Friday
June 1, 1990
Part H
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 148 et at.
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes; Rule
-------
,22520 - ..; > .^Federal Register / Vol>55. No. 106 / ^Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148,261,262,264,265,
268,270,271, and 302
lEPA/OSW-FR-90-010; SWH-FRL-3751-13
RIN2050-AC73 .
Land Disposal Restrictions tor Third
Third Scheduled Wastes ,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule. .
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) today is promulgating
regulations implementing the last of five
Congressionally mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes
(the third one-third of the schedule of
restricted hazardous wastes, hereafter
referred to as the Third Third). This
action is taken in response to
amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted in the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984. When fully effective in May 1992,
this rule, combined with the previous
rulemakings, is expected to require
treatment of a total of seven million tons
of hazardous waste managed in RCRA-
regulated facilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective on May 8,1990.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Number F-90-LD13-FFFFF, and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket, room
2427,401M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. The docket is open from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
on Federal holidays. The public must
make an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 475-8327. The
public may copy a maximum,of 100
pages from any regulatory document at
no cost Additional copies cost $.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline at: (800) 424-9348 (toll-
free) or (202) 382-3000 locally.
For information on specific aspects of
this final rule, contact Richard Kinch or
Rhonda Craig, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-333), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 382-7917. For specific
information on BOAT treatment
standards, contact Larry Rosengrant,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-322), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460, (202)
382-7917. For specific information on the
Underground Injection Control Program
and hazardous waste injection wells,
contact Bruce Kobelski, Office of
Difinking Water (WH-S50), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401M
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:
Expanded Summary
Today's notice promulgates specific
treatment standards and effective dates
for the Third Third wastes, "soft ;
hammer" First and Second Third
wastes, and five newly listed wastes.
Today's notice also promulgates
treatment standards and effective dates
for multi-source leachate and mixed
radioactive/hazardous wastes, which
were re-scheduled to the Third Third.
The Agency has also re-scheduled
wastes from the petroleum refining
industry, EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K048-K052, to the Third Third, is
revising the treatment standards for
these wastes, and is granting a six-
month national capacity variance for
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. The
Agency is also promulgating alternate
treatment standards for lab packs.
The Agency is also promulgating
treatment standards and effective dates
for hazardous wastes that exhibit one or
more of the following characteristics:
Ignitibility, corrosivity. reactivity or EP
toxicity (40 CFR 261.21-261.24). The
Agency has revised the proposed
treatment standards for these wastes to
reflect data submitted during the
comment period showing wide
variability hi the wastestreams. Today's
final rule establishes treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes
hi one of four forms: (1) A concentration
level equal to, or greater than the
characteristic level; (2) a concentration
level less than the characteristic level;
(3) a specified treatment technology
which in many cases will result in
treatment below the characteristic level;
or (4) a treatment standard of
"deactivation" to remove, the
characteristic, with guidance on
technologies the Agency believes will
remove the characteristics (see
appendix VI to part 268).
In promulgating treatment standards
for characteristic wastes, EPA has
evaluated the applicability of certain
provisions of the land disposal
restrictions' framework with respect to
characteristic wastes including wastes
regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program, sections 307(b) and 402 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOWA) programs
regulating deep well injection to ensure
successful integration of these programs
with the regulations being promulgated
today. Specifically, the Agency
' considered the appropriateness of the
dilution prohibition for each of the
characteristic wastestreams, and the
applicability of treatment standards
expressed as specified methods.
In general, the Agency believes that
the mixing of waste streams to eliminate
certain characteristics is appropriate
and should be permissible for certain
characteristic waste streams (e.g., most
wastes that are purely corrosive).
Furthermore, EPA believes that the
dilution prohibition should not apply to
characteristic wastes that are managed
in treatment trains regulated under the
Pretreatment and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
programs under sections 307(b) and 402
of the CWA or in Class I underground
injection well systems regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA).
The Agency believes that the treatment
requirements and associated dilution
rules under the CWA are generally
consistent with the dilution rules under
RCRA, and that the Agency should rely
on the existing CWA provisions.
Similarly, EPA has established a
regulatory program under the SDWA to
prevent underground injection which
endangers drinking water sources. Class
I deep wells inject below the lowermost
geologic formation containing an
underground source of drinking water,
and are subject to minimum location,
construction, and operation
requirements. The Agency believes that
application of dilution rules to these
wastes would not further minimize
threats to human health and. the
environment, and that disposal of these
wastes by underground injection at the
characteristic levels is as sound as the
treatment option. However, hazardous
effluent, sludges, or other residues
generated from these treatment trains,
or pretreatment from CWA or SDWA
systems, that are subsequently land
disposed are subject to the land disposal
restriction provisions.
. The Agency also is limiting the
circumstances under which treatment
standards expressed as specified
methods apply to wastes regulated
under the CWA and SDWA programs.
In general, the Agency believes that
where a treatment standard is
expressed as a specified method, and
where application of that method is
consistent with and promotes the
objectives of the program, it should be
-------
^Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 10(8 / Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations 22521
impermissible .to dilute these wastes and
avoid treating them by the designated
treatment method. With respect to
existing CWA regulations, the Agency
believes that this is true for all specified
methods in today's rule. Therefore, the
Agency is specifying that dilution is
impermissible for these wastes, and that
the treatment standards .expressed as
\ specified methods apply. The Agency,
however, is not requiring treatment of
underground injected wastes with the
specified methods, based on the
previously-stated belief that disposal of
such characteristic wastes by this
method is as sound as the treatment
option. (The Agency emphasizes that
any mixture of listed and characteristic
wastes is subject to the existing dilution
prohibition rule, and must comply with
the treatment standard for the listed
waste, even if it is a specified method.)
The Agency received comments .
indicating that generators may be likely
to change waste codes and ship their
wastes as characteristic wastes rather
than as listed wastes as a result of this
rulemaking. The Agency is concerned
with the potential for mislabeling
hazardous wastes, but believes that this
incentive has always existed since
characteristic wastes may be disposed
in a subtitle D facility once they no
longer exhibit a hazardous
characteristic. Furthermore, the Agency
is revising the waste identification
requirements of 40 CFR parts 261, 262,
264, and 265 to require that all relevant
waste codes must be provided; we
believe this revision will enhance the
ability to enforce the accurate labeling
of hazardous wastes. Finally, the
Agency emphasizes that the mislabeling
of hazardous wastes is a serious
violation of the land disposal
restrictions, and potentially a criminal
act. The Agency will be modifying the
existing Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
to aid treatment and disposal facilities
in determining whether waste has been
properly classified.
The Agency is promulgating certain
provisions of general applicability in
today's rulemaking, including certain
revisions to the existing rule that
prohibits dilution of prohibited wastes,
amendments to 40 CFR 262.11, which
outlines the procedures for identification
of hazardous wastes, and modifications
to the tracking and recordkeeping
requirements of 40 CFR 268.7. In
addition, EPA is modifying existing
testing requirements for treatment and
disposal facilities, and amending
subparagraph(c) 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. The Agency also is .
.clarifying certain questions of
applicability, such as whether wastes .
formerly excluded by the BeviO
Amendment are to be considered newly
identified for purposes of the land
disposal restrictions, and applicability
of California list prohibitions to newly
identified and newly lifted hazardous
wastes. -
Unless a longer national capacity
variance is specified, the effective date
for compliance with treatment standards
for all waste codes in the final rule has
been extended to August 8,1990 by
granting a three-month national capacity
variance. The effective date is being
delayed because the Agency realizes
that even where data indicate that
sufficient treatment capacity exists, it is
not immediately available. Nonetheless,
all Third Third wastes become restricted
on May 8,1990 and therefore subject to
a number of LDR provisions. For
example, if hazardous wastes not
treated in compliance with applicable
treatment standards are disposed of in
surface impoundments or landfills, such
units must meet minimum technological
requirements. Furthermore, wastes
subject to this extension of the effective
date must be in compliance with all
applicable recordkeeping requirements,
and California list prohibitions, if
applicable.
Finally, wastes for which treatment
standards are being promulgated may
be land disposed after their effective
dates only if the applicable treatment
standards are met, or if disposal occurs
in units that satisfy the "no migration"
standard.
Outline
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1934 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
2. Applicability to Injected Wastes
3. Solvents and Dioxins
4. California Last Wastes
5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins, and
California List Wastes in Injection
Wells
6. Scheduled Wastes
7. Newly Identified and Listed'-Wastes
B. Regulatory Framework
1. Applicability
2. Treatment Standards
3. National Capacity Variances from the
Effective Dates
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the Effec-
tive Dates " -
5. "No Migration" Exemptions from the
Restrictions
6. Variances from the Treatment Stand-
ards
7. Exemption for Treatment in -Surface
Impoundments
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
9. "Soft Hammer" Provisions
C. Pollution Prevention {Waste Minimiza-
tion) Benefits
D. Summary of the Proposed Rule
1. Characteristic Wastes
2. Determining When Dilution is Permis-
sible
3. Other Impermissible Dilution Issues
4. Treatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leachate
5. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
6. Applicability to Mineral Processing
Wastes
7. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid
Wastes
8. Treatment/Disposal Facility Testing
Requirements
9. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
10. Generator Notification Requirements
11. Storage Prohibition
12. Applicability of California List Prohi-
bitions After May 8,1990
II. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Applicability of Today's Final Ruie
1. Three Month National Capacity Vari-
ance for Third Third Wastes
2. Hazardous Waste Injection Wells
Regulated Under 40 CFR 148
3. Remaining Scheduled Listed Hazard-
ous Wastes
4. Characteristic Hazardous Wastes
5. Characteristic Wastes Regulated
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDA) and the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and RCRA
6. Mineral Processing Wastes
B. Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes
1. Overlap of Standards for Listed
Wastes that also Exhibit a Character-
istic
2. Revisions to Waste Identification Re-
quirements
3. Wastes Subject to .a Capacity Vari-
ance
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Meth-
ods for Compliance
S. Newly Identified Toxicity Characteris-
tic (TC) Wastes
-------
22522 -Federal Register /^VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
a Turther Principles Governing AppUta-
' : blllty ...... ;
« C. Amended Tracking System .for Charac-
terUtic Prohibited Wastes ,. -
:.s D. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies to
Centralized Treatment .... >
i E-JTreatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leachate - , ",
'F. Alternate Treatment .Standards iFor Lab
Packs
G. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive) Wastes
H. Nationwide Variances from the Effec-
tive Date . .-
I. Generator Notification Requirements
I. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/',
Disposal Facility Testing. Requirements
K. Testing of Wastes Treated -in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers . .
L. Clarification of "Ff arid "U" Solid
Wastes , ''*....
M. Storage Prohibition . . -
N. Case-by-Case Extension Petitions
'O.' Applicability of California List Prohibi-
tions After May 8,1990
P. Analysis of Treated Wastes
Q. Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
R. Best Demonstrated Available Technol-
ogies (BOAT)
S. Reformatting of Treatment Standard
Tables and Addition of Appendix VO to
Part 268. -Effective Dates for Prohibited
Wastes
T. Relationship of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Cornell v. EPA to Treatment
Standards Promulgated in Today's Final
Rule
KLA. Detailed Discussion of Today's Final
Rule
1. Dovelopment and Identification of
Treatment Standards
SL The BOAT Methodology
b. Use of Technologies Identified As
BDAT
& Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
"Derived-From" Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
d. Wastewater Versus Nonwastewater
Standards
e. Transfer of Treatment Standards
f. Treatment Standards Based on Single
Facility Data, Grab Samples Versus
Composite Samples, and Waste Anal-
ysis Plans
g. Analytical Requirements, the BDAT
List and Relationship of PQLs to
BDAT
h. Relationship of Detection Limits to
Concentration-Based Standards
L Relation of Hazardous Waste Treat-
ment Council v. EPA
UI.A.2. Treatment Standards for Certain
Characteristic Wastes
n. General Issues on Developing Treatment
Standards for Characteristic Wastes
b. Ignitabie Characteristic' Wastes
c. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
d. Reactive Characteriutic Wastes
- e. Effect .of Treatment Standards on Dis-
posal Provisions in 40 CFR 264 and 265
for Ignitabie and Reactive Wastes
f. EP" Toxic Halogenated Pesticide Wastes
IILA.3. Treatment Standards " for "Metal A
. Wastes - ' ;' ," ' .' '
. a.Introduction , ..--,/ '
b. Arsenic [D004, K031, K084, KiOl. K102,
P010. P011. P012, P036. P038, U136]
& Barium fDOOS. P013]
d. Cadmium [D006, Cadmium'Batteries]
, e. Chromium [D007, U032]
.. f. Lead [D008, K069, K100, PllO.. U144.
JU145.U146]
g. Mercury {D009, K071. K106, P065, P092.
U151] ;
h. Selenium fOOlO, P103. P114. U204. U205]
L Silver [DOll, P099. P104].
j. Thallium rpll3, P114. P115, U214, U215,
U216.U217]
k. Vanadium rP119. P120]
m.A.4. Treatment Standards for Remaining F
and K Wastes
a. F002 and FOOS
b. F006 and F019
C.F024
d. F025 .
e. K001 and U051
f. K002. K003. K004. KOOS. K006. K007. and
K008
g. K011. K013. and K014
h.K015
i. K017 and K073
j. K021
k. K022. K025, K026. K035, and K083
1. K02B. K029, K095, and K096
m. K032, K033, K034. K041, K097. and K098
n. K036 and K037
o. K042. K08S, and K105
p. K044, K04S, K046. and K047
q. K048, K049. KOSO. K051. and K052
r.KOBO
8.K061
tK086
DXA.5. Development of Treatment Standards
for U and P Wastewaters and Non-
wastewaters Excluding Metal Salts and
Organo-metalUcs
a. Concentration-based Standards for Spe-
cific Organics
b. Technology-based Standards for Specif-
ic Organics
c. U and P Wastes That are Potentially
Reactive .
d. Gases
e. U and P Cyanogens .
ffl.A-6. Development of Treatment Standards
.for Multi-Source Leachate
a. Background ,
b. Final Approach for Regulating Multi-
.. , Source Leachate
-c. Multi-Source Leachate That Exhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
d. Multi-Source Leachate Containing Diox-
. ins and Furans . . '. -
e. Status of Multi-source Leachate that is
: Mixed with Other Prohibited Wastes
BXA.7. Applicability of Treatment Standards
' to Soil and Debris .
m.A.8. Radioactive Mixed Waste
a. Characterization and Industries Affect-
ed '
b. Applicable Technologies -
c. 'Determination of BDAT for Certain
Mixed Wastes -., ;
ULA&. -Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs . , :
B. Capacity Determinations . ..
l". 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 Alternative Capacity for
-Surface Land-Disposed Wastes
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates > ,
2. Contaminated Soil and Debris Capac-
ity Variance
3. Capacity Determination for Under-
ground Injected Wastes
C. Ninety-Day Capacity Variance for Third
Third Wastes
D. Applicability of Land Disposal Restric-
tions
1. Introduction
2. Legal Authority Over Characteristic
Wastes
a. Introduction .
b. General Standard for Agency Con-
struction of Statutes
c. Scope of Agency Authority for
Treatment Requirements
d. Agency Framework for Addressing
Treatment Standards for Character-
istic Wastes and Integrating Them
with Other Regulatory Programs
3. Treatment Levels
a. Environmental Considerations
(1) Toxic Wastewaters
(2) Toxic Nonwastewaters
(3) Other Characteristic Wastes
b. Regulatory Problems
4. Methods of Treatment
a. Environmental Considerations
.b. Regulatory Problems
5. General Dilution Prohibition
a. Environmental Considerations
b. Regulatory Problems
6. Exemption to Dilution Prohibition for
Characteristic Wastes Treated for Pur-
poses of Certain Clean Water Act Pro-
grams
a. Introduction
-------
federal Register /~Vol.'55» No. :1Q6;/ Friday. June il.M990; / Rules and Jtegulationg ^ : 22523
sections .3004 (d)(l), (e)(l) and (g}(5) is
accepted by EPA. - - : ; .-..:.>- .
