40 CFR
264.316 and 265.316 that contain only
organic hazardous wastes specified in
Appendix IV of this Part may be
incinerated. Such incineration must be
in accordance with the requirements of
part 264, subpart O, or part 285, subpart
O. These treatment standards do not
apply where the individual waste
contained feerein meets the applicable
treatment standards in §§ 26a41 and
268.43, or the lab pack contains
hazardous waste codes listed in
Appendix V, or other wastes not
specified in Appendix IV to this part.
Such lab packs must also comply with
the requirements for lab packs specified
in 40 CFR 264.318 and 265.316,
whichever is applicable.
(6) Lab packs as defined in 40 CFR
264.316 and 265.316 that contain only
inorganic hazardous constituents
identified in Appendix V of this part
may be stabilized using Portland cement
in a 20 percent binder-to-waste ratio.
These treatment standards do not apply
where individual constituents contained
therein meet the applicable treatment
standards in 55 268.41 and 268.43, or the
lab pack contains any constituents other
than those specified in Appendix V to
this part. Such lab packs must also
comply with the requirements for lab
packs specified in 40 CFR 264.316 and
265.316, whichever is applicable.
(7) The following wastes identified in
§§ 261.21, 261.22. 261.23, 261.24. 288,10,
268.11, and 268.12 must be treated by the
specified technologies:
Thermal destruction as a method of
treatment for nonwastewater forms of:
P006—Aluminum phosphide
P009—Ammonium picrate
P068—Methyl hydrazine
P081—Nitroglycerin
P096—Phosphine
P105—Sodium azide ,
P112—Tetranitromethane
P122—Zinc phosphide (>10%)
U023—Benzotrichloride
U086—N,N-Diethylhydrazine
U096—a.a-Dimethyl benzyl hydroperoxide
U098—1.1-Dimethylhydrazine
U099—1,2-DimethyIhydrazine
U103—Dimethyl sulfate
U109—1.2-Diphenyfcydrazine
U133—Hydrazine
U135—Hydrogen suifide
U160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
U189—Phosphorus suifide
U249—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
Incineration a* a method of treatment
for nonwastewater forms of:
K02S—nonwastewaters
P002—1-Acetyl 2-thiourea
P007—Muscimoi (5-Aminoethyl 3-isoxazolol)
POOS—4-Aminopyridine
P014—Benzene thiol (Thiophenol)
POie—Bis-chloromethyl ether
P017—-Bromoacetone
P018—Brucine
P022—Carbon disulfide
P023—Chloroacetaldehyde
P028—Mo-Chlorophenjrl) thiourea
P027—3-Chloropropionitrile
P028—Benzyl chloride
P034—2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
P042—Epinephrine
P045—Thiofanox
P048—alpha. alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
P047—4,6-dinitrocresol salts
P049—2,4-Dithiobiuret
P054—Aziridine
P057—2-Fluoroacetamide
P058—Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
P064—Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester
P066—Methomyl
P067—2-Methylaziridine
P069—Methyllactonitrile
P070—Aldicarb •
P072—l-Naphthyl-2-thiourea (Bantu) j
P075—Nicotine and salts i
P084—N-Nitrosomethylvinylatnine
P093—N-Phenylthiourea
P095—Phosgene
P108—Strychnine and salts
P116—Thiosemicarbazide
P118—Trichloromethanethiol
U006—Acetyl Chloride
U007—Acrylamide
U010—MitomycinC
U011—Amitrole
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1969 / Proposed Rules 4»513
U014—Auramine
U015—Azaserine
U018—Benz(c]acridine
U017—B«»«1 chloride
U020—Benzenesulfonyl chloride
U021—Benzldine
U028—ChloronaphaxitM
U033—Carbonyl fluoride
U034—Trichloroacetaldehyde
U03S—Chlorambudl
U041—n-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane
U042—2-Chloro«thyl vinyl ether
UOW—Chloromethyl methyl ethe*
U049—t-Chloro-o-toluidme hytfaochloride
U055—Cumene (iaopropyl benzene)
UC50—Cyclohexane
U05a—Daunomycin
U062—Diallate
U064—1,27,8-Dibenzopyrene
U069—Dtethyl stllbestrol
U090—Dihydrosafrole
U091—3,3-DimclhoxybenzidiM
U092—Dimetiylamine
U094—7.12-Dimelhyl benz(a}anthracene
U09S—S-S'-Dimethylbenzidine
U097—Dlmetbykaibomyl chloride
U110—Dipropylamlne
U114—Ethylene bis-dithiocasbaaicacid.
Ull»—Ethylene thiourea
U119—Ethyl methane Milfonate
U143—Laslocarpine
U148—Maloic Hydrazide
U145—Malononitrila
U1SO—Melphalan
U153—Methane thiol
U156—Methyl chlorocarbooate
U163—N-Methyl N-nitro N-nitroguanidine
U184—Methylthiouracil
U171—2-Niltopropane
U173—N-Nitroao-dl-n-ethannlamlne
U176—N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
U177—N-Nttroso-N-methyturea
U178—N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane.
UlOO—1,3-Pentadiene
U191—2-PfcolJrm
U193—1,3-Propaa8 tultona
U194—n-Propylamin*
U200—Reaefpine
U202—Saccharin and salts
U206—Stteptowtocin
U218—Thloacolamide
U219—Thiourea
U222—o-Tohrfdme hydrochlorida
U234—sym-Trfnilrobenzene
U235—Ttypan Blue
U237—Uracil mustard
U238—Ethyl carbamat*
U240—salts and esters of 2,4-D '
U244—Thiram
Incineration or fuel substitution as
methods of treatment for
nonwastewater forma of:
POOl—Warfarin (>3S)
P003—Acrolein
POOS—Ally! alcohol
P088—EndothaU
P102—Propargyl alcottol
U001—Acetaldehyde
U008—Acrylic acid
U053—Crotonaldehyd*
U085—l,2:3.4-Diepoxybutana
U113—Ethyl acrylate
U122—Formaldehyde
U123—Formic acid
U124—Furan
U125— Furfural
U126— Glycidaklehyde •
U147— Maleic anhydride
U154— Methanol
U182— Paraldehyde
U213 — Tetrahydrofuran
U248— Warfarin «3%)
Incineration, fuel substitution, or
recovery as methods of treatment for all
forms of:
DOOl — Ignitable liqtridi subcategory baaed on
Incineration or carbon adsorption a* a
method of treatment for wastewater
forms of:
P009 — Ammonium piciate
P068 — Methyl hydrazine
P081 — Nitrogiycerin
P112— Tetranitromethane
U023 — Beniatrichloride
U086— NJ^-Diethylhydrazina
U096 — Eua-Dimethyl benzyl hydroperoxide
U098— 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
U099 — 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
U103— Dimethyl sulfate
U109— 1,2-DiphenylhydraziDe
U133 — Hydrazine
U160— Methyi ethyl ketone peroxide
Incineration, or liquid-liquid
extraction followed by steam stripping
followed by carbon adsorption, as a
method of treatment for wastewater
«195 TSS and <4% TOG) forms of:
K025 — wastewaters
Incineration of vented* ignitable
gases; or recovery as methods of
treatment for all forms of: '
* — Ignitable gases may be vented directly
into an incinerator or vented into a suitable
adsorbent prior to incineration. Although the
gases, once vented, ara no loafer compressed
in a cylinder the Agency does not consider
that treatment has occurred until the ignitable
gas has been incinerated. Adsorption of the
ignitable gas into either a solid or liquid '
adsorbent is typically a reversible physical
process. Thus, the ignitable chemical ha* not
been destroyed.