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, injeetipn well, land, treatment -
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed . 3
formation, or underground mine or .-. -'
cave" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 TJ.S.G.
6924(k)). -
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" -.
3005G)(11)(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)}.
" b/Environmental Considerations' " '_
' c/Kegulatory Problems
7. "Exemption-for LDR Prohibitions for
.. -Characteristic Wastes Disposed Below .
-::-;: ".Characteristic Levels.in Wells Regu-
. ,.,, " "-.- '
2. Revisions to-Waste Identification-Re-
quirements .'-.--'. -''-'
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity Vari-
ance ":. .. v.. . ,
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Meth-
ods for Compliance
5. Newly Identified TC Wastes
6. Further Principles Governing Applica-
bility
a. Other Statutory Exemptions or Ex-
clusions
b. Restricted Wastes Versus Prohibit-
ed Wastes
c. Changes in Treatability Groups
F. Amended Tracking System for Charac-
teristic Prohibited Wastes
G. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies to
Centralized Treatment
H. Applicability of Today's Final Rule to
Mineral Processing Wastes
I. Generator Notification Requirements
J. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
L. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid
Wastes
M. The Storage Prohibition -
N. Case-By-Case Extensions
O. Applicability of California list Prohibi-
tions After May 8,1990
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 (CAA)
E. Clean-Up Actions Regulated Under the
Comprehensive . Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act
F. Applicability of Treatment Standards to
-Wastes from Pesticides Regulated Under
the. -Federal Insecticide, . Fungicide, and
- -Rpdenticide Act\ ; ... ,.-..'
G. Regulatory Overlap -of Polychlorinated -
Biphenyls (PCBs) Under ;the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act! (TSCA) and Re-
:% source Conservation and Recovery Act
VI. Regulatory Requirements ,';/. .
A.' Regulatory Impact Analysiff-r-Surface
Disposed Wastes ' ' ' ; " ' '
- '1. Overview of Affected Wastes, Facili-
; -ties, and Management' ' : - /
a. -Quantity of Affected Waste .
b. Affected Facilities - .. . :.' v
.c. Waste Management Practices
2. Benefits of the Final Rule ,._"..
a. Human Health Benefits
' :b. Safety Benefits ' ' ,
c.'Envhx)nmental Benefits
3. Costs
4. Economic Impacts - ' .
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Sur-
face Disposed Wastes
C. Regulatory Impact Analysis Under-
ground Injected Wastes
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Under-
ground Injected Wastes
E. Paperwork Reduction Act .
F. Review of Supporting Documents
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), enacted on
November 8, 1984, prohibit the land
disposal 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),
,.
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 mmimized" (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.iln addition, a
- hazardous waste that does not meet the
treatment standard may be land
disposed provided the "no migration"
demonstration specified in RCRA .
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 tha' '
Underground Injection Control (OIC)
. program under the SDWAinparts 124.
1«, 145,146,147, andMftof the Code of
Federal Regulations., ;
- 3. SolventsandDioxfais' .-,-.-. -; --
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 261.31 and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes numbered
F020-F023 and F028-F028 (RCRA
sections 3004 (e)(l), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924
(e)(l),(e)(2)). In response to thte
mandate, EPA promulgated a final rule
(51 FR 40572) on November 7,1988,
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 hi RCRA sections
3004 (d)(l) and (d)(2) (42 U.S.C. 6924
* «*v.*% *J\rn\"l.
,
(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/L
(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)
500mg/l;
(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)
5 00 mg/1;
(v) Mercury and/or compounds (as
Hg)20mg/l;
(vi) Nickel and/or compounds (as Ni)
134 mg/1;
(vil) 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 iconcentration greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/kg. , ,
' On July 8,1987, EPA promulgated a
final rule (52 FR 25760) implementing
RCRA sectionSIKWtdj.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 also 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 Calif omia
list wastes covered under the schedule
set by Congress. The schedule, based on
a ranking of the listed wastes that
considers then- 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 forany hazardous waste in the
first or second third of the schedule,
should such waste be disposed hi a
landfill or surface impoundment, that
unit must meet the minimum
technological requirements specified hi
RCRA section 3004(o) for new facilities
(RCRA section 3004(g)(6)). (Note: In the
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 hi such unit, 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 that inet the
minimum technological requirements
applied until EPA set a treatment
standard for the waste, or until May 8,
1990, whichever was sooner. These
requirements were 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. (Note: It is EPA's interpretation
that the hard hammer applies to
characteristic wastes. See 54 FR 48489.)
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(gK5),
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 28,1986, EPA promulgated
the schedule for setting treatment
standards for the listed and identified
hazardous wastes (51 FR 19300). All
wastes that are identified as hazardous
by characteristic are scheduled in the
Third Third. This schedule is
incorporated hi 40 CFR 268.10,268.11
and 268.12.
-------
.Federal Register /:Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22525
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 8,1938, and published inlhe
Federal Register on'August 17,1988 (53
FR 31138), set out the conditions under .
which wastes included hi the first one-
third of the schedule of restricted
hazardous wastes 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. In addition, FJPA promulgated
treatment standards and effective dates
for certain First Third soft hammer
wastes, Third Third wastes and newly
listed wastes.
Today's notice promulgates the
conditions under which Third Third
wastes may continue to be land
disposed. It also promulgates treatment
standards for some First and Second
Third restricted hazardous wastes, five
newly listed wastes (i.e., listed after
November 8,1984), promulgates
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs, and revises the treatment
standards for petroleum refining wastes
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K048-K052).
This rule applies to all forms of land
disposal, including deep well injection,
and finalizes the November 22,1989
proposed rulemaking (54 FR 48372).
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 promulgates
treatment standards for five newly
listed wastes (see section ffl.A).
B. Regulatory Framework
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 hi
the July 8,1987, final rule (52 FR 25760)
that prohibited the land disposal of
California list wastes* and in the August
17,1988, First Third final rule. Some i ',
additional changes are-also being
promulgated hi today's final rule,
particularly with respect to
characteristic wastes. 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). However, if these wastes or
contaminated media are excavated and
removed, these wastes are subject to the
land disposal restrictions. Similarly,
only surface impoundments receiving
restricted wastes after the applicable
deadline are subject to the restrictions
on treatment in surface impoundments
contained in 40 CFR 268.4 and RCRA
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 month are
conditionally exempt from RCRA,
including the land disposal 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 land
disposal restrictions program supersede
40 CFR 270.4(a), which currently
provides that compliance with a RCRA
permit constitutes compliance with
subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, even
though the requirements may not be
specified in the permit conditions, all
permitted facilities are subject to the
restrictions. Moreover, the land disposal
restrictions are material conditions or
requirements of the interim status
.standards that may be enforced in either
,a criminal or civil action. Although EPA
>attempted to clarify this point in the
June 4,1987 correction notice (54 FR
21010, item-*!, and 21016, item #27), the
Agency's correction has been viewed as
imprecise hi that it characterized part
265 as requirements of persons
managing wastes pursuant to part 268.
Although the Agency believes that this
point is already established, EPA is
clarifying today that the part 268 ;
provisions should be characterized as
material conditions or requirements of
part 265. Therefore, 265.1(e) is modified
accordingly.
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 only if they meet the
treatment standards, or it has been
demonstrated 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. If
EPA does not promulgate treatment
standards by the statutory deadlines,
such wastes are prohibited from land
disposal (with .the exception of First and
Second Third scheduled hazardous
wastes, which were subject to the soft
hammer provisions of RCRA section
3004(g)(6) until May 8,1990).
At present, a treatment standard is
based on the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology
(BOAT) 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. Compliance with
performance standards may be
monitored by measuring the
concentration level of the hazardous
constituents (or hi some circumstances,
indicator pollutants) in the waste,
treatment residual, or hi 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.
Thus, treatment is not limited to only
those technologies considered in
determining the treatment standard. .
However, when treatment standards are .
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ies, such
expressed as specific technologie
technologies imist be employed.
3. National Capacity Variances From the
Effective Dates , ? ,
The Agency has the authority to grant
nationalrapadty 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 IRCaiA section 3004(hK2)). 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 only
be in a unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o) (53 FR 31186 and 40 CFR
2fi8,5(h)(2)). It should be noted, however,
that if a waste subject to a national
capacity variance is treated to meet the
applicable treatment standards, the land
disposal restrictions allow such waste to
be disposed in a subtitle C landfill or
surface impoundment regardless of
whether the unit meets minimum
technological requirements. Note.
however, that independent RCRA
provisions may require such wastes to
be disposed in units meeting minimum
technological requirement.
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the
Effective Date
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 2685 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. If a waste is
placed in a surface impoundment or
landfill during the period that such a
case-by-case extension is in place, such
unit must meet the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o).
5. "No Migration" Exemptions From the
Restrictions '
EPA has die 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 under 40 CFR part -
268, it can remain in effect no longer
than ten years for disposal in interim
status land disposal units, and fdr no
longer than the term of the RCRA permit
for disposal hi permitted units (40 CFR
268.6(h)). __
However, for injected wastes, 40 CFR
148.20 (promulgated on July 26,1988, see
S3 FR 28118) outlines in detail the
Agency's requirements for "no
migration" petitions for hazardous
waste injection facilities. 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 146.
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, or if
treatment technologies are inappropriate
for the waste (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
regulations. Among other things,
petitioners 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 and
the wastes 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 to the
Regional Administrator that shows the
waste analysis plan has been modified
to provide for testing of treatment
residuals hi accordance with § 268.4
requirements.
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
Storage of prohibited wastes in tanks
and containers 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. 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 and Second Third wastes for
which EPA did not promulgate
treatment standards by then- respective
effective dates could continue to be
disposed of in landfill and surface
impoundment units until May 8,1990. .
Such land disposal could occur only if
certain demonstrations were made, and
provided technology requirements of
RCRA section 3004(o) (see 53 FR 31181,
August 17.1988). Other types of land
-------
Fedwd Register / Vol 55V No. 106 / Friday. Tone 1,1BOO / Itolea and Regulations
> disposal were not einrilailytestrided
(e.g., BBderground injection). On May fi,
1990, waste* for which EPA Jbas not
established treatment standards are , ..
prohibited from land disposal (including
88/025, April 1988). Several state
governments have already enacted
waste minimization legislation
etty Toxics .Use Reduction -
Effective May 8.1990,therefore, the
costs of compliance, loss of production
potential, and potential liability.
Program success generally requires
that each individual, regardless of status
or rank, be encouraged to make a
contribution to minimize waste.
Collective and individual pay incentives
can be provided for productivity
improvements. Waste minimizatirm
circles can be established using self-
managing teams chosen from a broad
spectrum -of production and
management personnel. These
management teams can be provided
with all information necessary to
adequately assess waste minimization
opportunities. Additionally, it is very
beneficial for production personnel to be
trained and retrained in optimum use of
plant equipment and caw materials.
Some companies set explicitly defined
objectives for the seduction of waste
volume and tenacity that are achievable
within a reasonable time frame.
Typically, the objectives should not
exceed the ability of the operations
personnel to support and main tain ihem.
In all cases, it is necessary to
determine the causes of waste
generation. This can be done for
individual processes or for several
combined processes if the plant process
waste streams are particularly complex.
Many corporations have implemented
this type of "waste minimization
assessment" as part of an overall waste
minimization program.
.For s waste minimization assessment,
it is generally accessary to accurately
characterize die type of waste generated
by volume, toxicity and SOUTCE{S). Most
companies track fteir waste generation
by a variety of means and then
normalize the results to account for
variations in production rate(«}. One
State {Massachusetts Toxics Use
Redaction Act) requires each generator
of a toxic or hazardous substance to
track the rate of waste generation and
release/transfer per unit of product The
EPA Manual for Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessments aids in
tracking waste streams -winch can be
quite difficult to analyze in complex
plant operations, "where many processes
discharge into one waste stream.
Next, individual processes can be
examined to search for opportunities for
waste reduction such as recycling,
substituting less hazardous Taw
materials, modifying existing equipment,
novel technologies, capital
improvements, and increasing process
efficiency. EPA and State funded
technical assistance programs {e.g.,
Minnesota Technical Assistance
ProgramMnTAP. California Waste
Minimization Clearinghouse, U.S. EPA
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse} are becoming
increasingly available to identify some
of these opportunities. Information is
also available through industry trade
associations, professional consultants
specializing in waste minimization,
technical literature, and chemical and
equipment vendors.
It is important to realize mat waste
minimization, especially when
incorporated into company policy, is a
continual process. Ideally, a waste
minimization program becomes an
integral part of the company strategic
plan to increase manufacturing _
productivity.
D. Summary vfthe Proposed Rule
On November 22,1989, the Agency
proposed treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates for
approximately 350 hazardous wastes,
including hazardous wastes listed in 40
CFR 268.12 (Third Third wastes], certain
wastes listed in 40 CER 268.13 and
268.11 (First and Second Third wastes),
five newly listed wastes, and wastes
exhibiting a characteristic (Le,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
EP toxicity) as described in 40 CFR
261.21-261.24. In addition, -the Agency
proposed one modification to the land
disposal restrictions regulatory
framework and several interpretations
of general applicability. Furthermore,
the Agency proposed to revise the
-------
Federal Register / ^ol. 55>Np. 3106 /Friday/Tune'1. 1990 / -Rules and Regulations
, treatment standards for wastes from the
petroleum refining industry, EPA-
Hazardous Waste NOB. K048-K052. -
Today?a lulemaking finalizes the
November 22,1989 proposal. , ^
1. Characteristic Wastes' j, ,T .
In the November 22,1989 notice, EPA
proposed two alternatives: (1) Set Ihe
treatment standards at the characteristic
level for all of the characteristic wastes;
x>r (2) set treatment standards at the
lowest level which data indicated could
be consistently achieved, some of which
were below the characteristic levels,
and require these standards to be met <>,;
before the waste could be land disposed
(even though the waste was no longer
defined as hazardous]. This second
alternative was based on a reading of
the statute that the land disposal
prohibitions can attach at the point a
waste becomes hazardous, and that the
section 3004(m) requirements to Jreat to
a level (or by a method) that rninimizes
threats to human health and the
environment can attach at that point.
Waste that is hazardous at the point of
generation and destined for land
disposal remains subject to the
requirements of section 3004(m)
regardless of its concentration at any
subsequent time. See 54 FR 48490.