DOOl — Ignitable compressed gates' baaed on
281.21(a)(3)
Incineration followed by roasting or
retorting of incinerator nonwastewater
residues (ash and wastewater treatment
sludges from treatment of the
incinerator scrubber waters) provided
such residues exceed 16 mg /kg total
mercury; and scrubber waters from
incineration must comply with the 0.030
mg/1 wastewater standard as methods
of treatment for nonwastewater forma
of:
P065 — Mercury fulminate
P092 — Phenyl mercury acetate
Incineration as a method of treatment
with incinerator residues meeting the
following: (1) ash and wastewater
treatment sludges from treatment of the
incinerator scrubber waters mint
comply with a TCLP concentration of
0.025 mg/1; and (2) scrubber waters most
comply with a total concentration of
0.030 mg/1 wastewater standard:
D009—Hydraulic oil contaminated with
mercury radioactive materials subcategory
Vitrification or stabilization as
methods of treatment for
nonwastewater forms of:
P114—Thallium (I] selenite
Deactivation as a method of treatment
for all forms of:
DOOl—Ignitable reactives based on
261.21[a][Z)
DOOl—Oxidizers based on 261.21(a]{4f
D003—Explosives based on 26I.23fa) (3J, (6J,
(7} and (8)
D003—Water reactives based on 281.23(a) (2),
(3), and (4)
0003—Other reactives based on 261-23(a} (l\
and (4)
Deactivation as a method of treatment
for nonwastewater forms of:
K044—nonwastewaters
K04S—nonwastewaters
K047—nonwastewaters
Deactivation to: SAE1020 steel
corrosion rate <6.35 mm/vn as a
method of treatment for all forms of:
D002—Other corrosive* based on 281^2(aM2)
Surface deactivation or removal of
radioactive lead portions followed by
encapsulation; or direct encapsulation of
radioactive lead solids as methods of
treatment for all forms of:
D008—Radioactive Lead Solida (Note: These
lead solids include, but are not limited to,
all forms of lead shielding, lead "pigs", and
other elemental forma of lead. These lead
solids do not include treatment residuals
such as hydroxide sludges, other
wastewater treatment residuals, or
incinerator ashes that can undergo
conventional pozzolanic stabilization, nor
do they include organo-lead materials that
can be incinerated and then stabilized as
ash.)
Amalgamation with zinc as a method,
of treatment for all forms of:
D009—Elemental mercury contaminated with
radioactive materials
U151—Elemental mercury contaminated with
radioactive materials
Thermal recovery as a method of
treatment for nonwastewater forms of:
D008—High lead subcategory—greater than
or equal to 2.5% total lead
D008—Lead acid batteries (Note: This
standard only applies to lead acid batteries
that are identified as RCRA hazardous
wastes and (hat are not excluded
elsewhere from regulation under the land
disposal restriction of 40 CFR 268 or
exempted under other EPA regulations (see
40 CFR 266.80).
DOOft—Cadmium batteries
-------
48514 Federal Register /Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules
Thermal recovery or stabilization as
methods of treatment for
nonwastewater forms of:
P119—Ammonium vanadate
P120—Vanadium pentoxide
Resmelting in high temperature zinc
metal recovery furnace as a method of
treatment for nonwastewater forms of:
K061—High zinc subcategory (greater than
15% total zinc)
Roasting or retorting as a method of
treatment; or incineration followed by
roasting or retorting of incinerator
nonwastewater residues (ash and
wastewater treatment sludges from
treatment of the incinerator scrubber
waters) provided such residues exceed
16 mg/kg total mercury for
nonwastewater forms of:
D009—High mercury subcategory—greater
than or equal to 16 mg/kg total mercury
Roasting or retorting as a method of
treatment for nonwastewater forms of:
K106—High mercury subcategory—greater
than or equal to 16 mg/kg total mercury
U151—High mercury subcategory—greater
than or equal to 16 mg/kg total mercury
K071—High mercury subcategory—greater
than or equal to 16 mg/kg total mercury
(Note: This standard creates a new
subcategory identified as K071 High
Mercury Subcategory and would replace
the K071 nonwastewater treatment
standard promulgated August 17,1988 (53
FR 31167) for wastes that would now fall
into this new subcategory.)
Recycling as a method of treatment
for nonwastewater forms of:
K069—Non-Calcium Sulfate Subcategory
Recovery as a method of treatment for
all forms of:
P015—Berylium dust
P073—Nickel carbonyl
P076—Nitric oxide .
P078—Nitrogen dioxide
P087—Osmium tetroxide
U115—Ethylene oxide
Recovery or stabilization as methods
of treatment for nonwastewater forms
of:1
P113—Thallic oxide
P114—Thallium (I) selenite
P115—Thallium (I) sulfate
U214—Thallium (I) acetate
U215—Thallium (I) carbonate
U216—Thallium (I) chloride
U217—Thallium (I) nitrate
(Wet air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon
adsorption; or incineration as methods
of treatment for wastewater forms of:
POld—Bis-chloromethyl ether
P023—Chloroacetaldehyde
P028—l-(o-Chlorophenyl) thiourea
P027—3-Chloropropionitrile
P028—Benzyl chloride
P057—2-Fluoroacetamide
P058—Fluproacetic acid, sodium salt
P095—Phosgene
P118—Trichloromethanethiol
U008—Acetyl Chloride
U017—Benzal chloride
U020—Benzenesulfonyl chloride
U026—Chloronaphazine
U033—Carbonyl fluoride
U034—Trichloroacetaldehyde
U041—n-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane
U042—2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
U048—Chloromethyl methyl ether
U049—4-Chloro-o-toluidine hydrochloride
U062—Diallate
U097—Dimethyicarbomyl chloride
U1S6—Methyl chlorocarbonate
U222—o-Toluidine hydrochloride
U240—salts and esters of 2,4-D
(Wet air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon
adsorption; biodegradation followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration; as
methods of treatment for wastewater
forms of:
POOl—Warfarin (>3%)
P002—l-Acetyl 2-thiourea
POOS—Allyl alcohol
P007—Muscimol (5-Aminoethyl 3-isoxazolol)
P008—4-Aminopyridine
POM—Benzene thiol (Thiophenol)
P017—Bromoacetone
P018—Brucine
P022—Carbon disulfide
P034—2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
P042—Epinephrine
P045—Thiofanox
P046—alpha. alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
P047—4,6-dinitrocresol salts
P049—2.4-Dithiobiuret
POS4—Aziridine
P064—Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester
P066—Methomyl
P067—2-Methylaziridine
P069—Methyllactonitrile
P070—Aldicarb
P072—l-Naphthyl-2-thiourea (Bantu)
P075-^Hcotine and salts
P084—N-Nitroiomethylvinylamine
P088—EndothaU
P093—N-Phenylthiourea
P102—Propargyl alcohol
P108—Strychnine and salts
P116—Thiosemicarbazide
U001—Acetaldehyde
U008—Acrylic add
U007—Acrylamide
U010—Mitomycin C
U011—Amitrole
U014—Auramine
U015—Azaserine
U016—Benz(c)acridine
U021—Benzidine
U03S—Chlorambucil
U053—Crotonaldehyde
U055—Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
UOS6—Cyclohexane
U059—Daunomycin
U064—1.2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene
U085—1.2,3,4-Diepoxybutane
U08*-Diethyl stilbestrol
U090—Dihydrosafrole
U091—3,3-Oimethoxybenzidine
U092—Dimethylamine
U094—7,12-Dimethyl benz(a)anthracene
U095—3.3'- Dimethylbenzidine
U110—Dipropylamine
U113—Ethyl acrylate
U114—Ethylene bis-dithiocarbamic acid
U115—Ethylene oxide
U118—Ethylene thiourea
U119—Ethyl methane sulfonate
U122—Formaldehyde
U123—Formic acid
U124—Furan
U125—Furfural
U128—Glycidaldehyde
U143—Lasiocarpine
U147—Maleic anhydride
U148—Maleic Hydrazide
U149—Malononitrile
U150—Melphalan
U1S3—Methane thiol
U154—Methanol
U163—N-Methyl N-nitro N-nitroguanidine
U164—Methylthiouracil
U171—2 Nitropropane
U173—N-Nitroso-di-n-ethanolamine
U176—N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
U177—N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
U178—N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
U182—Paraldehyde
U186—1,3-Pentadiene
U191—2-Picoline
U193—1,3-Propane sultone
U194—n-Propylamine
U200—Reserpine
U202—Saccharin and salts
U206—Streptozotocin
U213—Tetrahydrofuran
U218—Thioacetamide
U219—Thiourea
U234—sym-Trinitrobenzene
U236—Trypan Blue
U237—Uracil mustard
U238—Ethyl carbam'ate
U244—Thiram
U248—Warfarin (<3%)
(Alkaline chlorination, chemical
oxidation, or incineration) followed by
precipitation to insoluble sulfates as
methods of treatment for all forms of:
D003—Reactive sulfides subcategory based
on 261.23(a)(5)
Alkaline chlorination or incineration
as methods of treatment for all forms of:
P031—Cyanogen
P033—Cyanogen chloride
U246—Cyanogen bromide
Acid or water leaching followed by
chemical precipitation as sulfate or
carbonate or stabilization for
nonwastewater forms of:
D005—EP toxic for barium
P013—Barium cyanide
Chemical oxidation followed by
precipitation to insoluble salts as a
method of treatment for wastewater
forms of:
P006—Aluminum phosphide
P096—Phosphine
P105—Sodium azide
P122—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
U135—Hydrogen sulflde
U189—Phosphorus sulfide
U249—Zinc phosphide «10%)
-------
Federal Regfclar / VoL 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proponed Balea 48S1S
Neutralization with acids to: 6< pH
<8 and insoluble salts; or recovery for
all form* ofc
D002— Alkaline jubcategory based on
NeutrtlfeatloD will* bww *> «< pH <8 and
Insoluble salts; or recovery for all forms ofr
D002— Acid Subcategory based on
28L22(s))(l)
Solubilization in water followed by
precipitation as calcium fluoride; or
recovery as method* of treatment for
nonwastewater forms of:
POSJ— FTowine
UI34— Hydrogen flouride.