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 for
those characteristics. If a listed waste
could also be identified for one or more
characteristic waste codes, EPA
proposed that the waste would have to
be treated to meet the treatment
standards for each of the waste codes.
See 54 FR 48491.
2. Determining When Dilution is
Permissible
The Agency also clarified the dilution
rules as they apply to centralized
treatment in the proposed rule. In
particular, the Agency indicated that
aggregation of wastes for the purpose of
treatment in a centralized treatment
system must, at a minimum, result in
"actual reduction in the toxicity or
mobility of at least one BOAT
constituent in each prohibited waste
that is centrally treated to the extent
that these constituents are present in '"
initial concentrations that exceed the
treatment standard for that prohibited
waste." See 54 FR 48494. ,
3. Other Impermissible Dilution Issues
The Agency proposed that (l)
Impermissible dilution (as previously
defined for listed wastes) of a waste
that exhibits a characteristic be
prohibited; and (2) impermissible
dilution of a listed waste to achieve a
delisting level be prohibited. See 54 FR
48495.
4. 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 listed spent solvents and scheduled
hazardous wastes (i.e., First, Second,
and Third Third) in the Third Third (see
54 FR 8264). In the Third Third proposed
rule, the Agency proposed 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 one set of
nonwastewater standards which would
apply to all multi-source leachate. See
54 FR 48461.
5. Alternative Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
The Agency proposed an approach for
lab packs that establishes alternate
treatment standards expressed as
technologies for those lab packs meeting
certain criteria. In particular, EPA
proposed incineration as the alternative
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 proposed approach was
intended to provide administrative relief
and simplify the management system for
lab pack wastes, because the treatment
residue for these wastes would not need
to be analyzed for compliance with
individual treatment standards. See 54
FR 48470.
6. Applicability to Mineral Processing
Wastes
On September 1,1989 (54 FR 36592),
EPA narrowed the scope of the RCRA
exclusion for solid wastes from the
extraction, beneficiation, and processing
of ores and minerals, limiting this
exclusion to 25 high volume/low toxicity
wastes. On January 23,1990 (55 FR
23227), the Agency removed five
additional wastes from the exclusion
based upon additional volume and/or
hazard data. In the Third Third
proposal, EPA proposed to consider the
wastes that were removed from the
exclusion to be "newly identified" for
the purposes ofihese provisions, and
further proposed not to apply the
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes to such wastes. Therefore, these
wastes would not be subject to the
BOAT treatment standards for
characteristic wastes. See 54 FR 48492
7. Clarification of "P" and "IT.1 Solid
Wastes
The Agency proposed to modify the
existing language of 40 CFR 261.33 to
include residues of 40 CFR 261.33(f)
materials remaining in containers and in
inner liners, in addition to 40 CFR
261.33(e) residues already included in
the scope of the commercial chemical
product listings.
EPA also proposed that soils and spill
residues contaminated with 40 CFR
261.33(d) wastes be considered to be
solid wastes unless they are recycled
within 90 days of the spill regardless of
intent to recycle in the future. See 54 FR
48493.
8. Treatment/Disposal Facility Testing
Requirements
EPA proposed revisions to the facility
testing requirements contained in 40
CFR 264.13(a), 265.13(a), 268.7(b). and
268.7(c). Specifically, the Agency
proposed two approaches to specify
under what circumstances EPA may
require the owner/operator of a
treatment or disposal facility to analyze
a representative sample of a waste: (1)
State that the generator may supply
waste analysis information only: if an
EPA approved waste analysis plan
allows the generator to do so; or (2)
state that the owner/operator is
required to test the waste a minimum of
once a year, and that the Regional
Administrator may require more
frequent testing through the waste.
analysis plan on a site-specific basis.
See 54 FR 48497.
9. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
Under 40 CFR 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.
There is a regulatory gap, however, with
respect to treatment of prohibited
wastes that is conducted in 90-day tanks
or containers regulated under § 262.34.
This is because such tanks or containers
are not subject to a waste analysis plan
requirement To close this regulatory
gap, EPA proposed that persons treating
prohibited wastes in such tanks and
containers must prepare a plan
justifying the frequency of testing based
on a detailed analysis of a
representative sample of the prohibited
Waste. The plan must contain all
information necessary to treat the waste
-------
Fedsacal Regteter / Vol. 55. Ko. 1OS / friday, June 1, 399O / iRnles ami Regulations
22529
in accordance waft part 268, and most
be retained a£ a facility record. See 54
FR 48497. . .
10. Generator Notification Requirements
.EPA proposed to clarify 40 CFR 2887 '
by allowing jjuimruloru to reference fte
treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.41,
265.42, or 2Q5j43. Such a reference most
include the HPA Hazardous Waste No,
the treatability group(s)
and the CFR section where the
-treatment standards appear.The
Agency also proposed to amend 40 CFR
268.7 to allow a one-time notification
and certification requirement for smaH
quantity generator' (SQGj shipments -
subject to tolling agreements. See 54 FR
48496.
11. Storage Prohibition
Section 30040] o? RCRA provides feat
storage of prohibited hazardous waste 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" (40 CFR 26O50(aK2) and 51 FR
1709). The Agency proposed an
interpretation of this section such that
the storage prohibition does not apply
where storage precedes legitimate,
protective treatment, or recovery. See 54
FR 48496.
12. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions After May 8,1990
The Agency outlined three situations
where the California List is still
applicable: (1) Liquid hazardous wastes
that contain over 50 ppm PCBs, where
PCBs are not a regulated constituent in
the treatment standards; {2} HOC-
containing wastes identified as
hazardous fay a characteristic property
that does not contain HOCs; and (3)
liquid hazardous wastes that exhibit a
characteristic and also contain over 134
mg/1 of nickel and/or 330 rog/1 of
thallium.
The California list regulatory and
statutory prohibitions are superseded by
more specific prohibitions and treatment
standards. However, EPA solicited
comment on a national capacity
variance (to May 8,1992) for injected
corrosive wastes, but did not propose a
capacity variance for corrosive wastes
disposed of in surface impoundments.
The legal basis for this approach was
that without it, in the case of a waste
which received a matinnal capacity
variance under-the California Kst rule,
EPA would effectively grant a national
capacity variance for a California list
waste for longer than two years. EPA
also proposed to modify the language of
40 CFR.28&32fh| to ensure that there are
no periods of time in winch neither the
California iist or superseding HOC
standards would operate. See 54 FR
48498. , .
ELS
r of Today's final Rule
Today's final xule is the fifth
required iimtor (fagland
disposal restrictions program as outlined
. in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to RCRA. The Agency is
required to promulgate regulations
establishing conditions under which the
Third Third wastes included in 40 CFR
268.12 may be land disposed by the
statutory deadline of May 8,1990.
A. Applicability af Today's Final Rule
The Agency today is promulgating
treatment standards and effective dates
for all Third Third wastes, indteding
wastes exhibiting a -characteristic as
described HI 40 CFR 261.21-261.24 (see
sections fflA3 and HI.A.4J, The Agency
also is promulgating treatment
standards and effective dates for all
First and Second Third soft hammer
wastes (previously subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 26a8).
In previous rulemakiags, the Agency
amended the schedule so that certain
First and Second Third wastewater
residues, derived-from wastes (Le.,
multi-source leachate), and mixtures of
scheduled hazardous/radioactive
wastes were moved to the Third Third
of the schedule (see 53 FR 31214.
§ 268.12 {iO, (c), and (dj; 54 FR 8264: and
54 FR 26648, £ 268.12 (b) and [cfi. The
Agency today is promulgating treatment
standards for these wastes. In addition,
the Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for five newly listed wastes
{i.e., wastes listed after enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984); four wastes that
fall into the F002 and FOQ5 [spent
solvent) waste codes, and F025.
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 promulgating alternate
treatment standards expressed as
specified technologies for lab packs
meeting certain criteria.
1. Three-Month National Capacity.
Variance for Third Third Wastes
The Agency is granting a three-month
national capacity variance for ail wastes
affected by this cole, based on the time
required for the regulated community to
snake adjustments necessary to comply
with the new regulations. The
prohibitions on land rfiapnaai in this
final rale, therefore, will be effective on
Augusts, 1990. During the period .
between May 8,1990, and Augusts,
1990, wastes (that do not meet the
treatment standards) disposed in
landfills OF surface imjnifmndment«, -must
be disposed in units that meet the
minimum technological requirements set
out an 40 CFR 28&5{h}{2), and must
comply with the California list
prohibitions, -where applicable. See 52
FR 25760, July 8,1987. la addition, the
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
26&7
-------
Federal Register /-Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules:and Regulations
l
4. Characteristic Hazardous Wastes
In today's final rule,"EPA is"::
promulgating treatment standards and
effective dates for hazardous wastes
that exhibit one or more of the following-
characteristics: Ignitibility, corrosivity,
reactivity or EP toxicity (40 CFR 261.21-
261.24). In the November 22,1989 notice,
the Agency proposed treatment
standards based on the performance of
best demonstrated available technology
without regard to the characteristic -
level'The standards, however^ were ;
transferred from treatment of listed
wastes, which after evaluating data
submitted by commenters, proved
unachievable for characteristic wa'stes.
The Agency today is promulgating
treatment standards for these wastes
that have been revised to reflect data
from treating characteristic wastes
submitted during the comment period.
These newly-submitted data show wide
variability in the wastestreams. Today's
final rule establishes, treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes
in one of four forms: (1) A concentration
level equal to or greater than the
characteristic level for the EP toxic
metals; (2) a specified treatment
technology; (3) a treatment standard of
"deactivation" to remove the
characteristic, with guidance on
technologies the Agency believes will
remove the characteristics (see
appendix VI to part 268); or (4)
treatment to concentration levels below
the characteristic level (typically where
the standard can be based on a
treatment technology that is not matrix--
dependent, or the Agency has sufficient
data to find achievability). In addition,
the Agency believes that by specifying
technologies for certain of the
characteristic wastes (i.e., incineration
of high-TOC ignitible nonwastewaters
and EP toxic pesticide wastewaters), it
is requiring treatment below the'
characteristic levels for wastes where^
such treatment is technically achievable.
A detailed discussion of the treatment
standards promulgated for the
characteristic wastes is provided in
sections IU.A.2. ffi.A.3 and JH.D of
today's preamble.
5. Characteristic Wastes Regulated ,
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) and the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and RCRA
Today's final rule limits the
applicability of certain provisions of the
land disposal restrictions' framework to
characteristic wastes subject to
regulation under the Clean Water.Act
(i.e.. discharges permitted under the .
NPDES or POTW pretreatment
regulations), and to characteristic
wastes managed in systems which
discharge to Class I underground
injection wells subject to regulation
under the Safe Drinking Water Act -
First, the LDR dilution prohibition does
not apply to characteristic wastes
managed in NPDES or pretreatment
systems and subsequently discharged
under CWA regulations, unless a
method of treatment is specified.
Second, the LDR dilution prohibition
. does not apply to wastes disposed of in
Class I underground injection wells.
Third, where a specified technology is
the treatment standard for a .
characteristic waste, the method need
not be utilized if the waste is disposed
of in a Class I injection well.
Characteristic wastes that are exempt
from the dilution prohibition and which
are managed and disposed of on-site,
are not subject to the full § 268.7
requirements for waste analysis and
recordkeeping. The Agency believes that
this action is necessary to successfully
integrate RCRA and SDWA programs;
the underlying rationale for these
decisions is provided in section OLD of
today's preamble.
6. Mineral Processing Wastes
On September 1.1989 and January 23,
1990, EPA published final rules in the
Federal Register (54 FR 36592 and 55 FR
2322. respectively) that removed a
number of mineral processing wastes '
from the so-called "Bevill Exclusion."
RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) excludes
from the hazardous waste regulations,
pending completion of studies by the
Agency, solid wastes from the
extraction, beneficiation, and processing
of ores and metals.
All of these previously excluded
mineral processing wastes that exhibit
one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste will be subject to the
hazardous waste regulations when the
final rules become effective March 1,
1990, and July 23,1990.
EPA believes that these wastes are
"newly identified" for the purposes of
determining applicability of the land
disposal prohibitions. 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
HSWA on November 8,1984. The
Agency, therefore, is clarifying in
today's final rule that these newly
identified mineral processing wastes are
not subject to the BOAT treatment
standards promulgated today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. A
. detailed discussion is provided in
section III.H.
B. Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes .
In today's.final rule, the Agency is
promulgating several new provisions,
and revising existing regulations to
implement the treatment standards for
characteristic wastes. . ..
1. Overlap of Standards for Listed
Wastes That Also Exhibit a
Characteristic ' : '
The Agency today is promulgating its
proposed approach with respect to
determining applicable treatment
standards for wastes that carry more
than one waste code. Specifically,
wastes that .carry more than one
characteristic waste code must be
treated to meet the treatment standard
for each characteristic; listed wastes
that also exhibit one or more hazardous
characteristics must be treated to meet
the treatment standard for each of the
waste codes, unless the characteristic
constituent or property is specifically
addressed in the treatment standard for
the listed waste. Finally, EPA is
specifying that disposal of a waste that
exhibits a characteristic at the point of
disposal is prohibited unless the
treatment standard for that
characteristic component is above the
characteristic level. See section ffl.E.1
for a more detailed discussion.
2. Revisions to Waste Identification
Requirements
Section 262.11 of 40 CFR currently sets
out an either/or scheme where, if the
generator determines that a waste is
listed, the generator does not need to
determine whether the waste exhibits a
characteristic. The Agency is amending
§ 262.11 to indicate that generators must
determine whether listed wastes also
exhibit characteristics of hazardous
waste for purposes of compliance with
40 CFR part 268. In addition, the Agency
is amending §§ 261.21 through 261.24 to
indicate that wastes that carry
characteristic waste codes may also be
listed wastes. See section HI.E.2 of
today's preamble.
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity
Variance
EPA is clarifying the requirements
that are applicable to characteristic
wastes during the period of a capacity
variance. Under the present rule, it is
possible for prohibited characteristic
wastes which are subject to a national
capacity variance to become
nonhazardous. If, during the period of
the variance the waste is treated to be
nonhazardous, arguably the landfill or
impoundment unit would have to meet
minimum technological requirements.
-------
"Federal .Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June i, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
22531
EPA does not' read the statute or the
. rules this way, and is making this .
clarification in section in.E.3 of today's
preamble. ; , .,';',
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Methods
for Compliance ;..;' -.--,-; - v ,;. .
EPA is establishing treatment
standards for several characteristic
wastes at the characteristic level, and
has determined that this level should be
measured by the TCLP. This is the
protocol which large quantity generators
will use to assess the toxicity of their ,
wastes starting on September 25,1990
(small quantity generators are subject to
the revised testing protocol on March 29,
1990), and it is the protocol used to
measure the efficacy of stabilization or
other immobilization treatment in most
of the BOAT standards. A detailed
discussion is provided in section EU.E.4.
5. Newly Identified Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) Wastes
EPA is clarifying that wastes that
exhibit the TC but not the EP are not
presently prohibited, even if the
constituent causing the waste to exhibit
the TCLP is also a constituent controlled
by the EP. This point is also discussed in
section III.E.5 of today's preamble.