• * * * *
7. In 1 218.43, paragraph (a) Table
CCW £s amended by adding the
following subtables In alphabetical/
numerical order by EPA Hazardous
Waste number, and paragraph (b) »
amended by removing waste codes:
K044, K045, K047. K060, K069, and KlOO
from the Bubtable for No Land Disposal.
§2CM2 Treatment standard*. cxpntMd
a* wa»t* concentrations.
TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION nt WASTES
t ..... i
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION IN WASTES—Continued
c i
0007 wastewaters:
Chromium (Total)..
DOOS waatawatcrs:
Lead
0009 west ewatetr
Mercury
0010 wastewaters:
Selenium
oom
Concentra-
tion (in Rig/
K9)
OJ040
0.030
0.79
0.29
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION IN WASTES—Continued
t I
D017 nonwastewaters:
2.4,5-TP....- _.
Concentra-
tion (jn
0012 nocwvastawalars:
Endrin..« —«.«.
fctt
tjonffts*0/l)
0012 wastewaters:
Endrin..-
OOBOS2
ten (hi
D013 nonwa«tewaters:
LMam
0017vM8tewaters:
2.8
Coficantr*-
tion (in mg/l)
2.5
ConcenM-
«on (in
F002 noMvastewaiaca:
M>Tridilaroattiane.
fentfnmg/l)
F002 wcatawaters:
t,t A-TricWowethana -
0.054
Concentra-
tion
0003
Cyanide* Subcategory):
As analyzed using SW-846
Uethod 9010; sample size: 0.5-
10; uhuiiaaen ttmer one how »
on* hour fifteen minutes
Cyanides (Tola!) -
Cyanides (Amaru
Cencsti**-
lion In Mg/
CUK6
Conoaata-
Son(btmg/l)
Llndana
0.00024
F005 nonwaatawatafs:
2-e»oxyettiano)
3.72
47.5
SS
Concentra-
tion fn mg/l)
fm
110
t.1
Concaotw-
0003 waslewnof*. (Reacth*. Cyan*
tde* Subcategory):
A* aner/Md using SW-848 Method
SOtO; sample, size: 0-5-10; dutti-
Eatkxi timec on* hour to on* hou
Cyanides (Total)..,
Cyanides (Amtntbl*).
DOCK wtslswaltfs:
Awanic
D014 norwastowalacs:
Mathexychtor
D0i4waat«wai*rs:
Malhoxychlor-
OJM036
«k» (in
••/ktf
0015 nonwastvwaters:
Toxaptwn*
1.3
OLtO
0.7f
Concentra-
tion (in
mgy* 24
hour conv
posita
0005 wastewaters:
Buium.....
t.ts
Concentra-
tion (ki mg/l)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/Q
FOOS wastewaters:
Benzene
2-Nitropfopane - -
FOOS wastewaters:
Cadmium.-..— — — — —
Load .
F019 wastewaters:
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenabto)
Chromium (Total)..- - - —
0.07
73.3
0.073
1.9
0.10
1.6
0.32
0.040
0.44
0.27
0.11
0.32
Concentra-
tion (mg/kg)
OQtSwastawatofsi
Toxapnen*
0.014
Concentn-
•on (in
0016 nonwastewaters:
2,4-O -
Oorcavitra-
0008 wastewaters:
Cadmium.....
020
0016 wastewaters:
2.4-0
F019 nonwastewaters:
As analyzed using SW-846 Method
90tO using • samp* size? 0.5-
TO grams distiMatiow timer 1 hr to
1:15 hr
Cyanides (To4*l>
Cyanides (Ame«iabto>—
F025 nonwasteweJeis:
LigM Ends Subcaiegoty
Chlototon*.
0.013
1,2-DicMoroethane
1,1 Dfehloroethylene...
Methytene chloride
Carbon tetrachkxide...
1,1,2-Trtehtoroethane.
Trichtoroethyiene
Vinyl chloride...
39Q
2O
6.2
6.2
31
6.2
6.2
5.6
0.035
-------
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
R>25 wastewaters:
LigM Ends Subcategory
1,2-Otehloroethane
1 ,1-OichkxoethyteoB
Methytene chloride
Carbon tetrachtoride
1,1,2-Trichkxoethane
Trichkxoethytene
Vinyl chloride
0.035 '
0.007
0.007
0037
0007
0.007
0.007
0.033
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
F025 nonwastewatars:
Spent filtera/Aids and Desiccants
Subcategory
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Carbon tetrachlorida
1,1,2-Trichtofoethane
TricrHoroetfiyfene _
Vinyl chloride
Hexachkxobenzena
Hexachlofobutadiene
Hexachkxoethane ......
6.2
31
6.2
63
5.6
6.035
37
28
30
Concentre- •
tion (in mg/l)
F025 wastewaters:
Spent Filters/Aids and Desiccants
Subcategory
Chloroform..
Methytene chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1.2-Trichloroethane .
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chtoride
Hexachlofobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene....
Hexachtoroethane. „
0.035
0.037
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.055
0.031
0.034
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K001 nonwastawaters (see also
Table CCWE In 268.41):
Naphthalene : .
PentacrUoropheno) „
Pyrene „« »..,..
Toluene _
Xytenes (Total)
1.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
28
33
i Concentra-
tion fin mg/l)
K001 wastewaters:
Naphthalene _. .
Pentachkxophenol
Phenanthrene ™_.._ „
Pyrene „.
Toluene -...„._„
Xytene (Total) „ .
Lead
0.031
0.18
0.031
0.028
0.028
0.032
0.037
K002 wastewaters:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K003 wastewatera:
Chromium (Total)
Lead ... . ..
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
30 24
day hour
maa- rrtaxi-
mum mum
1.2 0.9
1.4 3.4
1.2 v 0.9
1.4 3.4
.
K004 wastewatera;
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K005 waatewatera:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Cyanides (Total)
K006 waatewatera:
Chromium (Total)
Lead
K007 waatewatera:
Chromium (Total)
Lead...;
• ' Cyanfdea (Total).... ~
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Concentration (in mg/l)
30 day
maximurr
13
1.4
1.2
1.4
0.31
\3.
1.4
1.2
1.4
0.31
1.2
1.4
K011 waatewatera:
AoetonttrHe _„
Acrylamide _
Acrytonitiikt M.....»;H..W>...
Benzene. — T
Cyanide* (Total)
K013 watttwaieia.
AcetonMrte ....................
- Acrytemkte
Aery)****
Benzene ....._.........__
Cyanidea (Total)
K014 wastewatera:
AcetonKrik*
Acrylamide .!
Acrylonitrile ».„..„„
Derizene „..
Cyanidea (Total)
...«..«..*»«.
::::
. ..........
24 hour
IHA)&TXJni
0.9
3.4
0.9
3.4
0.74
0.9
3.4
0.9
3.4
0.74
0.9
3.4
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
38
19
0.06 .
0.02
21
38
19
0.08
0.02
21
38
19
0.06
0.02
21
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
IXO.B
Table CCWE in 268.41):
AntnfBCWOtf .. ....... .mi... ......
Benzal chtoride
Benzo(b/k)lhioranthene ..
Phenanthrene „
Toluene ..«.„..._.........„....
K017 nonwaatewatera:
1^-Olchloroprepane.
1 .2,3-Trichtoropropane ....
Bis(2-chloroethy<)ether....
• also
3.4
6J2
3.4
3.4
6.0
0.014
0.014
1.8
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K017 wastewaters:
1 ,2-Oichloropropane
1,2,3-Trichkxopropane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)etner
0:01 4
0.014
0.037
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K021 nonwaatewatera (see also
Table CCWE In 268.41):
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachkxide
6.2
6.2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K021 wastewaters:
Carbon tetrachkxide
Antimony
Concentra-
tion (in mg'/l)
0.008
0.008
0.60
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K022 waatewatera:
Toluene „„...._
Acetophenone
Qphenylamine/
diphenytnrtrosamtne
Ptjsmol :
Clrromium (Total)
I Nickel.........
0.017
0.036
0.036
0.091
0.35
0.47
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
KO95 iMfttetMtar*.
4-Nitrophenol
0.67
0.084
0.67
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K025 nonwastewaters:
2,*Oinitrott(uene
4-Nitrophenol
K026 nonwastewaters:
Pyridme
2.3
2.3 "
2.3
14
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K026 wastewaters:
K029 wastewaters:
Chloroform
1,2-Oichloroetnane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
K031 wastewaters:
Arsentc ......„....._..
0.017
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.033
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.79
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 48517
Concentra-
tion (In
mg/kg)
K032 nonwastewaters:
Hexachtorocyctopentadiene
Chlordane ,.„..._.......-.«."....—
HepUchtof ............
Htptachkx tpcxx)*
2.0
0.13
0.066
0.066
Concentra-
tion {in mg/l)
K032 wastewaters:
Hexschkxocyctopentadiena
Chkxoane —
H«ptachkx epoxkto —
0.047
0.00039
0.00022
0.00022
concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K033 nonwastewaters:
Hexa<*kxocyctopentadiene —
2.0
Concentra-
Bon (in mg/l)
K033 wastewaters:
HexacWorocyclopentadiene •••»
K034 nonwastewaters:
mxachkxocyctooantadiena
0.047
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
2.0
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K034 wastewaters:
Hexachkxocydopentadiene ..
K035 wastewaters:
Benz(a)anthracene — ....
Chrysene „„.....,..... — ~...
O-CreSOl - —
p-Cresol ........ -
Ftuorantrwne ,.
Naphthalene........ ••••
Phenanthrene.... -•
Phenol .
0.047
0.028
0.14
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.031
0.058
Concentra-
tion (In
mg/kg}
K035 nonwastewaters:
Benz(a)anthraeene — — ~
Chrysene
K03S nonwastewaters:
Dfcenz(a,h)anthracene
Buoranthene .....
Fhxxene .
lndeno(1 A3^d)pyr«n«
Naphthalene
Phervanthrene
Pytene »_™.._.™~..«™ ... —
K033 nonwaatawaters:
Dts4)tfoton • ««••«•
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
&2
0.1
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K037 wastewaters (based on com-
posita sample):
DisuHotonv
0.025
0.080
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K041 nonwastewaters:
Toxaphene
0.13
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
Toxaphene
0.00039
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K042 nonwastewaters:
•124 5-Tetrachkxobenzene
o-Dichtorobcnzena
Pentachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
K042 wastewaters:
^24 s-Tetrachlorobenzene...
o-Dichkxobenzene. ......... ........•••••••••
p-DJchkxobenzooe
1 ,2.4-TrfcWorobenzen«
K044 wasttwaters:
K045 wastewaters:
K046 wastewaters:
K047 wastewaters:
K048 wastewaters:
Cyanides (Total) ••••
K048 nonwastewaters:
Benzorw. -
Benzo(a)pyrefM ...........
BK(2-ethylhexyl)Dhthalate
Chrysene....— ....................—— •—
, Dt-n-butyt prrthalate ~-
EtfiyltMnzene ..«....«......««..»
Naphtfialene
Prwnanthrene ~ ••••
Phenol „..
Pyrene -
Toluene
Xvtefids) «...«.4«..««..«"««««*
K049 wastewaters:
Cyanides (Total)
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.028
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
3.9
1.4
4.3
0.84
4.3
0.06
0,84
0.84
4.3
1.1
3.9
a .s
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
&.028
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K049 nonwastewaters:
Anthracene
Benzene
8te(2-ethylnexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene _
Phenol - -
Xytena(s)
1.4
3.9
1.4
4.3
0.84
0.08
0.84
0.84
4.3
1.1
3.9
8.5
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K050 wastewaters:
Cyanides (Total)
0.028
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K050 nonwastewaters:
Benzo(a)pyreno
1.4
4.3
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
KOS1 wastewaters:
Cyanides (Total)
K051 nonwastewaters:
Anthracene
BsnzoWanthracene
Ks(2-ethymexyl)pmhalate
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylene(s)
K052 wastewaters:
Cyanides (Total)
0.028
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
1.4
3.9
1.4
1.4
4.3
0.84
4.3
0.08
0.84
0.84
4.3
1.1
3.9
8.5
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.028
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K052 nonwastewaters:
Benzo(a)pyrene — :
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
3.9
1.4
6.8
6.8
0.08
0.84
0.84
4.3
3.9
8.5
-------
K060 wastewaters (based on com-
posite samples):
Benzene ;...
Benzo(a)pyrene ""."..
Naphthalene
Phenol
0.17
0.035
0.028
0.042
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K060 wastewaters (based on grab
samples):
Cyanides (Total)
1.9
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K060 nonwastewaters:
Benzene
Benro(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Cyanides (Total)
0.071
3.6
3.4
3.4
1.2
K083 wastewaters:
Benzene..-
Aniline
CXpoenylaraine/
Nitrobenzene
Pnenot
Cydohexanone
Ntekei
K084 wastewaters;
Arsenic
0.017
0 017
0 036
O A7
A 70
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
Methylene chloride
Napthatene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
U,1-Trichkxoethane ...
Trichtoroettiylene
Xytenes (Total).
Cyanides (Total)
31
6 2
5 6
33
1.5
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
Concentra-
tion (to mg/l)
K061 wastewaters:
Cadmium
Chromium (Total).,
Lead
Nickel
1.61
0.32
0.04
0.44
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K069 wastewaters:
Cadmium
Lead
•1.61
0.040
K085 nonwastewaters:
Benzene.... .,
Chlorobenzene.....
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dtchlorobenzene
1,2,4-TricMorobenzene
1,2.4,5-Tetrachlorooenzene..
Pentachlorobenzena
Hexachkxobenzene
ArocloMOie
Arodor1221
Aroctof1232
Aroctor 1242
Aroctor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
Conctrrtra-
tton(inmg/l)
K085 wastewaten
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K073 nonwastewaters:
Carbon tetracntoride...
Chloroform
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichtoroethane..
6.2
6.2
28
6.2
BO
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
K073 wastewaters:
Carbon tatrachloride
Chloroform
Hexachloroathane
Tetrachloroetiwne.
1.1.1-Trichloroethane.
0.008
0.008
0.033
0.008
0.008
Benzene..
Chlorobenzene _
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dtehlorobenzene _
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2.4-Trichtorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tafrachlorobenzene...
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachtorobenzane
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroctor 1254
Aroclor 1260
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0.00036
0,00036
0.00036
K086 wastewaters:
Acetone
Acetophenone
Bis(2-emylhexyl)phthalate
n-8trtyl alcohol
Butytoenzyiphthalate .3»atef.....
Cyctohexanone
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Diethyl phthalate _
Dimethyl phthalate
Dt-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyi phthalate
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
Methanol (based on composite
sample).
Methyl Mooutyl ketone
Mrthyl sthyl ketone
M«(hylene chloride
Naptnalene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichtoroethane '..".
Trichkxoethylene
Xytenes (Total)
Cyanides (Total)
Chromium (Total) _
K09S wastawatars:
1,1,1,2-Tetrachtoroetriane...
1.1 A2-Tefrachtoroethane._
Tetrachloroethene
1.1,2-Trichtoroethane
Trichtoroethene
H»xachtoroetfiane
PwXachtoroe thane
0.25
0.17
0.54
0.56
0.54
1.4
0.058
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.0052
0.032
0.033
0.028
0.14
0.037
0.007
0.033
0.032
0.007
0.007
0.028
1.9
0.32
0.037
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.033
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
Concerrtnv
tion (in
atoo
Concentrs*
tion (in
mg/kg)
K083 nonwastewaters (see also
Table CCWE in 268.41):
Benzene
Aniline .'_™
Diphenylamine/
diphenylnitrosamine
Nitrobenzene
Phenol...._ '
Cydohexanone .".
6.6
t4
14
14
5.6
30
K086 nonwastewatars («••
Table CCWE in 268.41):
Acttorm ................ __.
Acatophenone .......... _ ..........
Bfe42-ethy(f)exyl)prrtrialate ...... ™ ......
rnflutyl alcehol ................................
Butytoenzylphthalate....... .................
CydorMxanorw .................................
1 ,2-Oichlofobenzen« ........... _________
DieJhyi phthalate ..............................