In addition, EPA is clarifying that for
hazardous wastes that are subject to
more than one treatment standard,
during the period of a national capacity
variance for one of the wastes, the
treatment standards for any other waste
codes that have not received such an
extension must be met. As indicated in
previous rulemakings, hazardous wastes
that are subject to a capacity extension
and contain California list constituents
must comply with the California list
prohibitions. See 53 FR 31188. A detailed
discussion is provided in section IQ.E.3
of today's preamble. '
6. Further Principles Governing
Applicability
The Agency notes that the issues in
this rulemaking concerning when
hazardous wastes become prohibited
from land disposal do not change the
status of other regulatory or statutory
inclusions or exclusions to the definition
of solid or hazardous waste found at 40
CFR 261.2-261.6. These provisions can
.override the LDR point of generation
evaluation to keep wastes from being
prohibited and subject to a dilution
prohibition or treatment standard.
Further, those who manage hazardous
waste will need to assess what LDR
prohibitions apply at different points in
the waste management process. The
question of whether a given waste is
going to prohibited land disposal is
complicated by the fact that wastes may
change form or treatability groups after
undergoing treatment. The Agency
^explains these decision rules and -
provides clarifying examples in section
UI.E.6 of today's final rule. : ' ;'
C. Amended Tracking System for .
Characteristic Prohibited Wastes
EPA's decisions concerning - - '
characteristic wastes necessitate certain
modifications of the tracking provisions
contained in 40 CFR 268.7. These
changes are summarized below, and a
detailed discussion of each of these
provisions is provided in section III.F of
today's preamble. -c %
1. Clarification of and Changes to
Generally Applicable Recordkeeping
Requirements
Most of the existing provisions of
§ 268.7 contemplate mat restricted
wastes are being shipped off-site for
treatment or disposal (see §§ 268.7 (a)(2)
and(a)(3), and §§ 268.7 (b)(4) and
(b}(5)). The Agency is clarifying in
today's rulemaking that for wastes
managed on-site, generators must
determine if the waste is restricted, and
keep some documentation of that
determination, plus some documentation
of where, die restricted waste was
treated, stored, or disposedwhether
treatment, storage, or disposal occurs
on-site or off-site. This requirement
applies to characteristic wastes, even
when the hazardous characteristic is
removed prior to disposal, or when the
waste is excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste under 40 CFR
261.2-261.6. The Agency also notes that
those wastes exempted from all of part
268 under 40 CFR 268.1 (b) and (e) are
not subject to any recordkeeping
requirements.
2. Tracking [i.e., Notification/
Certification) Provisions Applicable to
Generators
EPA believes that the existing
tracking system requires some
modification for characteristic waste
that the generator has treated to meet
the treatment standard before it is sent
off-site (and therefore, in most cases
may be land disposed in a subtitle D
facility). The Agency believes that under
the present rule, sending the tracking
forms to subtitle D facilities could have
counterproductive effects, and has
determined that the tracking forms
should not accompany shipments from
generators to subtitle D facilities. By
deciding that tracking documents for
prohibited characteristic-wastes that no
longer exhibit a characteristic should
not go to these facilities, however, the
Agency is not deciding that notifications
and certifications should not be
prepared for such wastes. EPA believes
that the notifications and certifications
'should be sent to the appropriate EPA
-Regional Administrator or his delegated
representative, or to a state authorized
to implement the land disposal ;
restrictions. EPA is making some slight
modifications hi the notification form "
that would be sent to EPA (or to an
authorized State), because the existing
notification refers to the waste's ID
number and manifest number when
shipped, neither of which are available
for wastes no longer exhibiting a
characteristic. While the revised
. notification form would not contain
hazardous waste codes, it must contain
a complete and accurate description of
the waste, including its-former
hazardous waste classification, and
must identify the facility receiving the
waste. EPA is not amending the tracking
requirements for those characteristic
wastes that still exhibit a characteristic
when they are sent off-site.
3. Tracking Provisions Applicable to
Treaters
EPA is adopting the same approach
for treaters of characteristic wastes as it
is for generators. Thus, tracking forms
for shipments of characteristic wastes
that meet a treatment standard, and no
longer exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, would be sent to EPA
or to an authorized state.
4. Land Disposal Facilities
Under existing rules, subtitle C
disposal facilities receiving prohibited
wastes must keep copies of the
notification and certification prepared
by the generator and/or the treater,
must test wastes (or waste extracts) at a
frequency specified in their waste
analysis plan (as modified in today's
rule), and must dispose of certain types
of wastes in minimum technology units.
40 CFR 268.7(c) (1), (2), and (3). These
requirements do not fit well for the
characteristic wastes prohibited in
today's rule. The Agency is thus
indicating that the requirements of
§ 268.7(c) do not apply to subtitle D
disposal facilities receiving wastes that
no longer exhibit a characteristic:
5. Changes in Certification to Reflect
Dilution Prohibition ,
EPA is amending the certifications of
compliance required of treaters and
generators in § 268.7 to state' that the
treatment standard was not achieved by
a form of impermissible dilution.
-------
federal "Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
organometallic and organic wastes
specified in appendix IV and appendix
V to 40 CFR part 268, respectively. The
alternate treatment standards are
expressed as a specified technology for
each of the-waste categories: (1)
Incineration followed by treatment to
meet the treatment standards for certain
EP toxic metals for the organometallic
wastes identified in appendix IV; and (2)
incineration as a specified method for
the organic hazardous wastes identified
in appendix V. In addition, the Agency
is allowing certain unregulated wastes
to be included in lab packs utilizing the
alternate treatment standards. The
Agency is not promulgating the
proposed alternate treatment standard
for inorganic wastes due to concerns
about unverified stabilization of
variable waste streams.
The Agency believes that the
alternate treatment standards provide
some administrative relief, while
minimizing the threats posed by land
disposal of these small volumes of
hazardous waste. Section ULA.9 of
today's preamble contains a detailed
discussion of the alternate treatment
standards for these wastes.
D. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies
"^Centralized Treatment- :
* The existing rules on dilution and ~ -.
EPA's interpretive statements regarding
those rules indicate that the dilution
prohibition has a two-fold objective: {1}
To ensure that prohibited wastes are '
actually treated; and (2) to ensure that
prohibited wastes are treated by
methods that are appropriate for that
type of waste. EPA has acknowledged
that prohibited wastes which are
aggregated are not diluted
impermissibly if they are treated
legitimately in centralized treatment
systems, irrespective of the dilution .
inherent in such a system. Thus, if
"dilution" is a legitimate type of
treatment, or a necessary pretreatment
step in a legitimate treatment system,
such dilution is permissible. Conversely.
prohibited wastes that are "treated" by
inappropriate methods, or sent to
treatment systems that do not treat the
wastes, are diluted impermissibly.
In applying these principles to
characteristic wastes, EPA encountered
two major difficulties: First, the
interface with regulatory systems
established pursuant to the Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, and
second, difficulties in being able to
quantify the proposal in a meaningful
way. Given these problems and
' complications, EPA has decided that the
most constructive course is to provide
additional interpretive guidance on the
existing dilution prohibition contained
in § 268.3, and to explain more fully how
those rules would apply in specific
situations.
In all cases, the Agency has
determined that for non-toxic hazardous
characteristic wastes, it should not
matter how the characteristic property is
removed so long as it is removed. Thus,
dilution is an acceptable treatment
method for such wastes. In most cases,
EPA has determined also not to apply a
dilution prohibition to characteristic
wastes that are managed in treatment
systems regulated under the Clean
Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water
Act. However for aggregation of listed
wastestreams or toxic characteristic
wastestreams not included above, the
Agency is able to provide limited
additional guidance today on the issue
of when centralized treatment methods
involving dilution are permissible. As a
general rule, if the wastes are all
legitimately amenable to the same type
of treatment, and this method of
treatment is utilized for the aggregated
wastes, the aggregation step does not
constitute impermissible dilution.
E. TreatmentStandards 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 .wastes 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 each of 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 would apply
(53 FR 31138, August 17,1988).
The Agency today is promulgating a
fixed set of wastewater treatment
standards and a set of nonwastewater
treatment standards for all multi-source
leachate and residues derived from the
treatment of multi-source leachate. The
Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for these wastes under EPA
Hazardous Waste Code No. F039. The
Agency has identified treatment levels
for the entire BDAT list of hazardous
constituents in the wastewater and
nonwastewater treatabitity groups.
The Agency is also specifying that
leachate derived solely from F020-F023
and F028-F028 (dioxhi) wastes, and no
other listed wastes, is considered to be
single-source leachate and must comply
with the treatment standards for those
wastes and continue to be classified
under those waste codes.
The Agency is not promulgating
separate standards for multi-source
leachate mat exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste because, by
promulgating standards for all of the
BDAT list constituents, the treatment
standards will address all of the
constituents and properties that the
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes address. Should multi-source
leachate or residues derived from the
treatment of multi-source leachate
exhibit a characteristic at the point of
disposal, however, it would have to be
treated to meet the treatment standards
for that characteristic. A detailed
discussion of the treatment standards
for multi-source leachate is contained in
section m.A.6 of today's final rule.
F. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
The Agency is today promulgating
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs that contain certain prohibited
G. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive)
Wastes
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance under section
3004(h)(2) for mixed scheduled
hazardous/radioactive wastes subject to
today's rulemaking. The Agency bases
the 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 HI.A.8 of today's
preamble.
The Agency is also establishing-four
separate treatability groups for specific
types of mixed waste that could not be
treated with the technologies
determined to be BDAT for the
corresponding nonradioactive wastes.
The BDAT treatment standard for high-
level radioactive wastes generated
during the reprocessing of fuel rods is
vitrification. For radioactive lead solids,
the BDAT treatment standard is
macroencapsulation. The BDAT
treatment standard for radioactive
elemental mercury is amalgamation. For
radioactive hydraulic oil contaminated
with mercury, BDAT is incineration.
-------
Federal -Register /-Vol. 55. No. 106 I Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22533
' H. Nationwide'VariancesFromi th& - " - -
: Effective Date -_.- .-i..-.-. .: :.-J ;
!' Due to lack of sufficient treatment or
recovery capacity, EPA is promulgating '
a two-year national capacity variance
for the surface-disposed and deep well-
injected hazardous .wastes listed in .
Tables' 1 and 2. In addition to the wastes
listed in Tables 1 and 2, EPA is also
granting a two-year national capacity
extension to: mixed hazardous/ .
radioactive wastes; naturally occurring
radioactive materials that are mixed
with RCRA hazardous wastes; soil and
debris contaminated with Third Third
wastes for which the treatment standard
is based on incineration, mercury
retorting, vitrification, or wet-air
oxidation; and inorganic debris as
defined in § 268.2(a)(7) (which also
applies to chromium refractory bricks
carrying the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K048-K052). The Agency is also granting
a six-month capacity variance to
nonwastewaters from the petroleum
refining industry, EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. K048-K052. See section III.B of
today's preamble for a detailed
discussion of this six-month capacity
variance. .
Determinations of available capacity
are based on a comparison of the
volumes of wastes requiring treatment
to the amount of capacity available for
such treatment. 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.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR SUR-
FACE-DISPOSED WASTES1
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Acid Leaching and
Chemical
Precipitation.
Combustion of
Sludge/Solids.
Mercury Retorting....
Waste code/
physical form
D009
K106
P065
P092
U151
F0392
K0483
K049
K050
K051
K052.
D009
K106
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater. -
High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
'High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR SUR-
. FACE-DISPOSED WASTES *Continued
Required
alternative -
treatment
technology " -
Secondary
Smelting.
Thermal Recovery...
Vitrification
. Wastecode/ ,
physical form
P065
P092
U151
D008
P087
0004
K031
K084
K101
K102
P010
P011
P012
P036
P038
U136
High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
High Mercury
'Nonwastewater.
Lead Materials
Stored before
Secondary
. Smelting.
Nonwastewater/
wastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
1 EPA is granting these wastes a two-year national
capacity variance, except for K04B-K052 non-
wastewaters. This table does not include mixed
radioactive wastes, certain contaminated soil and
debris, or inorganic debris as defined in 268.2(a)(7)
which are receiving two-year national capacity var-
iances.
2 Multi-source Leachate.
"For K048-K052 petroleum-refining non-
wastewaters, EPA is granting a six-month variance.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR UN-
DERGROUND INJECTED WASTES
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Acid Leaching and
Chemical
Precipitation.
Alkailine
Chlorination.
Chemical Oxidation
followed by
Chemical
Precipitation.
Chemical Oxidation
followed by
Chromium
Reduction and
Chemical
Precipitation.
Chromium
Reduction
followed by
Chemical
Precipitation.
Mercury Retorting.-.
Neutralization
Wet-Air Oxidation
Waste code/
physical form
D009
D003*
D003Z
D003S
D007
D009
D002V
K011
K013
K014
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
.Nonwastewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
Wastewater.
Wastewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
TABLE 2, SUMMARY OF, TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL. CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR UN-
- DERGROUND INJECTED WASTESCon-
tinued - '
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Wet-Air Oxidation
Followed by
Carbon
. Adsorption
Followed by
Chemical
Precipitation;
Biological
Treatment
Followed by
Chemical
Precipitation.
Waste code/
physical form
F039 Wastewater.
1D003 (Cyanides).
» D003 (Suffides).
'D003 (Explosives, water reactives, and other
reactives).
4 Deepwell injected D002 liquids with a pH less
than 2.0 must meet the California list prohibitions on
August 8,1990.
.* Multi-Source Leachate.
J. Generator Notification Requirements
The generator notification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 268.7
specify that when the generator has
determined 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, among other items,
the applicable treatment standard and
all applicable prohibitions set forth in
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004{d). If the
waste being shipped is restricted, but
can be land disposed without further
treatment the generator 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)).
In today's final rule, the Agency is
amending § 268.7 to allow referencing of
the treatment standards. The following
information must be included hi the
reference: EPA Hazardous Waste
Number, the subcategory of the waste
code [e.g., D003, reactive cyanide
subcategory), the treatability group(s) of
the waste(s) (e.g., wastewater or non-
wastewater), and the section where the
treatment standards appear. This
change does not apply to spent solvents
(F001-F005), multi-source leachate
(F039), or California list wastes because
these waste categories each contain a
number of individual constituents or
waste groups.
In addition, the Agency is amending
§ 268.7 to allow a one-time notification
-------
1990 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1.
and certification foe SQG shipments
subject to tolling agreements. A detailed
discussion of these changes is provided
in section in I of today's preamble.
/. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
The Agency today is promulgating '
modifications to the waste analysis plan
requirements which incorporate
elements of both approaches proposed
on November 22,1989. Under the final
approach, treatment and disposal
facilities must conduct periodic detailed
physical and chemical analyses of Jheir
wastestreams to assure that the
appropriate 40 CFR part 268 treatment
standards are being met Today's final
rule amends the comment in 40 CFR
264.13(a)(2) and 265.13{a)(2) to clarify
that the generator or treatermay supply
part of the waste analysis information,
and that waste analysis requirements
are not superseded if the treatment or
disposal facility is supplied information
by the generator or treater. See section
m.J for a detailed discussion.