Dinnthyt phthalate .................
Di-n-birtyl phthaiat*. .........................
DwH>ctyl phthalate ................. : _____
Ethyl acetate
Methanol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
0.14
9.»
28
2.6
28
1.9
6.2
28
28
28
28
5.6
33
140
33
200
K096 wastewaters:
1,1,1,2-Tetrachtoroethane..
1.1,2.2-Tetrachtoroethane..
Tetrachtoroethene
1.1,2-Trichtoroethane
TrictHoroethene
1.3-Dichtorobenzene
POntachloroethane
1,2.4-Trich*orobenzene
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.023
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
K097 nonwastewatars:
HencMorocyclopantadia
HaptactHorepoxida
2.0
0.13
0.066
0.66
CoDcentra-
ten (in
mg/1)
K097 wastawators:
HexachkxocydopentaoTene..
Chlordarw
Heptachkx
0.047 .
0.00039
0.00022
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48519
Heptachlor epoxide .........................
K098 nonwtstewattrs:
Toxaphene,,:, ,,. ,•
K098 w»»t«wi:tri:
Toxapheno....................................**.
K1CO wisttwaters: .
Chromium (Total) ••••••••••••••—• _.,.
LMd«.
K101 waUewiters:
(MrxMirtroaniltno........... ...................
C*dmiom ................ ,„ „..,..
LMd ^^ u^u, „„„..,............,, ,,,iu,,.,
M*rcury,..~..,..,. „. ..
Kt02WMMw*t*r*:
Ortho-nKrophenol „„.... „......_.„...
Arsenic
Cadmium .»».«..«»«.»»..•»»».»».«.««
L*»d... __....,..,...................... ..„..„
Mf rcurv
_-.__w»^.»
Chkxobenzene... _... ...
p-D^cHonbtratnt.
2.4>Tfichkxophenol
2-CWofopheool.........
Phenol
XI 05 WBotewaters:
Benzene ......... ...................................
ChlorooenzerJe .................... ., „
p-Oiehkxobenzerw.... ...... — ...
2A5-Triehkxoph«nol
2*ChIoropneno1 «».«««....»»«»«»»»..
PriCnOl ....... .„ _„„„.„...
K106 wultwttw
M^fCtjfyHH ,
P003 WMMwAMrs:
ACf Ol**n ........ IMIll.. m.......!.!.!.,.... I. ^1. 11
P004 noflw*ft«w*l*n:
m&n „,„„„,„„,„„„„„ ,„„„„„„„ „
P004 wwtwiMn:
POIO WMtCWttWK
POt 1 wttttwtttn:
Art»oiC.. ...... ...... ...... .
P012 wttt*wtUr«:
An«nlc .„.„.. . _. .. .
Concentra-
tion (Jnmg/
kg)
0.00022
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
0.13
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/1)
0.00039
1 61
0.32
0.040
0.27
0.79
0.24
0.17
0.082
0.028
O 7fl
0.24
0.17
0.032
Concentra-
tion (in
itifl/kg)
.
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
tiofi (fn
mg/1)
0.092
0092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.030
3.6
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
0.066
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/1)
0.00024
0.79
0.79
P013 wastewaters:
Barium .
P020 nonwastewaters:
2-sec-ButyM,6-dinitropheno(
2-sec-Butyt-4,6-dinrtrophenol
P024 nonwastewators:
p^hkxoaniHne
P024 wastewaters:
pOikxtMrtlino
P036 wastewatera;
Arsenic -...
P037 nonwastewaters:
Dietdrin
P037 wastewaters:
DtekJrin ...
P038 wastewaters:
Arsenic
P047 'nonwastewaters: (see also
2*8.42 for salt* and esters)
4,6-<*nrtrocrasol......
•
P047 wastewaters: (sea also 268.42
(or salts and esters):
P048 nonwastewaters:
2,4-
-------
48520 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1980 / Proposed Rufes
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
P082 nonwastewaters:
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
56
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
P082 wastewaters:
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
P092 wastewaters:
Marcury —
P099 wastewaters:
0.67
0.030
0.29
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
P101 nonwastewaters:
Propanenitrila _
360
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
P101 wastewaters:
Propanenitrile
P103 wastewaters:
Selenium
P104 waslewaters:
P110 wastewaters:
P1 13 wastewaters:
Thallium
Pi 14 wastewaters:
Selenium
Thallium
P1 15 wastewaters:
Thallium
P1 19 wastewaters:
Vanadium
P120 wastewaters:
0.64
0.79
0.29
0.040
0.14
0.79
0.14
0.14
0.042
0.042
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
P123 nonwastewaters:
1.3
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
P1 23 wastewaters:
Toxaphene „.
0.014
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U002 nonwastewaters:
Acetone
0.14
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U002 wastewaters:
Acetone
0.25
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U003 nonwastewaters:
AcatonHrile
0.35
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U003 wastewaters:
Acetorffrila
U004 nonwastewaters:
0.42
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
9.6
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
UOO+waetawatars:
Acetopnenone
0.17
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U005 nonwastewaters:
2-Ac«tyl*fninofluorene
13
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U005 wastewaters:
2-Acetylaminorluorane
0.058
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U009 nonwastewaters:
Aerylonitrile
0.28
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U009 wastewatars:
Aerylonitrile.
0.64
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U012 nonwastewaters:
Aniline
U012 wastewaters:
Aniline..
U017 nonwastewaters:
Banzai chloride
U01 7 wastewatars:
Benz«4 chloride _
14
Conceolrar
fion (in
mg/kg)
0.033
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
6.2
Concontni-
tion (in mg/l)
0.28
U018 nonwastewaters:
Benzfalanthracene .
U018 wastewaters:
Benz(a)anthracene
U019 nonwastewaters:
Benzene
U019 wastewaters:
Benzene
•muni •«•••»»
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
3,6
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
O.C30
tion (in
mg/kg)
36
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.033
Concentra-
tion (in
+ mg/kg)
U022 nonwastewaters:
Benzo(a)pyrene
U022 wastewaters:
Benzo(a)ovrene
„
U024 nonwastewaters:
Bis-(2-cnloroethoxy)methane
3.6
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.030
Conu&itra-
tion (in mg/l)
12
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U024 wastewaters:
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)meOiane
U025 nonwastewaters:
Dichtoroethyl ether. _.
U025 wastewaters:
Dichtoroethvl ether.
U027 nonwastewaters:
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyJ> ether
U027 wastewaters:
8is-<2-chlorO4SOoropyl) ether
U029 nonwastewaters: I
Methyl Bromide
U029 wastewaters: I
Methyl Bromide '
0064
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
72
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.013
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
7.2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0064
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
15
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
16
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U030 nonwastewaters:
4-Bromoplienel Pheoyl Ethei
15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rutet
48521
0030 wastewaters:
4.8romoohonel Phenyl Ether
U031 nonwattewetefs:
nBulanol ,„„„.,.....,..,.
U031 w*tt«walers:
n-E>jl*nol .-,..,„
U032 wttlewaters:
Chnxnom (Total)..
U036 nonwaittwaters:
U036 wasttwatars:
U037 nonwaitawtters:
CWofobenzeo* .......„.„..,...„.
U037 wastewatars:
Cnlorobenzene
UC3S nonwastewaters:
Chlorobenziiate ...................
U033 wastawaters: .
Chlorobenziiate ................................
p-CMoro-m-cresol
Vinyl chkxido
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
18
tion (In
mg/kg)
2.6
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.56
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.32
Concentro-
tion (in
mg/ke)
013
0.13
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.00044
Concentra-
tion (hi
5.7
Concentra-
tion (in mg/0
0.014
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
6.6
Concentra-
tion, (in mg/0
0.292
Concentra-
tion (hi
mg/kg)
14
Concentra-
tion (in mg/0
0062
_
mg/kg)
0 035
Vinyl chloride
,
U044 nonwastewaters:
Chloroform — « -
U044 wattewaters:
U045 noawastawaters:
CMeromethane
U04S wtstewaters:
CMeromethane — -..
U047 nonwastewatera:
2-Chlororaphthaton*
U047 waatewatera:
uu^u imiiwfliii'Hwaipu.
2-Chtorophenol
U048 wa*tewaters:
2^h)oropheno(
U050 nonweUtowAtorsz
ChrysAno
.
Tabto CCWE in 268.41):
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.033
Concentra-
tion (in
6.2
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
0.007
Concentra-
mg/kg)
5.6
Concentra-
0.023
Concentra-
mg/kg)
,
5.8
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0073
Concentra-
mg/kg)
5.7
' Coneentn.
tion (in mg/l)
0.056
Concentra-
UW1I \
mg/kg)
3.6
tion (in mg/l)
015
/-—..»,
tion (in
mg/Kg)
•1 c
7 4
1 5
,
Pyrene
Toluene
Xytenes (Total)
Naphthalene
Pentachloroohenol
Phenanthreno
Pyrene
Toluene ,
Xytene (Total).,
Lead
U052 nonwastewaten:
Greeofs (m- and p- isomers)
O-CfMOf
CrMOte (m- and p- isomers)
1 inCT rninmf.otauj-itQro-
Cydonexanone
i me*T •« »
Cydohexanone
U060 nonwastewaters:
O,p'-DOD
p p'-DDO
U060 wastewaters:
U061 nonwastewators:
pj>'-DDT
oo'-DDO
p-,p'-OOE
O,p'-OOT
p,p'-DOT
0 p'-DDD
pp'-DDD
Oj>'.DDE
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
1.5
28
33
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
0.031
0.18
0.031
0.028
0.02S
0032
0037
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
56
3.2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.0066
0.028
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
1.9
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
1.4
Concentra-
0.087
0.087
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.00036
Concentra-
tion (in-
0087
0.087
0,087
0087
0087
0.087
Concentra-
0 00036
0.00036
&.00036
0.00036
O.QC036
-------
48522 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
p,p'-DDE
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
0.00036
Concentra-
tion, (in
mg/kg)
U063 nonwastewaters:
Dibenzo(a,h)anmracene
U063 wastewaters:
D*enzo(a,h)antfiracene
13
Concentra-
tion 4in mg/l)
0.012
Concentra-
tion (in
U066 nonwastewaters:
1 £-0e
trans-1 ,4-Dichtoro-2-butene
16
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.022
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
30
30
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l) •
U074 wastewaters:
ds-1,4-Oichloro-2-t)utene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-botene
0.034
0.034
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U075 nonwastewater
Dichlorodifluoromethane
10
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U075 wastowators:
DichlorodHluorometnane
0.14
Concentra-
tion (hi
mg/kg)
U070 nonwaitowated
i.i-OKniofoetnane
&2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U078 wastewaters:
1.1-Otetikxoathan* .......
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U077 nonwastewaters:
1,2-Dtehloroethane
6.2
Concentra-
tion On mg/l)
U077 wastawatenc
"1,2-Dichloroetnaflo........... «.«..
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U078 nonwastewaters:
1 1-Dichloroethylene
6.2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U078 wastewaters:
1 1-DJchloroetriylene
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U079 nonwastewaters:
U079 wastewaters:
trana-1£-Dicnloroetr>ylene
U080 nonwastewaters:
U080 wastewaters:
Methftene chloride
U061 nonwastewaters:
6.2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
31
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.037
Concentra- ,
tion (in
mg/kg)
14
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U081 wastewaters:
U082 nonwastewaters:
2,6-Dichlorophenol
0.052
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
14
* Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U082 wastewaters:
2,6-Dtchtoropheno)
U063 nonwastewaters:
1 2-OichtcfOpropane
0.01S
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
IS
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U083 wastewaters:
1,2-Oichloropropane
0.067
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 224 f Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
U084 nonwastewaters:
os*1,3ottrotolu«fv»....... —
U105 watttwaters:
2,4*0totcot0luenet....i......«.....»».«""
•
U106 nonwastewaters:
2,8 DintrotohMfw,.-.
U10S wutawataoc
2,6-DtO
-------
48524 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules
-
U132 wastewaters:
Hexachlorophene
U134 wastewaters:
Fluoride
U136 wastewaters:
Arsenic
U137 nonwastewaters:
lndeho(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene
U137 wastewaters:
lndeno(1 2 3 -c d)pyrene
U138 nonwastewaters:
lodomethane
U138 wastewaters:
lodomethane
U140 nonwastewaters:
Isobutanol
U140 wastewaters:
Isobutanol
U141 nonwactewaters:
. Isosafrote
U141 wastewaters:
Isosafrote . ...................... „.
.
U142 nonwastewaters:
Kepone......._ ^.. .
U142 wastewaters:
Kepone L...
Lead............
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
58
35
079
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
3.6
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0030
Concentra-
tion (hi
65
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
023
Concentra-
tion ' (in
170
Concentra-
1 4
Concentra-
tion (in
2.6
Concootffc-
tion (in mg/l)
0076
tion (in
mg/kg)
0043
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
6.0011
0.040
U145 wastewaters:
Lead
U146 wastewaters:
Lead
• i* i»
Mercury.
U152 nonwastewaters:
Methacrytonitrite.
U152 wastewaters:
MethacrytonHrile
U155 nonwastewaters:
Methapyritene
U155 wastewaters:
MettiapyrHene
U1S7 nonwastewaters:
3-Methytenloanthrene
U157 wastewaters:
3-MemytoWotntfvene
U 158 nonwastewatefs:
U1 58 wastewaters:
Methyl etny) ketone
U159 waetewaters:
Methyl ethyl ketone
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.040
0040
0030
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
84
tion (in mg/l)
0.47
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
69
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.15
Cooc8fitra~
tion (in
mg/kg)
33
Concentra-
tion (In mg/l)
0.58
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
Concentf a*
tion (in mg/l)
0.74 .
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
200
Concentra-
tion (in mg/0
0.14
U161 nonwastewaters:
Methyl isobutyl ketone
U161 wastewaters:
Methyr isobutyl ketone
U>62 nonwastewaters:
U162 wastewaters:
Methyl methacrylate
U165 nonwastewaters:
Naphthalene
U165 wastewaters:
Naphthalene
U166 nonwastewaters:
1,4-Naphthoquinone
U186 wastewaters:
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
U167 nonwastewaters:
1-Naphthylamine
U167 wastewaters:
1-Naphthylamine
U168 nonwastewaters:
2-Naphthylamine
U168 wastewaters:
2-Naphthylamine
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
33 '
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0028
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
160
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
047
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
59
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
1.9
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.073
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
15
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.37
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
15
Concentra-
tion (in mg/0
1.8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22. 1989 / Proposed Rules 48525
U169 nonwastewaters:
U169 wastawaters:
Nitrobenzene «»........«.«.«
*""""
U170 nonwastewaters:
4'Nitrophenc4
4-Nttrophenol I
U172 nonwastawaters:
N- Nitrosc-dt-n-buttyamina
U172 wastewators:
N-NHroso-oT-n-buttyamlne
U174 nonwastewaters:
N-Nitro»odittfrytamlne
U174 wastewaters:
N Nitrosodiethytamine —
U179 nonwastawatars:
N-Nitro*opiperldine
N-Nitrotopiptridlne
U160 nonwastawaters:
N-N*tfMOpyrroWfr» . ,,u,,...,. ........
U1SO wastewatars:
N-Nitrotopyrrotkltna .......................
U181 nonwastawaters:
Concentra-
mg/kg)
•14
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.033.
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
65
ton (In mg/l)
018
lion (In
mg/kg)
54
tion(inmg/1
0.67
_
ton (jn
mg/kg)
29
^
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.87
ton (In
mg/kg)
220
_ __»-_
ton On mg/l)
1.3
I
ton (in
mg/kg)
220
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
1.3
_
ton (in
mg/kg)
56
U181 wastewaters:
5-Nrtrc-o-toktidine
I
U183 nonwastewaters:
Pentachlorooenzene
U183 wastewaters:
Pentachlorobenzene
U184 nonwastewaters:
Pentachloroethane
U184 wastewaters:
Pentachloroethane
U185 nonwastewaters:
Pentachkxonitrobenzend. ...............
U185 wastewaters:
Pentachloronitrobenzene
U187 nonwastewaters:
Phenacetin .............
U187 wastewaters:
U188 nonwastewaters:
Phenol .-. ...................
• U188 wastewaters:
Phenol ...
U192 nonwastewaters:
Pronamide.»«.«..».H.«..