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
The Agency is promulgating testing
requirements for wastes treated to
comply with the BDAT treatment
standard in so-called 90-day tanks (or
containers] as proposed. A regulatory
gap existed with respect to treatment of
prohibited wastes in such tanks or
containers regulated under § 262.34
because they were not subject to the
waste analysis plan requirements. Thus,
there was no regulatory vehicle for
deteradning testing frequency in such
circumstances.
In order to close this regulatory gap.
EPA is requiring that persons treating
prohibited wastes in such tanks and
containers must prepare a plan
justifying the frequency of testing that
they choose to adopt. The Agency is
also clarifying that these wastes are
subject to the 40 CFR 268.7
recordkeeping requirements. A detailed
discussion of these requirements is
provided in section fflJC of today's
preamble.
L. Clarification of "P" and "IT Solid
Wastes
The Agency is amending 40 CFR
261.33fc) to clarify the regulations
pertaining to "P" and "U" hazardous
wastes. The amendment will add
residues of § 261.33(fJ materials
remaining in containers and in inner
liners to the residues already included in
the scope of the commercial chemical
product listings. The existing regulatory
language is partially in error, and the
Agency is correcting it with today's
revisions.
In the November 22,1989 proposal the
Agency also proposed amendments to
§ 261.33 regarding soil, water and spill
debris contaminated with § 261.33 (e)
and (fj (P and U wastes) materials.
Specifically, the Agency proposed that
residues of spills of commercial
chemical products will be considered
solid waste if they are not recycled
within 90 days of the spill The Agency
has decided not to promulgate this
revision as the desired effect can be
achieved through interpretation of
existing regulations.
Finally, during the comment period,
several commenters requested
clarification of the exception to the
mixture rule for de nunimis losses of "P"
and "U" wastes (§ 261.3(a)[iv)(D)) to
underground injection units. Today's
notice provides this clarification. A
detailed discussion of these issues is
provided in section IILL of today's final
rule.
M. Storage Prohibition
Section 3004(j) provides that storage
of prohibited hazardous waste is
prohibited " * * * unless such storage
is solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal." See § 268.50[a)(2), and 51FR
1709, January 14,1986. This language
applies only to storage of prohibited
wastes in non-land based storage units
(e.g., tanks and containers), as land-
based storage is a form of disposal. In
the November 22,1989, notice, the
Agency proposed an interpretation that
the storage prohibition does not apply
where storage precedes legitimate,
protective treatment, recovery, or
disposal The Agency is not pursuing a
definitive reinterpretation in today's
final rule as proposed. THe Agency
continues to believe, however, that the
statutory prohibition was designed to
prevent the use of storage as a means of
avoiding a treatment standard, and will
continue to enforce the storage
prohibition with that intention in mind.
EPA is aware of the difficulties posed by
the applicability of the section 3004Q)
storage prohibition to mixed
(radioactive/hazardous) wastes, as
there is little disposal or treatment
capacity available. EPA is further
evaluating the legal, policy and factual
issues relevant to these wastes, and
expects to issue policy on these issues
within the next 90 days. A detailed
discussion is provided in section III.M of
today's preamble.
N. Case-by-Case Extension Petitions
In granting a case-by-case extension.
there is a statutory requirement that a
binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity that meets the
treatment standards be in place. RCRA
section 3004(h){3). EPA today is
clarifying that this requirement may be
satisfied by EPA proposing to grant a
no-migration petition or a treatability
variance. See preamble section ffl.N for
a more detailed discussion.
O. 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
when they become effective.1 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 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 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.
Today's final rule also addresses
several issues that were raised in the
November 22,1990, proposal. First, EPA
is restating that the California list
prohibitions apply to wastes that
receive national capacity variances in
later rulemakings. The Agency believes
these more general prohibitions serve as
a minimum requirement. EPA notes,
however, that the California list
prohibitions do not apply to newly listed
or identified wastes (i.e., wastes
identified or listed after November 8,
1984) as the statute does not compel a
contrary interpretation. A more detailed
discussion of these issues appears in
section HI.O of today's preamble.
P. Analysis of Treated Wastes
The Agency today is using the same
approach to waste analysis promulgated
in the First and Second Third final rules
' 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).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 :/ Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22535
(53FR3114eand54FR26594).(The
fohowing discussion and later preamble
discussion «re included for purposes of
information and do not reopen the issue
for judicial review.) Where BDAT is a :
destruction oriemoval technology, a
total waste analysis is required because
it is most appropriate for.measuring
such destruction OTTemoval. 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 Chafee), and the
only reliable way to verity feat
destruction has occurred is 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 is the most
appropriate measure of immobilization.
In cases where both technologies are
identified as BDAT, both types of waste
analysis are required.
In order to determine whether the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards as generated, the original
generator should perform an analysis of
the waste. The waste extract is
analyzed if the applicable treatment
standards appear in 40 CFR 268.41, and
a total waste analysis is performed if the
applicable treatment standards appear
in § 268.43. The generator may also
make this determination based on
knowledge of the waste, 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). All supporting data
used to make the determination must be
retained on-site in the generator's files.
See 40 CER 268.7(a)(5). The Agency has
discussed this principle hi past
rulemakings, and is repeating it here for
the reader's convenience.
Q. Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
As noted above, where BDAT is
based on a destruction/removal
technology, total waste analysis is
performed to measure compliance with
the BDAT levels. Several commenters
have raised concerns that, in certain
cases, analytical problems may prevent
demonstrating compliance with the
treatment standards. They contend that
the BDAT concentration levels are, in
some cases, below the practical
quantitation limit (PQL)fee lowest
level of quantitation that the Agency
believes a competent laboratory can
reliably achieve.
The Agency is currently developing
guidance material on waste analysis
which the Agency believes will resolve
many of these problems. In the interim.
the Agency believes that where a waste
has been treated with a combustion
BDAT process (i.e., incineration or fuel
substitution unit), and if the person has
made a good faith effort to achieve the
maximum analytical sensitivity, in
certain cases the Agency will consider
the person to have demonstrated
compliance with the treatment standard
for the respective organic constituents in
the waste. Fora more complete
discussion of these issues, see section
IH.A.1 of today's final rule.
R. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDAT)
Today's rule defines waste treatability
groups by waste code, and identifies the
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) for each waste code
within the treatability group (see section
IH.A.1). Treatment standards are based
on the performance levels achievable by
the BDAT identified for each waste
code. Any technology not otherwise
prohibited (eg., 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 die specified technology prior to
land disposal.
S. Reformatting of Treatment Standard
Tables and Addition of Appendix VII to
Part 268, Effective Dates for Prohibited
Wastes
The Agency is reformatting all of die
tables of treatment standards in 40 CFR
part 268 subtitle D and is providing the
subpart D treatment standard tables in
their entirety, including both previously
promulgated standards and the
treatment standards being promulgated
today. The reformatted tables (/.e., 40
CFR 268.41. 268.42, and 268.43) are
arranged a< '.ording to waste code in
alphanumeric order and include fee
CAS number identifying each regulated
constituent, whether fee standard is
based on analyses of grab or composite
samples, cross-references, .and several
other clarifying features that will make
determining applicable treatment
standards easier for the reader. The
treatment standards finalized for fee
first time today are included in fee
tables. No substantive changes are
being made to fee treatment standards
that were previously promulgated in fee
November 7,1986, fee July 8,1987. fee
August 17,1988, and the June 23,1989,
final rules except as discussed in other
preamble sections of today's rule. {As
'. an example, regulated constituents are
being added to fee wastes K048-K052,
as well as F002 and F005, wastes for
which certain treatment standards were
previously promulgated. See preamble
section HI.A.4.a. for a discussion of F002
and F005 and section IIIA.4.O. for a
discussion of K048-K052.)
In addition, fee Agency is providing a
complete list of waste codes regulated to
date under fee land disposal restrictions
(including the waste codes included in
today's rulemaking), as appendix Vn to
part 268. The appendix is provided for
the reader's convenience; no substantive
changes have been made to fee dates,
except as discussed in fee preamble of
today's rule. :
T. Relationship of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA to Treatment
Standards Promulgated in Today's Final
Rule .
A number of commenters raised fee
issue of whether fee treatment
standards being adopted are below
levels at which threats to human health
and fee environment are minimized,
citing portions of fee recent opinion
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
(HWTC III). In that case, fee Court
upheld EPA's existing technology-based
approach to establishing treatment
standards as a reasonable construction
of fee statute, but remanded fee case to
fee Agency in order for fee Agency to
explain properly why it had chosen this
approach. EPA's explanation was
published in fee Federal Register on
February 26,1990, and was accepted by
fee Court, which dismissed all petitions
for review on March 15.1990 The
standards EPA is adopting in this rule
are also technology-based, which fee
Agency believes is warranted at this
time due to fee uncertainties associated
wife hazardous waste land disposal and
fee Agency's present inability to
quantity precisely de minimi's levels of
hazardous constituents feat would
determine when threats to human health
and fee environment from disposal of
prohibited wastes are minimized. 55 FR
6642. Further discussion of this point
may be found in section m A.ld of
today's preamble. As discussed in
section HID. EPA believes feat HWTC
HI is not dispositive on fee issue of
appropriate treatment standards for
characteristic wastes.
OTA. Detailed Discussion of Today's
Final Rule
1. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for the remaining Third Third
scheduled wastes, and for fee First
Third and Second Third wastes which
heretofore were subject to fee "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
-------
.22536 ' -Federal.Register /.Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Development and identification of the.
treatment standards are presented on a
waste code basis in sections ffl.A.2.
through ffl.A.5. of today's notice. Section
nLA.6. presents the development of
treatment standards for wastes
identified as F039, multi-source leachate.
Section ffl.A.7. discusses the
applicability of today's treatment
standards to contaminated soil and
debris. Section HLA.8. presents the
Agency's approach to regulating
radioactive waste that is mixed with
hazardous wastes.
The following discussion has
appeared in previous preambles and is
being repeated here as an aid to the
reader's understanding of the land
disposal restrictions program.
Comments were not solicited in the
proposed rule onjhe following
discussion; however, comments were
received pertaining to various issues
discussed below. These comments, and
the Agency's responses, are found in the
Response to BDAT-Related Comments
Document, Volume 1, in the RCRA
Docket
a. The BDAT Methodology
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 (BDAT) 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
constituents. EPA prefers to base BDAT
on technologies that further the ,
statutory goals of waste minimization
and recycling. EPA may select this type
of technology as BDAT over more .
conventional treatment if 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.
Treatent 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 the 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 the constituents in the
treatment residuals from each
technology are then compared using an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) test in
order to determine if one technology
performed significantly better than the
other. (A detailed discussion of the
methodology for identification of BDAT
and the ANOVA test is provided in the
November 7,1986 final rule (51FR
40572).) Where data exist for only one
technology, the Agency uses best
engineering judgment to assess whether
that technology represents the best
applicable technology for that particular
waste and whether the data indicate
that the treatment system was well-
designed and well-operated.
After BDAT is identified, EPA
develops the treatment standard for
certain constituents in the waste.
Treatment standards are expressed 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 a combination 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
they provide the regulated community
with 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 treatment technologies are
operated at conditions that will result in
the best demonstrated performance.
b. 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. 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
rule, however, are expressed as a
treatment method rather than as a
concentration-based standard. EPA
typically establishes a treatment method
as the standard when it has no means of
calculating valid concentration-based
standards. In such cases, the specified
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, or if the
residue exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic and does not meet the
treatment standard for that
characteristic. 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 17,1988).
When EPA requires the use of a
technology (or technologies), a generator
or treater may demonstrate that an
alternative treatment method can
achieve the equivalent level of
performance as that of the specified
treatment method (40 CFR 268.42(b)).
This demonstration is typically 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, fuiae 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22537
treatment of the hazardous constituents:
(2) the development of a new analytical
method for quantifying the hazardous
constituents; 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. . '
c. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
Derived-From Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
(1) Derived-From Wastes. All residues
from treating the original listed F, K, U
or P wastes are likewise usually
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 determination or
by a capacity variance. Residues from
the treatment of characteristic wastes,
however, are not automatically
considered the characteristic waste;
these residues are considered
characteristic if they still display the
original characteristic, or if they display
another characteristic.
Treatment operations, including those
identified as BOAT, typically generate
wastewater and nonwastewater
residuals that may require further
treatment EPA has not tested every
possible waste that may result from
every subsequent part of the treatment
train. However, since the treatment
standards promulgated 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 will be less
difficult to treat
The Agency is 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. The
Agency has indicated, however, that
these de minimis levels will cap
treatment standards if they are higher
than the treatment standards (55 FR
6640; Feb. 26,1990).
(2) Mixtures of Different Hazardous
Waste Streams. Today's treatment
standards apply to mixtures of different
waste streams. Where a waste mixture
consists of listed wastes and has more
than one" applicable concentration-
based treatment standard for a
particular constituent, die most stringent
standard must be met prior to land
disposal (see 40 CFR 268.41(b}). In the
event that«uch a waste mixture cannot
be treated to meet the jnost stringent
standard, one may petition the Agency
for a variance from the treatment
standard pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44.
d. Wastewater Versus Nonwastewater
Standards
In today's rule, the treatment
standards (both concentration-based
and specified methods) are generally
presented as applicable to wastewaters
or to nonwastewaters (see 40 CFR
268.2). 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 (TOC) endless than 1% total
suspended solids (TSS), except for those
wastes identified as F001, F002, F003,
F004, and F005 solvent-water mixtures.
(See 53 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
FOOl. F002, F003, F004, and F005 solvent-
water mixtures.) Those wastes (listed
wastes, including wastes that are
hazardous as a result of the mixture and
derived-from rules) that do not meet
these criteria are denned as
nonwastewaters and thus contain
greater than or equal to 1% TOC, or
greater than or equal to 135 TSS. (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.)
(1) Impermissible Switching of
Wastewater and Nonwastewater
Standards for Listed Wastes. (See also
discussion at HID. below for issues
associated with characteristic wastes.)
It is not permissible to dilute or partially
treat a prohibited listed 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 case 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 centrifugation are typically
designed to remove suspended solids
(TSS) from aqueous wastes. When these
technologies are applied to a
nonwastewater that contains greater
than 1% 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. (Note: For the purposes of
applying BDAT treatment standards, the
Agency does not consider carbon
adsorption a dewatering technology
even though it may act as a filter for
suspended material.)
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 wastewate or nonwastewater
treament standards depending on their
TOC and TSS content If the liquid
residues from these dewatering
technologies meet the definition of
wastewaters, the Agency does not
consider this to be 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
-------
22538
'Federal Register / Vol. 55rNo. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
waslewater treatment standard ' ;
expressed as Carbon Adsorption as a -
, Me thod of Treatment for this waste
code,' the nonwastewater described
above must comply with the standard
for Ihenonwastewater form, despite the
fact that the TOG 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.
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. In the
Second Third final rule (see generally 54
FR 28B25,26630, 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 the ,
treatment standard for nonwastewaters
and/or wastewaters, or where EPA has
established Carbon Adsorption the
treatment standard 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 part
264 subpart O or part 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 sustentive
provisions of 40 CFR part 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 part 264 subpart O or part 265 -
subpart O are considered to meet the
'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 part
264 subpart O or part 265 subpart O, or
are downstream from the high
temperature zones, are considered'tp
meet the treatment standards for thex.
wastes that were incinerated and can be
land disposed (this does not include
incinerator equipment such as refractory
bricks that as manufactured, contain ,
metals that may be characteristic
wastes by virtue of the EP toxicity test
when discarded); (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.
e. Transfer of Treatment Standards
Rather than testing the performance of
BDAT on evey waste, in certain cases,
the Agency transfers 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
generated 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
that 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 treatmen
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 rule,
refer to the background documents for
each waste or treatability group and the
background documents for the wastes
from which the treatment standards
were transferred.
EPA notes further that in the case of
transferring 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 for a
variety of different RCRA hazardous
wastes. These wastes contained varying
concentrations of many BDAT list
organics. In developing concentration-
based treatment standards for the U and
P wastes, the Agency considered all of
the 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.
When developing concentration-based
treatment standards for certain F and K
wastes containing organics, the Agency
considered all of the 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. 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
ability to.achieve detection limits for .
organics in the waste matrix from which
the standard was transferred.
-------
Federal Register /.Vol. 55, No. 106-/ Friday;^June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2253i
f. Treatment Standards Based on Single
Facility Dati, Grab Samples Versus
Composite Samples, and Waste . - -
Analysis Plans * ,, - --- ''' --->-.
"(1) S/qg7e Facility Data. As discussed
' in the August 17,1988 final rule for First
Third wastes, the Agency believes that
the use of a small number of data sets
from a single treatment facility can be
representative of the treatment achieved
by the particular treatment system. This
is particularly .true when no other
treatment data are available, or when
data exist but there is no verification
that the treatment process from which.
the data were obtained was well-. .
designed or well-operated. It is not -;
possible for the Agency to sample every
facility generating the waste or every
treatment system treating the waste. For
. the purposes of determining treatment
standards, the Agency has established 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 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, 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 hi the BDAT Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
. Standards based on incineration are
always established above the limit of
detection for that particular waste
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, followjng
EPA's methodology for establishing
treatment standards, the data are
adjusted through use of the variability
factor (typically 2.8) and an adjustment
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 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 range
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 provides the basis for
monitoring a disposal facility's
compliance with the promulgated
treatment standards. This plan must be
adequate to assure compliance with part
268. The disposal facility is, however,
ultimately responsible if it disposes of a
waste that does not meet a treatment
standard. Therefore, a disposal facility
might violate the land disposal
restrictions while at the same time
comply 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 that 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 hi the previous
section) and analysis of all constituents
regulated by the applicable treatment
standands, not on the facility's waste
analysis plan. (See preamble section
m.G. for further discussion of WAPs.)
g. Analytical Requirements, the BDAT
List, and Relationship of PQLs to BDAT.
(1) Waste Analysis Requirements, in
today's rule, BDAT has been identified
as a destruction technology for organic
constituents and cyanides in many
wastes. The best measure of-treatment .
performance for these wastes is-one that
reflects the extent to which these , .. .
organics and cyanides have been ~, '
destroyed. This approach is consistent
with the Congressional preference to "
destroy hazardous wastes where
possible.* See, e.g., 130 Cong.- Rec. S
9178-9179 (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 the 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. The
corresponding treatment standards for
these constituents are based, therefore,
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 to evaluate performance of the
treatment technology.)
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 the
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 made up
primarily from .the constituents in 40
CFR part 261 appendix VII and
appendix Vni, that are evaluated for
regulation as BDAT constituents (i.e., for
purposes of concentration-based
treatment standards) when they are
-------
22540
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106. / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules .and Regulations
present in a listed waste. Hie rationale
for selection of the particular.
constituents to be regulated can be
found in the background document for
each waste or waste testability group.
The Agency believes that it is not . -
limited to regulating only those '" .
constituents for which a waste is listed
(40 CFR part 281 appendix VU).
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(fj, which specifies that EPA must
consider additional hazardous
constituents other than those for which
the waste was listed when evaluating
dclloting petitions. Section 3001(fj thus
acknowledges that appendix Vn is only
a partial list of the hazardous
constituents that can be present in a
listed waste.
(3) Relationship of Treatment
Standards to PQLs. In proposed
revisions to the September 1988 edition
of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid '
Wastes (also known as and herein
referred to as SW-846J, the Agency
defines practical quantisation limits
(PQLs)as the lowest level of
quantitation that the Agency believes a
competent laboratory can be expected
to reliably achieve." PQLs are direcdy
related to the amount of interferences
that are present in different waste
matrices, and the PQLs listed in SW-846
are not always achievable for
constituents as measured in untreated
wastes. Most treatment processes,
however, 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. 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
the treatment standards.
Potential users of PQLs should keep in
mind that the PQLs in SW-846 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'Iowest 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
(Le., 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.
Today's promulgated concentration-
based nonwastewater standards based
on combustion derive from detection
limits from EPA's 14 test burns (which
generated the data supporting virtually
all of the proposed rule's concentration-
based standards) plus a data set
submitted by a commenter representing
the hazardous waste treatment industry.
This comment is discussed at length in
subsequent paragraphs.
This commenter submitted a study
that was undertaken to verify whether
industry labs can reliably quantify
regulated constituents at the level of
both the existing and the proposed
concentration-based standards. The
study's secondary purpose was to
identify any regulated constituents for
which the concentration-based
treatment standards may be
inappropriate. The study consisted of
analyzing regulated constitutents in
incinerator ash at levels near the
concentration-based standards.
In the commenter's opinion, the data
and observations indicate that many
treatment standards are inappropriate,
and also made three major assertions
with respect to PQLs. First, the
commenter asserted that based on the
PQLs calculated using his data, certain
previously promulgated concentration-
based standards are not achievable.
EPA rejects this assertion because no
specific treatment data .were received in
either this study or during die comment
period for the appropriate rulemaking
that indicated on a waste-specific basis
that these treatment standards could not
be achieved. (Note: The Agency, is not,
precluded, however, from promulgating
revisions to these standards in a later
.rulemaking after giving sufficient public
notice.) ...'..-
Second, the commenter asserted that
certain of the proposed Third Third
concentration-based standards are not
achievable because they are based on
detection levels below the PQLs
calculated from his study. EPA
evaluated the commenter's detection
limit data rather .than his PQLs and has
determined that the majority of the
commenter's detection limits
demonstrate compliance with the
concentration-based standards {that
were proposed, and all but a very few,
comply with the standards being
promulgated hi today's rule. Because of
this, and for reasons discussed below,
the Agency has generally rejected the
use of the PQLs calculated by the
commenter in promulgating treatment
standards.
However, several nonwastewater
standards promulgated in today's rule
reflect revisions based on the
commenter's detection limit and
recovery data. EPA has indicated where
these data were used to revise specific
standards in later sections of today's
preamble. Although EPA revised these
standards based on some data from this
study, EPA generally found flaws with
the commenter's study (such as:
Incomplete untreated waste
characterization; probable analytical
interferences; and incomplete
incinerator process documentation) that
precluded incorporation of much of the
data into the treatment standards for
nonwastewaters. For example, BDAT
analytes were detected at levels above
the detection level (i.e., at measurable
quantities) in several of the commenter's
ash samples. Also, different ash samples
appeared to have different compositions
of these BDAT analytes, apparently
indicating that these ashes differ
significantly from one another. (See
detail responses of these data in the
Response to BDAT-Related Comments
Background Document for Third Land
Disposal Restrictions in the
administrative record for today's rule.)
Thud, the commenter stated that EPA
had inappropriately calculated
nonwastewater treatment standards in
terms of both numerical detection levels
and the best procedure for calculating
standards, specifically, considering the
-------
Federal IRegister / Vgl. 55, No."lQ6 /Friday, June 1, 1990 / llules and Regulations ' 22541
use of PQLs.Thfr commenter chose to '
use a methodology adapted from the -
Clean Water Act regulations to
calculate alternative concentration-
based standards for ash which they
asked EPA to consider/Regardless of
the validity of the commenter's data, -
EPA is not deviating from the
calculation methodology of the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land
Disposal Restrictions Program ("BOAT')
promulgated in conjunction with the
November 11,1986 regulatory
framework. The Agency therefore is
retaining its established methodology. .
h. Relationship of Detection Limits to
Concentration-Based Standards , . . - .
Several commenters raised the issue
that, in certain cases, analytical
problems (i.e., difficulties in reliable
quantitation at detection limits near the
concentration-based treatment
standards) may prevent demonstrating
compliance with the proposed treatment
standards for Third Third wastes. They
also pointed out that this same problem
already may exist for some First and
Second Third wastes.
EPA has examined the data submitted
to the Agency in support of these
comments. (See discussion of these data
as they relate to PQLs in the preceding
section of the preamble.) While the
Agency does not believe that the
currently available data is conclusive,
EPA acknowledges that there can be
situations where lack of available
analytical methods may prevent
demonstration of compliance with the
treatment standards.
EPA is dealing with this potential
problem in a number of ways. First, -EPA
has examined detection limit data
submitted by the commenters and
compared them to the data used to
develop the proposed standards. After a
thorough technical evaluation, the
Agency incorporated a portion of these
data into the promulgated standards in
today's rule. In addition, the Agency has
reevaluated the existing BDAT data
generated by the Agency, the transfer
procedures used for some of the wastes,
and recently available information and
data on recovery of the BDAT organic '
constituents. Thus, EPA concurred with
the commenters and concluded that
many of the other proposed
concentration-based treatment
standards may not be achievable. As a
result, EPA is promulgating revised
treatment standards for some organics
in nonwastewaters that are higher than
the proposed standards. In doing so, the
majority of the commenters' concerns
over ability to measure at -
concentrations near the standards are
no longer applicable. (Note: The Agency
is continuing to-study this issue and,'if
warranted, may adjust other standards,
. including some for First and Second
Third wastes, after sufficient public
notice.) -'-:
Second, in certain situations where
compliance with a standard cannot be
demonstrated for a particular waste due
to problems with analytical detection"'
limits and where the treatment
technology employed was considered by
the Agency to be BDAT (see specific
instances below), the Agency has ...
decided that reliance upon the
treatabUiry variance petition process .
would place an unnecessary burden on
both the regulated and regulatory
communities. The Agency believes that
where a waste has been treated with a
combustion BDAT process (i.e.,
incineration or fuel substitution unit),
and if the person has made a good faith
effort to achieve maximum analytical
sensitivity, the Agency will consider the
person to have demonstrated
compliance with the treatment standard
for the respective organic constituents in
the waste.
In order to demonstrate compliance in
such cases, the person will have had to
make a good faith effort to demonstrate
that the analyte of concern is not
present hi the waste at, or above, the
treatment standard. To provide a more
concrete basis for making such
demonstrations, EPA intends to develop
and issue guidance on what constitutes
a good faith effort to achieve such
analytical sensitivity within the near
future. This guidance is anticipated to be
available at or near the effective date
for the Third Third treatment standards
(August 8,1990).
In developing the treatment standards
in today's rule, the Agency selected the
treatment data (i.e., detection limit data)
that best represented what the majority
of wastes could meet (Note: Most of
these data were from incinerator units
that were considered well-designed and
well-operated.) However, the Agency
rejected detection limit data for some
wastes, because the Agency determined .
that these wastes were not necessarily
representative of the treatability of other
wastes. After reexamination of all of the
. available detection limit data, the -
Agency has found that the majority of
the detection limit data for these wastes
will generally not exceed the
promulgated treatment standards by
more than one order of magnitude. The
Agency also points out that there is an
inherent three-fold difference in
detection limits that may arise due to
difference in sample size taken for
analysis.
Thus, until this formal guidance is
available, the Agency will consider that,
if an analytical sensitivity (i.e., detection
limit) within an order of magnitude of
the organic constituent treatment
standard has been achieved, compliance
with such treatment standard will be
considered to have been demonstrated
provided the data represents the use of
a combustion process (i.e., restricted to '
incineration or fuel substitution in a unit
hi compliance with all applicable
technical operating requirements under
40 CFR part 264 subpart O and part 265
subpart O. Thus, it is likely that the
combustion unit is being operated
properly). The Agency believes that this
is consistent with RCRA section
3004(m), hi that, as an alternative to
specifying a concentration-based
standard for these wastes, the Agency
could have promulgated a method of
treatment specifying the use of
incineration or fuel substitution.
One commenter requested that
persons with untreated wastes also be
allowed to certify compliance if
analytical problems prevent their
demonstrating compliance with the
treatment standards. The Agency
emphatically disagrees. This situation
has a substantial potential to mask the
presence of hazardous constituents.
Untreated wastes, and wastes treated
by other than the aforementioned
combustion processes (e.g.,
biotreatment), typically contain many
materials that interfere with achieving
low detection limits. Such wastes can,
thus, contain significant levels of
hazardous constituents even when the
treatment process is operating properly.
Allowing land disposal of such wastes
would be contrary to the objectives of
the land disposal restrictions statutory
provisions. In addition, the rules already
allow generators to certify compliance
based on their knowledge of the waste,
rather than by testing (section
268.7(a)(2)). If a generator believes, for
example, that as a result of mass
balance information a waste meets the
treatment standard, it can certify
compliance even if it is not possible to
analytically demonstrate compliance
with the standard. ..
EPA is thus amending § § 268.7 and
268.43 to state that where a.treatment
standard for organics in
nonwastewaters is based on the
aforementioned combustion
technologies (i.e., incineration or fuel
substitution in units operated in
accordance with the technical operating
requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart
O and part 265 subpart O)'and a waste
has been treated using that treatment
method, the treatment facility may
-------
22542
federal Register / Vol. 55. No." 106 / Friday. June "I. 1990 /Rides and Regulations
certify compliance Tvith-the organic ,
constituent standard if a good faitfi .,-
effort has been made to analytically
demonstrate compliance with this*
standard and a detection limit within an
order of magnitude of the organic -.'
constituent standard has been achieved.
This includes all waste codes in the
FirsU Second, and Third Thirds where
standards for oiganics are based on
such combustion processes or were
transferred from wastes based on euch
combustion processes. These standards
are specifically indicated in Table CCW
of §208.43.
The Agency points out that in cases
where a facility believes that waste-
specific treatment standards cannot be
met because their laboratory is still
unable to achieve detection limits below
the treatment standards on specific
treatment residuals, and: (1) The facility
complies with all the other conditions
mentioned above; or (2) a facility
utilizes a combustion technology other
than incineration or fuel substitution; or
(3) a facility utilizes a technology other
than combustion that can be
demonstrated to be equivalent, 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 Project 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.
i. Relation of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA
A number of commenters raised the
issue of whether the treatment
standards being adopted are below
levels at which threats to human health
and the environment are minimized,
citing portions of the recent opinion
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 888 F. 2d 355 (D.C.Cir. 1989)
(HWTC ffl). In that case, the Court
upheld EPA's existing technology-based
approach to establishing treatment
standards as a reasonable construction
of the statute, but remanded the case to
the Agency in order for the Agency to
properly explain why it had chosen this
approach. EPA's explanation was
published in the Federal Register on
February 28,1990 and was accepted by
the Court, which dismissed all petitions
for review on March 15,1990.