U192 wastewaters:
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
2.2
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
37
(ion (in mg/l)
0.096
Concentra-
0.037
Concentra-
tion (In
4.8
Concentra-
tion (in IT1Q/I)
0.096
Concentra-
tion (to
mg/kg)
16
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
0.38
Concentra*
ton (in
mo/ko)
6.2
Concentra-
tion On mg/0
0.091
Concentra-
tion (In
mg/kg)
1.S
Concentra-
tion On mg/l)
0.039
Pyridine
U196 wastewaters:
Pyrkjine
U197 nonwastewaters:
U201 nonwastewaters:
Resourdnol -
U201 wastewatera:
Resowcbx)! «
U203 nonwastewaters:
Safrole
U203 wastewaters:
eafmU
U204 wastewaters:
Selenium....-
U205 wastewaters:
SetenKim
U207 nonwastewaters:
1 ^,4.5-Tetmchtorobenzene
U207 wastewaters:
1 ,2.4,5-Tetrachtorobenzano
U208 nonwastewaters:
1,1^-Tetrachtoroethane
U208 wastewatera:
1.1,1^-Tetrachtoroethane
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
16
Concentra-
0031
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
I80
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
13
lion (in
mg/kg)
1.8
r> *«*
ton (in mg/l)
8.2
ton (in
mg/kg)
22
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
1.3
3.79
0.79
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
•
19
0.023
Concentra-
mg/kg)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/0
0.007
-------
Federal
U209 nonwastewatefs:
t,1,2.2-T«tracbloroethane
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
&2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U209 wastewaters:
l,1A2-Tetrachtoroethane
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U210 nonwastewaters:
Tetrachkxoethylerw „„
&2
Concentra-
tion (hi mg/l)
U210 wastewaters:
Tetrachloroathylene
aoo?
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg)
U211 nonwastewaters:
Carbon tetrachkxkte
&2
Concanfra-
tion (in mg/l)
U211 wastewaters:
Carbon tetrachkxide.^.-.. _.
U214 wastewaters:
Thnttim
U215 wasttwaters:
U21 7 wastewaters:
U220 nonwastewaters:
TijI^MMia .„.. .,
OJ»7
0.14
0.14
ai4
0.14
Concentra-
tion (in
m*4)
2»
CbncorMra*
Don (In mg/l)
U220 waatewaters:
Tohiana
U225 nonwastewaters:
Brnmofayn
U225 wartawaters:
0.028
Conoentra-
tkjn (in
mg/kg)
15
Coficflfltra-
tion (in mg/l)
16
Concontrd*
tion (in
mg/kg)
1,1,1,-TrMikxoethane
6.2
Concentra-
tion (tn mg/^
1,1.1,-Trichkxoettiane
0.007
Concentra-
tion (in
rug/da)
U227 nonwastewaters:
1,1,2-TricrHoroethane
6.2
Concentra-
tion (in mg/l)
U227 wastewaters:
t1.1.2-Trichloroethane..._
0.007
Coneantra-
tkm On
mg/kgt
U22B nonwMtewaters:
Trichtoroetnytena
S.6
Concentta*
ttM«nmg/l)
U22»waa(e»aien.
TricMorathylene
0.007
Coflcenfrs>-
tan 0n
mgj*g>
U238 nonwaalowaters:
Xytanaa (Total) _ .
33
Conoarrtfv-
•onpnmg/n
U239 wastewaters:
xyiarw* (Total)
U240 nonvastewatar* (sea also
268.42 (br salts and esters):
£4-O . .
0.032
Concwrtftt-
wOft ^wl
mgAg)
10
Concar*a-
tton(lnmg/0
U240 waslewalers (see also 268.42
for safls and esters):
2,4-0.. .
0.013
Concantra-
tton (tn
mg/kg)
U243- nonwastewaters:
Hexachtoropropane
ramraorapfDpena
37
ConGarMra-
tkxifmmg/l)
0.047
Concentra-
tion (in
mg/kg*
U247 nonwastewaters:
Methoxychlor
U247 wastewaters:
Methoxychlor
Mult-source leachate
nonwastewatars
AcenapfitftaFone
AcroWn „ _.
Acetopnenone.- - „..
Acrylarnide.
2 Acetyiaminofluorene _
AcfytonitrffA~-
Aldrin _
4-Amjnob4phenyl
Anthracene .....™ ,
Aramite _.
Aroclor 1016 _
Aroctor 122t_
Aroc)or1232. _ _
Aroclor 1242.— „
Arodor 1248 „ . ._
Aroclor 1254 - .: ._
Aroctof 1260 .:
alpria-BHCr
beta-BHC
delta-SHC
gamma-BHC .......
Benzene.-
Benzal chJorida.
B«nzo(a)anttmcene
Benzo(b)l1uoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene. .._
Bnnzetoh.Operylnno
p-O^nzoojuinone
Bromometfiane (methyl bromide)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ._
Butyl benzyl phthalate _.. -
2-sec-ButyM.frdinitrophenol
Carbon tatracJUonde...
ct-Chkxoaniline.
Chlorabenzene_ „ —
Chkxobenzilate ...
2-Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene.
ChforodHjromometnane
bi»-(2-Cri(oroethoxy) methane
bM2-Cnloroe*yl) ether.
Crrforotorm _
bis-<2-Chforoi3eprcpyr) ether
p-Chtarc-m-creso1. — -
CMeromettnme _
2-CMoronapnthalene —
2-CMoroprienoJ - _
3-ChJofopropeM. ....M..»»....H .
r^hnjMm
Cratol fm- and p- isomers) _
Cvctohaseanone „
0,18
Concentra-
tion (In mg/l)
OJXX136
Total
composition
(rrig/kg)
0.14
3.4
9.1
0.35
2.8
9.6
1.5
13
0.28
0.066
13
14
7.7
2.5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
36
6.2
6.2
3.6
3.4
3.4
13
3.6
180
16
16
16
16
2.6
15
2.5
6.2
0.13
16
5.7
6.6
28
16
6.0
7.2
72
6.2
7.2
T4
5.6
5.6
5.7
28
3.6
5.6
3.2
1.9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22, 1989 / Proposed Rules 48527
. Multi-source laachate
nonwHtewatere
t,2-D8xorno-3-Chkxopropane.
1.2-Otbromoethane (Ethyleoe dibro-
rrwJe)™, . .
Dibromomflthane.. —
2,4-Oiehlorophanoxy8cetie add (2,4-
0) ................
oep*-000 ...»«»»«».»»«».»»...•.»...«.
p,p*-D0D . . .«••«. . • •
0 p'-ODE .. .„.».
p.p'-DOH.™ ~
oFp**OOT..^*»*«.««.«.*«»*..-».».««>..««.«...
p'p'-WT ",.,., ,..™... !....'. ,
DcNof obemx*n«. .....
cis-1 ,4-Dichtofo-2-butine.
tr»ni-1,4-Dichtofo-2-txjten«
Diehkxodiffooromethane
1.1-Ochkxcamtne . — ...„
1.2-DichlofO«th»ne .......
1,1-Otehtoroethylane. —
tr»r»-1,2-D*rM ..._-..„.............,...
DkMsetyl phthalal*.^ — .. — ~™..™
Diph4rty»«tiTiio9»H>.».»..»»..H.M«»...K...»w.
CXphwiykittrotoamlo*. ..
OkHxopyinHrosoamin* .. — .-
1 ,4*OtoXafH M»««.»4».».M..»....»...».H«....H
Oisu^foton. »».«»..».»..»»««««.....«»»«...
Endosutfan l.~-
EndosuKan II .™™.™™.™.......™........_™
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
16
16
16
10
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
13
22
0.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
16
30
30
10
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
14
14
15
15
15
0.13
28 '
29
•)4
28
28
2.3
140
140
140
28
28
13
13
14
280
0.1
0.066
0.13
Multi-source teachate
nomvastewators
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Enctrin aldehyde
Ethyl acetate
Etnyf bdnzflno .
Etnyt ather
bi«-<2-Etnytnexyl) phtnalat*
Ethyl methacrytate
Famphor.
Ftuorantnene
F]uofefic
Fhxjrotrichloronwthane.
HdptachJor
Heptacnlor epoxids
Hexachlorobanzene _..
Hexachtorocydopentadlene
Hexachloroditoenzo-hjrans
tj TWI ^^ '
Isobutanol
Isodrin
)gO34ffOfg. , .„
Methactytonftrite. „ _.
Methand
M«thapyrt!eo«
Mothoxychtof. „
3-M«thyfchloamhren«
4.4-Vethyl9o<>-ba-(2-chkxx3anifioe)
Mothytooa crttoride
Methyl athyl katon*
Methyl ijobutyl ketone.
Methyl methacrytate
Methyl Parathkm
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoqutnone ....
1-Naphthylan*ie
2-Naphthylamtne.
pj«tro«n«ne
Nitrobenzene.