The standards EPA is adopting in this
rule are also technology based.
However, as discusse-5 'n detail in
section ULD. below, the Agency believes
that with respect to disposal of
prohibited characteristic wastes that are
no longer "hazardous" under die ...
regulations, the Agency must harmonize
the competing considerations of section
3004(g) and 1006 {b) {relating to a , .
regulatory frame work for subtitle "D
systems) with those of section 30D4(m) ,
(relating to treatment to fully minimize
threats) before determining the extent of
the prohibition.
EPA notes further mat it Relieves that
treatment standards established below
characteristic levels can result to
nonrednndant minimization of threats to
human health and the environment and
thus be permissible tinder RCRA section
3004[m) and the Court's opinion. Indeed,
the Court itself noted mat characteristic
levels do not senre.as a bar to further
treatment (886 F. 2d at 363). The
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes in today's rule thus are not
premised on any finding that the
characteristic level, in and of itself,
creates a bar to farther treatment
2. Treatment Standards for Certain
Characteristic Wastes
This section of today's preamble
presents a discussion of D001 Ignitable,
D002 Corrosive, and D003 Reactive
characteristic wastes, as well as the six
EP Toxic pesticides {D012 through D017).
Treatment standards for die eight EP
Toxic metals are found in section ffl AJ.
of this preamble.
a. General Issues on Developing
Treatment Standards for Characteristic
Wastes
There were a number of options
proposed for developing treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes.
One option considered by the Agency
was to promulgate concentration-based
standards (for those characteristic
wastes that were defined by a level)
based on available data. A second
option was to promulgate a treatment
standard expressed as a required
method. A third option was to simply
establish the characteristic level as the .
treatment standard, and a fourth option
was to establish a method of treatment
along with a required performance level.
The Agency, received extensive
comments discussing these options,
particularly the option of setting
treatment standards expressed as the
characteristic levels. A few commenters
strongly supported establishing
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes at levels below the characteristic
levels, stating that available
performance data supported such an
approach. The majority of commenters,
- however, supported limiting the
treatment standards at the characteristic
levels. ' .
The Agency found some of the
technical issues raised by these
commenters persuasive. (Discussion of
the policy issues associated with setting
treatment standards'for characteristic
wastes is found hi preamble section
IH.D.) The Agency, agrees with
commenters mat argued mat
characteristic wastes may be generated
in many matrices, and thus, can take
any number of different forms; ,
transferring data from specific listed
wastes to these variable characteristic
wastes, the commenters indicated, may
not account for such differences.
In addition, for certain D001, D002,
and D003 treatability groups, there are
currently no available analytical
methods to quantify residual ignitability,
corrosiveness, and reactivity. Until EPA
can develop analytical methods capable
of accurately determining quantitative
characteristic hazards, industry must
judiciously make qualitative technical
decisions dependent on the waste
definition. Treaters must complete
treatment until qualitative technical
judgement indicates that the waste or
waste residual no longer exhibits the
characteristic hazard specified by the
definition.
Many commenters supported the
Agency's approach for setting treatment
standards for Ignitable, Corrosive, and
Reactive {with the exception of Reactive
Cyanides) wastes expressed as a
required method of treatment:
Deactivation. The Agency, therefore, is
promulgating the Deactivation treatment
standard and is providing suggested
deactivation methods to remove the
characteristic for the various Ignitable,
Corrosive, and Reactive treatability "
groups in appendix VI to 40 CFR part
268.
No comments were received on the
proposed approach for regulating the EP
Toxic pesticides (D011-D017). The
Agency is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for the
nonwastewater forms of these wastes
and methods of treatment for the
wastewaters. The Agency is taking this
action based on data indicating that
incineration can remove organic
constituents to non-detectable levels in
nonwastewaters as evidenced by
incineration data available for certain
halogenated pesticides. Further
discussion of issues associated with
promulgating treatment standards for
these characteristic wastes is found in
the following sections of today's
preamble.
-------
federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations .
22543
b. Ignitable Characteristic Wastes .
Under 40 CFR 261.21, there are four
criteria for identifying a waste as D001 -
Ignitable. Paraphrasing these criteria, a
waste IB a D001 Ignitable if: (1) It is a
liquid- with a flash point less than 140 °F;
(2) it is an ignitable compressed gas; (3j
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 (although
EPA has further subcategorized the
ignitable liquid subcategory into three
treatability groups). If a waste is
classified as D001 because it fits under
more than one D001 subcategory, the
waste must be treated by a treatment
method or treatment methods that will
remove all characteristics of ignitability
for each applicable subcategory.
(1) Ignitable Liquids Subcategory. The
first D001 subcategory, the Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory, refers to those
D001 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in § 261.21(a)(l). Commenters
specifically questioned whether the
determination of liquid under
§ 261.21(a](l) was based on the paint
filter test ("free liquid" Method 9095),
the EP test (Method 1310), or the
releasable liquids test in Method 9096.
While the Agency has defined liquids
both as materials expressed from
wastes in Step 2 of Method 1310 (EP),
and in Methods 9095 and 9096, there is
not a specific definition of liquid with
respect to this characteristic in the
regulations. Therefore, the generator of a
potentially ignitable waste may use any
method for determining whether the
waste is classified as a liquid for which
he can provide an appropriate scientific
or technical justification.
One commenter requested
clarification regarding the D001 liquid
exclusion for aqueous alcohol wastes
which is found in 40 CFR 261.21(a). This
provision states that a solid waste
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability
if "it is a liquid, other than an aqueous
solution containing less than 24 percent
alcohol by volume, and has a flash point
less than 60 °C (140 °F) * * *" The
Agency notes that, in this definition, the
term alcohol refers to any alcohol or
combination of alcohols. (Note: If the
alcohol has been used for solvent
properties and is one of the alcohols
specified in EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F003 orFOOS, the waste must be coded
with these Hazardous Waste Numbers
(which cover the hazard of ignitability).)
Data indicate that the majority of all
D001 wastes generated fall into the D001
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory and are
typically described as solvents, paint
thinners, contaminated oils, and various
organic hydrocarbons. Some of these
wastes may contain organic constituents
that are potential carcinogens or
otherwise toxic. Typically, the major
organic constituents in these wastes are
volatile, flammable hydrocarbons or
oxygenated hydrocarbons that provide
the characteristic of ignitability to the
waste (Le., a flash point of less than 140
°F). (Note: Currently, the length of time
over which combustion is sustained at a
temperature of less than 140 °F is not
specified although such a regulatory
change may be appropriate in the future.
This issue assumes relevance when
considering the large volume of solvent-
containing wastewaters that flashes but
does not sustain combustion.)
For purposes of BDAT determination,
most of the ignitable liquid wastes are
typically classified as nonwastewaters
because of their high organic content
(usually greater than 1 percent TOC).
Technologies applicable for treatment of
these organic nonwastewaters include
incineration, fuel substitution, and
recovery processes such as distillation
or liquid-liquid extraction. Thermal
destruction technologies such as
incineration and reuse as a fuel
completely remove the characteristic of
low flash point by completely destroying
the volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
thereby rendering the waste
nonignitable. Recovery processes also
remove the characteristic but recover
the ignitable material for reuse instead
of destroying the material. Furthermore,
the Agency believes such technologies
are both demonstrated and available
because EPA has data showing that the
majority (i.e, 75%) of D001 Ignitable
Liquids are already treated by
incineration, reused as a fuel substitute
because of their high ETU content, or
recovered for reuse through processes
such as -distillation. Based on the fact
that these demonstrated, available
technologies remove the characteristic
of ignitability permanently and
completely, as well as destroying a
number of hazardous constituents, EPA
proposed a treatment standard of
"Incineration, Fuel Substitution, or
Recovery as Methods of Treatment" for
D001 nonwastewaters in the Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory (54 FR 48420).
At the time of proposal, the Agency
was unable to determine whether any
D001 wastes in the Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory; as initially generated,
conformed to EPA's regulatory
definition of wastewaters (i.e, wastes
containing less than 1 percent TOC and
1 percent TSS). Accordingly, EPA did
not believe that wastewater treatment
technologies such as biodegradation
were applicable for treatment of any
waste forms in the D001 Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory because of the high
organic contents and large BTU values
thought to be inherent in these wastes,
as well as the concern for air emissions
caused by the release of untreated
VOCs during dilution and aeration steps
associated with most wastewater
treatment technologies. Consequently,
EPA proposed that the standard for
nonwastewaters apply to any
wastewaters as well, since the end
result would be the removal of the
ignitability characteristic and
destruction of the hazardous
constituents. See 54 FR 48420-22.
Concerning the issue of wastewater
generation, the Agency received many
comments indicating that there are
wastes in the D001 Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory that consist primarily of
water. The commenters also emphasized
that most of these low-organic, aqueous
D001 wastes are best treated using
wastewater treatment technologies even
though such aqueous streams may
contain greater than 1 percent TOC and
may thus be classified as
nonwastewaters. With respect to
wastewater treatment technologies
being appropriate methods of treating
aqueous ignitable wastes, some
commenters said that biological
treatment is applicable for some of the
D001 aqueous wastes that contain
water-soluble organics. Other
commenters indicated that wet air
oxidation and carbon adsorption are _
also applicable forms of treatment for
D001 aqueous wastes. Nonetheless, the
Agency is still concerned about possible
air emissions associated with the
aeration and dilution steps that are
often part of wastewater treatment
processes such as biodegradation.
However, EPA believes that such
emissions can be controlled by altering
operating parameters (e.g., aeration
rates/temperatures) and by performing
process steps such as aeration and
dilution steps in controlled
environments such as tanks equipped
with air pollution control devices. The
Agency believes some facilities are
already practicing these precautions. For
example, one commenter mentioned a
biodegradation system used to treat
D001 that was anaerobic and kept any
air emissions contained inside the
system.
After evaluation of all the appropriate
waste characterization data and
treatment performance data presented
in the comments, the Agency decided
that wastewater treatment technologies
-------
22544 "Federal Register./ Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
that are capable of providing legitimate
treatment for ouch aqueous wairtes do
exist Next, EPA investigated -
information about technology treatment
capabilities corresponding to the organic
and water contents of wastes. For
example, the Agency has information .
indicating that incineration is generally
applied to those wastes having greater
than 10 percent organic content and that
technologies such as air stripping, wet
air oxidation, and solvent extraction can
be applied to streams containing up to
10 percent organic content. Using this
information, along with the Agency's
regulatory definitions of wastewaters
and nonwastewaters, EPA determined
that the D001 Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory should be further
aubcategorized by division into three
treatability groups as follows: (1) D001
Ignitable Liquids High TOG
Nonwaslewaters, (2) D001 Ignitable
Liquids Low TOG Nonwastewaters, and
(3) D001 Ignitable Liquids Wastewaters.
The Ignitable Liquids High TOG
Nonwastewater Subcategory is defined
as ignitable liquid wastes that contain
greater than or equal to 10 percent TOG
as generated. These wastes have large
organic concentrations, high BTU
content, and low water content. It is
common practice to recover reusable
organic materials from these wastes
using processes such as distillation,
steam stripping, and liquid-liquid
extraction. Also, many of these wastes
are excellent candidates for fuel
substitution because of high BTU values.
(Additional discussion on fuel
substitution as a treatment method for
these wastes is contained in the
discussion of national capacity
variances in section m.B.) The Agency
is promulgating "Incineration (INCIN),
Fuel Substitution (FSUBS), or Recovery
(RORGS) a Method of Treatment" for
this treatability group. See § 268.42
Table 1 in today's rule for a detailed
description of the technology standard
referred to by the five letter technology
code in parentheses.
The Agency believes it appropriate to
require that these wastes be treated by
some type of destruction and recovery
technology given that they often contain
high concentrations of toxic organic
constituents that provide the ignitabillty
characteristic to the waste. The toxics in
these wastes might not be destroyed if
the waste could be land disposed so
long as it is not ignitable at the point of
disposal. Additionally, the Agency notes
that this is an instance illustrating how a
point-of-generation approach (i.e., the .
treatment method applies if the waste is
in the treatability group when
generated) ensures that the objectives of
section 3004(m) are satisfied. EPA also
notes that if an Ignitable Liquids High
TOG Nonwastewater is commingled
with other waste streams, the entire
' mixture must be treated by one of the
methods prescribed for Ignitable Liquids
High TOG Nonwastewater Subcategory
268.41(b). This is an instance of how the
rules seek to ensure that wastes are not
commingled if the treatment method is
not appropriate for each commingled
waste. Put another way, co'mmingling of
Ignitable Liquids High TOG
Nonwastewaters with non-incinerable
wastes is normally a type of
impermissible dilution. See 52 FR 25766
(July 8.1987).
The Ignitable Liquids Low TOG
Nonwastewater Subcategory is defined
as wastes that contain greater than 1%
but less than 10% TOG as generated.
The Ignitable Liquids Wastewater
Subcategory is defined as wastes that
contain less than 1 percent TOG and
less than 1 percent TSS as generated.
The Agency believes that some of these
wastes can be effectively treated (i.e.,
remove the characteristic of ignitability
by either destroying or recovering the
organic constituents that gave the waste
its ignitable character) using
technologies applicable for treatment of
aqueous wastes. In some cases, these
wastewaters and low TOG
nonwastewaters may need to be mixed
with other wastewaters to achieve an
organic concentration desirable for
proper operation of a treatment system
for aqueous wastes. For instance,
wastewaters destined for biological
treatment are often commingled to
achieve an organic concentration that is
optimal for the microorganisms. Fuel
substitution is not considered practical
since wastes in both these categories
generally do not have high BTU contents
because they contain mostly water.
Most of these wastes can be treated
with wastewater technologies; however,
incineration may also be applicable,
especially for the Low TOG
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Ignitability" for both
the Ignitable Liquids Low TOG
Nonwastewater Subcategory and the
Ignitable Liquids Wastewater
Subcategory. See section 268 appendix
VI of today's rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or in
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also § 268.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.)
One commenter requested
clarification on whether phase
separation followed by recovery or use
as a fuel of the'organic phase could be
considered a permissible type of
deactivation treatment for ignitible
wastes. EPA considers processes that
separate an organic phase to be
recovery (or in some cases
pretreatment) and, hence, acceptable
treatment provided the separated '
organic phase is reused or further
treated by a technology that will remove
the characteristic of ignitability. The
aqueous phase would not require further
treatment unless it still exhibited the
ignitability characteristic (assuming the
aqueous phase is not hazardous for any
other reason). See also discussion of
permissible switching of applicable
wastewater and nonwastewater
standards 54 FR 48383 (November 22,
1989). (Additionally, this is in keeping
with the general principle established in
these rules that determination of
whether a characteristic waste achieves
BDAT must be reevaluated whenever a
treatment residual is generated. Put
another way, each new treatability
group is a new point of generation for a
characteristic waste. See section OLD.
below.)
EPA is aware that 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 (51 FR
40642). The Agency received comments
for and against this option. However,
the Agency believes that this option
would create an unnecessary burden on
the regulated community since the
majority of D001 wastes in the Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory should not contain
these constituents and that most wastes
containing F001-F005 constituents are
probably cases of misclassification.