5-Nftro-o-tolukJine
4-NitfOphonol
N^^froKHJMvbuttyamin*
Total
coniposition
(mg/kg)
0.13
0.13
0.13
5.6
6.0
140
28
160
0.1
3.6
7.7
33
0.066
37
28
4.8
0.001
30
1.1
65
170
0 010
2.6
004S
84
140
6.9
0.18
33
29
31
200
33
160
0.1
5.9
1.9
IS
15
28
14
56
65
28
54
Multi-source leachate
nonwastowatar*
N-NHrosomethytethylamine
Parathion
Pentschkxobanzeno .
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans
Pantachlorodibanzo-P'dioxins
Pantachtoronitrobefizona
Phanacatin
Phenanthrena
Phenol
Phorata
Phmalic anhydride (measured
a»phthallc acid)
Propanonrtrile
Pfonamida
Pyrldina
Rasourdnol
Safrote
Slvex (2,4,5-TP)
24 5-T
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlofoberaene
Tatrachlorodibanzo-furans.
Tatrachkxo6ibenzo-p-ol
1,2,3-TrichtofOpropaine
1,l,2-Trichloro-l^t2-triffuoro^thane
Xytene(3) ,
CyanWes (Total)
OuirtkHtft* /Anwmabki)
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
23
2 3
220
220
0 1
37
0.001
0.001
4.8
16
3.4
6.2
0.1
28
360
1.5
9 1
16
1.8
22
2.1
2.1
19
0001
0.001
62
6.2
62
37
1.3
19
6.2
6.2
37
28
28
0.035
33
1.5
0 10
-------
48528
r«derrt Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday. November 22,1989 / Propoaed Rules
Multi-source leachate wastewaters
Acetone
AcenapJithalene
Acenaphthene
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acetophenone
Acryfamide
2-AcetytaminofIuorene
Acrylonrtrile
Aldrin
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
ArodOf 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1 260
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
dslta-BHC
gamma-BHC
Benzal chloride
Benzene
Benzene thiol ..
Benzo(a)anthracane _..„
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perytene _.. .
Benzo(k)(luoranthene
p-Benzoquinone
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (methyl bromide)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
n-Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Buty)-4,6-dinitrophenol
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide „...
Chlordane
p-Ctiloroaniline :
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
2-Chtoro-l ,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane _
bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
p-Chloro-m-cresol .'.
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
2-Chloronaphthatene
2'Chlorophenol
3-Chloropropene
Chryserte
o-Cresol
Cresol (m- and pisomers)
Cyclohexanone
1 ,2-Oibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane _
Dibromomethane
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid.
o,p'-DDD
Total
Composition
(mg/l)
0.162
0.059
0.059
0097
0.162
0.242
0.021
0.807
0.059
0.020
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013
0.014
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.00168
0.040
0.136
0.219
0.059
0.061
0.040
0.004
0.059
0.020
0.198
0.065
0.040
0.137
0.012
1.436
0.032
0.179
0.00327
43.736
0.032
0.072
0.032
0.032
0.268
0.008
0.024
0.035
0.046
0.040
0.053
0.190
0.040
0.051
0.021
0.059
0.189
1.315
0.020
0.065
0.016
0.065
0.721
0.023
Multi-aourc* leachate wastewaters
p.p'-OOD
o,p'-DOE
p.p'DDE
p,p'-DOT
Dibenzo
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22,1989" / Proposed Rules
48529
Multi-source l«achate wastewaters'
Tnchtofo«'.hylone...
2.4,5-Trtchlorophenol „
Z.4.6-Trichlorophenol .
1A3-Trtchtoropropane
1,1,2 Trichhxo-l^^-trmuoroelhane..
VSnyl chloride...-,-™...,———
Xyltna(s),.....,..,.................. -.—....
Cyanides (Total).......—.
Cyanides (Amenable),—.
Fluoride,.
SutSde,.,..
Chromium (Total)™....
Coppi
Lead..
Ntdkel,.—
Selen)urn-
ThaMum ,...„......-
Vanadium,...,,..,.,.,
Tout
Composition
(ma/I)
0.054
0.008
0.008
0.482
6.496
0.268
0.182
1.9
0.10
35.
W.
1.930
1.390
1.150
0.820
0.200
0.370
1.280
0.280
0.150
0.550
0,820
0.290
1.400
0.042
1.020
1 Not*: These proposed standards for wastewater
form* of Mutu-source iMchate represent alternative
standards tor the U and P wastewaters that corre-
spond to eherntcals lilted in this table. As an exam-
ple: the standard for acetone listed above is an
alternative standard for U002 (acetone) wastewaters,
«lc= Not a constituents listed in the above table
have a corresponding U or P waste codes. These
generally represent other Appendix Vlll (40 CFR 261)
constituents that were not listed as U or P wastes.
See background Information on the development of
these alternative standards in section
IIUU.h,(&Xb,).
8. Appendix IV is added to Part 268 to
read as follows:
APPENDIX IV—ORGANIC LAB
PACKS
Hazardous waste with the following
EPA waste codes may be placed in an
"organic lab pack."
POOL P002, P003, P004. POOS, P007, POOS,
P014. P018, P017. P018, P022, P023, P024.
P028, P027. P028, P034. P037, P039, P040,
P041. P043. P044. P045. P046, P047, P048,
P049. P050. POS1. P054. P057, P058, P059,
P060. P062. POS4. P066, P067. P069. P070,
P071, P072, P075, P077, P082, P085, P088,
P089, P093. P094. P101. P108, P109. Pill,
P116. P118. P123
U001, U002, U003. U004, U005, U006,
U008, U010. U011. U012. U014, U015.
U016, U017. U018, U019, U021. U022.
U024. U025. U026, U027, U030, U031,
U034. U035. U038, U037. U039, U041.
U042. U044. U046, U047. U048, U049,
U050, U051, U052, U053, U055. U056,
U057. U058. U059, U060, U061, U062,
U063. U064, U068, U067, U068, U070,
U071. U072, U073, U074. U076, U077.
U078. U079. U080. U081, U082, U083.
U084. U085, U087. U089, U090, U091.
U092, U093, U094. U095. U097, U101.
U105, U106, U108, U110, Ulll, U112.
U113, U114, U118, U117, U118, U119,
U120, U122, U123, U124. U125. U126,
U127. U128, U129, U130, U131, U132,
U137. U138, U140, U141, U142, U143,
U147. U148, U150, U154, U1S8. U157,
U158. U159, U161. U165, U166, U169,
U170, U171, U172, U173, U174, U178,
U177, U178, U179. U180, U181, U182,
U183, U184, U185. U187, U188, U191,
U192, U193, U194. U197. U200. U201,
U202. U203, U206, U207, U208. U209,
U210. U211, U213, U218, U219. U220,
U222, U225. U228, U227, U228, U235,
U236, U237, U238, U239. U240, U243,
U244, U247, U248
FOOl, F002, F003, F004. F005. F010. F020,
F021, F023, F026. F027. F028
K009. K010, K014, K015, K016, K017,
K018, K019, K020, K021, K023, K024,
K030. K031, K032. K033, K034, K035,
K036. K038, K039, K040, K041, K042,
K043, K054, K073, K085, K093, K094,
K095, K096, K097, K098, K105, K107,
Kill. K112, K113. K114. K115, K118,
K071
D001. D012, D013. D014, D015, D016,
D017.
9. Appendix V is added to part 288 to
read as follows:
APPENDIX V—INORGANIC LAB
PACKS
Inorganic hazardous waste streams
which contain only the following
constituents may be placed in an
"inorganic lab pack."
Barium
Cadmium
Trivalent chromium
Lead
Silver
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6812(a). and 6926.
Subpart A—Raquirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication in the Federal Register:
§ 271.1 PurpoM and scop*.
IMPLEMENTING
SOLID WASTE
0) * * *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS
THE HAZARDOUS AND
AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation
date
[Insert date
of
publication].
•
Title of
regulation
Land
Disposal
Restric-
tions for
Third
Third
wastes.
FEDERAL
REGISTER
reference
[Insert
page
num-
bers].
Effective
date
Mays,
1990.
3. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
revising the entry for May 8,1990 in
Table 2 to read as follows:
§ 271.1 Purpose) and Scop*.
(j)
* * * * *
* * *
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVI-
SIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID
WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective
date
Mays,
1990.
Self-
implementing
provision
Prohibition on
land
disposal of
3/3 of listed
wastes.
RCHA
citation
3004(g)
(6)(C)
FEDERAL
REGIS-
TER
reference
(insert
date of
publi-
cation
and
page.
num-
bers of
this
docu-
ment.]
[FR Doc. 89-27028 Filed 11-21-89; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ COOC tStO-SO-M
------- |