Misclassifying F001-F005 waste as D001
is currently one of the largest
enforcement issues in the RCRA
program. Such misclassification is, of
course, illegal and a serious infraction. It
avoids the Congressionally mandated
treatment standards for the prohibited
solvent wastes. Indeed, solvents were
the wastes Congress prioritized for
prohibition and treatment. EPA believes,
however, that the problem is best
handled through enforcement rather
than establishing treatment standards
for the misclassified wastes because it
seems an unreasonable burden to
require generators of authentic D001
wastes to conduct the significant
amount of testing and certification
required under the land disposal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22545
restrictions when it is likely that the
constituents will not be present in most
true DOOl wastes. Therefore, the Agency
is-not promulgating 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.' . .
, [2) Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory. Thie second subcategory,
the Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory, refers to those D001
wastes that exhibit the properties listed
in § 261-21(aj{3). The Agency has limited
information on the generation and
characterization of D001 wastes in this
subcategory, but suspects mat although
these wastes are 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 of them by means of deep well
injection. Some cylinders containing
DOOl 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). See 54
FR 48439. 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 proposed several options
as treatment standards for compressed
ignitable gases. The first option was that
of recovery by direct reuse since,
typically, the cylinders are directly
refilled. The second option was
incineration by venting the gas into an
incinerator. The Agency proposed a
treatment standard of "Recovery or
Incineration of Vented Ignitable Gases"
for these wastes.
EPA continues to believe that both
incineration and recovery are applicable
technologies for treatment of most
compressed gases. However, several
commenters presented information
about the limitations of the proposed
technologies and provided information
about additional technologies that the
Agency also believes to be applicable
treatment methods for removing the
characteristic of ignitability for this
subcategory.
In regard to the feasibility of the
recovery option, one commenter stated
that it is viable within the compressed
gas industry, except for cases such as
cylinders that have defective valves,
that have lost the identity of the
manufacturer, that are lecture bottle
size, or that are damaged. In any of
these four cases, the contents hi the
cylinders must instead be treated. The
commenter. also stated that the most
, prevalent treatment method is to feed .-
the ignitable gas into a furnacaas a fuel
source. The Agency did not propose fuel
substitution as a method because EPA's
knowledge about the use and suitability
of these wastes as fuels was limited.
However, the characterization data -
submitted during the comment period
indicate that most of the waste'gases
currently treated by fuel substitution are
gases that can be used efficiently and
safely as fuels.
With respect to. "incineration of
vented gases" as a treatment method,
EPA believes mat there may be cases
when it is preferable to vent the gas into
an appropriate adsorbent material (e.g.,
water, solvents, activated carbon) and
> then to incinerate the adsorbed gas/
adsorbent material combination to
permanently remove the characteristic.
Additionally, a commenter said that for
small volume containers of ignitable
compressed gases (e.g., aerosol cans of
18 oz. or less), the containers can be fed
directly into the kiln and vented within
the kiln itself by the melting of the small
cans. The vented gases are then
incinerated in the kiln or afterburner.
One commenter described a method
of treatment for pyrophoric gases.
Typical gases in this class include
tributyl aluminum, dimethylzuie,
triethylborane, and tetramethylin. The
commenter claimed that these gases,
because of their air reactive
characteristics, cannot be vented into an
incinerator without considerable risk.
The commenter's method of treatment
for such gases has been by remote
control penetration and detonation
under a column of appropriate scrubbing
solution.
Another method of treatment
described by the commenters to
deactivate the ignitable characteristic in
some compressed gases is to chemically
oxidize them in an aqueous medium.
The commenters claimed that carbonyl
sulfide and methyl mercaptans are
efficiently treated by oxidation.
Chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction technologies include reactions
with reagents in aqueous mediums that
will oxidize or reduce the hazardous
constituents.
The Agency believes that all these
technologies can remove the"
characteristic of ignitability and is
promulgating a treatment standard of
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Ignitability" for the
Ignitable Compressed Gas Subcategory.
The Agency has established this
standard to allow the regulated
community the flexibility to use the
"best" technology for the specific
gaseous waste. See section 268
Appendix VI of today's rule for a list of
applicable technologies that used alone
or in combination can achieve -this
standard. (See also % 268.42 Table 1 for a
technical description of these
technologies. A five letter, code.
(acronym] for each technology has been
established in order to simplify the .
tables.) This .treatment standard will
apply to all forms of wastes hi the'
Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory since the definitions of
wastewater and nonwastewater do not
apply to this group of wastes..
(3) Ignitoble Reactives Subcategory.
The third subcategory, the Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory, refers to those
D001 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in § 261.Zl(a)(2). These wastes are
typically generated on a sporadic basis
in low volumes and are characterized as
primarily inorganic solids or wastes
containing reactive materials. Ignitable
reactive materials include reactive
alkali metals or metalloids (such as
sodium and potassium) and calcium
carbide slags. Most of these are very
reactive with water and will generate
gases that can ignite as the result of heat
generated from the reaction with water.
Other reactive 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 hi this DOOl subcategory
and certain D003 (characteristic of
reactivity) wastes. A close examination
of the definitions in § 261.21(a)(2) for
ignitable wastes and §§ 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.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "Deactivation as a Method
of Treatment" for wastes hi the DOOl
Ignitable Reactive Subcategory. The
Agency took this 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 since technologies exist that can
completely remove this characteristic.
Current management practices for
some of these wastes, such as calcium
carbide slag, .involve controlled
deactivation with water. Other DOOl
Ignitable Reactives, such as those
containing reactive alkali metals
-------
22546
,....,Federal,Register / Vol. 55. No.. 106 / Friday, June 1, '1990 / Rules and Regulations
(sodium or potassium) are sometimes
chemically deactivated using chemical
oxidation or chemical reduction : .
technologies. Several commenters stated
that incineration is also an appropriate '
treatment method for these wastes.
Additionally, other commenters have
indicated that recovery technologies are
applicable for some wastes in this
aubcategory. EPA also believes that
stabilization is an established
deactivation technique for safe and
equivalent management of reactive
ignitable materials since it accomplishes
results equivalent to those of other
technologies by isolating and
encapsulating the pyrophoric metal fines
and precluding conditions that could
cause ignition or reaction of the
material.
The Agency believes that chemical
oxidation, chemical reduction,
Incineration, and recovery are all
applicable technologies for waste forms
in the D001 Ignitable Reactives
Subcategory becausa these technologies
will remove the characteristic of
Ignitability. However, the Agency
believes that because of the diversity in
physical and chemical forms of the
wastes in the Ignitable Reactives
Subcategory it is not possible to
determine a "best" technology for all
wastes. EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of "Deactivation (DEACT) to
Remove the Characteristic of
Ignitability" for the Ignitable Reactives
Subcategory. See section 268 Appendix
VI of today's rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or in
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also § 268.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.) This
treatment standard is established only
for nonwastewaters since ignitable
reactive wastes are described as being
very reactive with water and hence
cannot exist as wastewaters.
(4) Oxidizers Subcategory. The fourth
subcategory, the D001 Oxidizers
Subcategory, refers to those D001
wastes that exhibit the properties listed
in § 261.21(a)(4) and meet the definitions
in 49 CFR 173.151. Several commenters
have asked for an elaboration of the
oxidizer definition because the DOT
definition is not definitive but rather
lists examples of oxidizing compounds.
EPA believes that 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. Currently, generators
must assess wastes for oxidizing
hazards by considering known oxidizing
constituents contained within the
wastes, and by the definition as outlined
in 49 CFR 173.151 which states:
"An oxidizer for the purpose of this
subchapter is a substance such as a chlorate;
permanganate, inorganic peroxide, or a
nitrate, that yields oxygen readily to
stimulate .the combustion of the organic
matter."
In other words, the presence .of any
amount of the above substances does
not indicate that a material is an
oxidizer, rather one or more of these
substances must be present in a quantity
sufficient to yield oxygen and stimulate
combustion.
The Agency believes recovery for
reuse to be an applicable treatment for
wastes in this subcategory since it is
possible that certain aqueous solutions
of Waste oxidizers could be useful in the
treatment of other hazardous wastes.
These wastes must, however, be used as
treatment reagents in tanks and not hi
surface impoundments because of the
potential release of heat and volatile
organics during the oxidation/reduction
reactions (see 40 CFR 264.229 and
265.229).
Several commenters wrote about
different technologies that are
applicable to wastes hi the oxidizer
subcategory. One commenter generates
calcium hypochlorite and
trichlorocyanuric acid wastes that fit
into the oxidizer subcategory. They are
both off-spec or contaminated
swimming pool chlorination chemicals.
The wastes are normally generated as
solids and routinely disposed of through
deactivation by adding the material to
large quantities of water (similar to its
use in swimming pools). Following the
deactivation, the waste is further treated
in a wastewater treatment facility.
During deactivation and treatment, there
is no release of chlorine gas. EPA
considers mixing with water followed
by chemical treatment to be applicable
for oxidizer wastes.
Additionally, the commenter pointed
out that both hydrogen peroxide and .
nitric acid are oxidizers and that the
standard treatment for these chemicals
is dissolution in water followed by
neutralization. In the case of nitric acid,
the diluting in water is needed to
prevent an adverse reaction. Other
commenters use recovery and
incineration as treatment methods. The
Agency believes that all these
technologies are applicable for
treatment of oxidizer wastes since they
will remove the characteristic of
ignitability.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "Deactivation" for wastes in
the D001 Oxidizers Subcategory. The
Agency took this approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic of these wastes 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 since technologies
exist that can completely remove this
characteristic. EPA continues to believe
that this standard is appropriate for
wastes in the D001 Oxidizer
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Ignitability" for the DOOl Oxidizers
Subcategory. See section 268 appendix
VI of today's rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or in
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also § 268.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.) This
standard will allow the regulated
community the flexibility to determine
the "best" treatment based on the
physical and chemical characteristics of
the oxidizer wastes. ,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE LIQUIDS 26l.2l(a)(l)
[Nonwastewaters][High TOC Ignitable Liquids
SubcategoryGreater than or equal to 10% total
organic carbon]
Incineration JNCIN). fuel substitution (FSUBS), or
recovery (RORGS) as a method of treatment*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE LIQUIDS 261.21 (a)(l)
[Nonwastewaters][Low TOC Ignitable Liquids
SubcategoryLess than 10% total organic carbon]
Deactivation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
of ignitability*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE LIQUIDS 261.21 (a)(i)
[Wastewaters]
to remove the characteristic
Deactivation (DEACT) to removt
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22547
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
. ' IGNITABLE COMPRESSED GASES
261.21(a)(3)
' Deactivation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
.> of ignitabiljty*- . .
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE REACTIVES 261.2l(a)(2)
INqnwastewaters] .'.
Deactivation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
- ofigrHtability* ,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
OXIDIZERS261.21(a)(4)
[Wastewaters and Nonwastewatere]
Deactivafon (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
of ignitability'
See {268.42 Table 1 In today's rule for a de-
tailed description of all technologies referred to by a
five letter technology code. See also part 268 ap-
pendix VI for a list of applicable technologies that
used alone or in combination can achieve deacttva-
tkm of ignrtabiltty.
c. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
Paraphrasing the criteria for defining
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 it is aqueous and has a pH
greater than or equal to 12.5; or it is a
liquid and corrodes steel at a specified
rate and temperature. EPA tentatively
determined at proposal that these
criteria translated into three
subcategories, the Acid Subcategory, the
Alkaline Subcategory, and the Other
Corrosives Subcategory [54 FR 48422). In
general, commenters supported this
subcategorization of D002 wastes.
Therefore, EPA is adopting this
classification scheme in the final rule.
(1) D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories. The Acid Subcategory
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
appropriate 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 wastes with a pH of greater
than or equal to 12.5. Also by definition
in § 261.22, 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
acid strippers and cleaners. Wastes in
the Alkaline Subcategory typically
include concentrated spent bases,
alkaline wastewaters, and spent
alkaline strippers and cleaners. These
wastes represent a significant portion of
all hazardous wastes generated by
almost every industry. .-
EPA proposed a treatment standard of
"Base Neutralization to a pH 6 to 9 and
Insoluable Salts" for the D002 Acidic
Subcategory (54 FR 48422). Likewise,
EPA proposed a-treatment standard of
Acid Neutralization to a pH 6 to 9 and
Insoluble Salts" for the D002 Alkaline
Subcategory (54 FR 48422).
(i.) Comments Concerning the
Proposed pH Requirements. Treatment
of acids and bases is generally referred
to as "neutralization". In the proposed
rule, the Agency interpreted this to
mean a pH range of 6 to 9. This range
was selected based on a rounding off of
the pH range found in fresh water
aquatic ecosystems through natural
carbonate/bicarbonate buffering (i.e.,
pH 5.5 to 8.5). While a "true" neutral pH
is equal to 7, by proposing the pH 6 to 9
range, the Agency was recognizing that
even in natural systems, pH can
fluctuate significantly. Thus, the
Agency's underlying premise was that
treatment of corrosive wastes should
result in a pH range (i.e., pH 6 to 9) that
was referred to as "neutral".
In addition, the Agency expressed
concern on whether a waste with a pH 2
to 6 could have a negative impact on the
effectiveness of a clay liner in mitigating
the mobility of hazardous constituents
from surface impoundments. In fact, this
was one of the major concerns of
Congress with respect to the statutory
land disposal restrictions imposed by
HSWA on all hazardous wastes with pH
less than 2. (See generally 52 FR 25760
through 25792 (July 8,1987) where EPA
codified these restrictions for all
corrosive wastes (without specifically -
referring solely to D002 wastes.)).
EPA received many comments
pertaining to the impact that the pH '
range of 6 to 9 would have on generators
and treaters of D002 wastes.
Commenters documented that enormous
disruptions of existing wastewater
treatment systems would occur if the
standard were promulgated with the .
proposed pH restrictions. For example,
every surface impoundment or injection
well receiving commingled wastes
(some of which were D002 corrosive'
wastes at the point of generation, but .
once commingled were above pH 2 (or
below pH 12.5) and therefore no longer
considered hazardous by section 261.22)
that were outside of the pH 6 to 9 range
would be in violation of the standard.
This would effect thousands of such
units (most of which are RCRA subtitle
D units and hence not presently affected
by RCRA subtitle C).
With regard to the proposed pH 6 to 9
requirement for underground .injection
units, several commenters-stated that
the proposed pH range would cause .
problems in many of the injection units
and wells, because some metals tend to
precipitate out of solution at these pH
ranges resulting in plugging in either the
injection unit itself or further inside the
well. Commenters also stated that
specific pH ranges are typically required
in permits for many underground :
injection wells and are typically at.
levels less than pH 6 to ensure that the
injected fluid flows properly through the
injection zone without plugging.
Another commenter remarked that
they treat an acidic D002 waste only to a
pH of 4.5 prior to commingling with
other wastes that require
biodegradation. This is done in order to .
counter the production of alkaline
ammonia during the biodegradation
process, and thereby aids in maintaining
a "neutral" pH in the biodegradation
process.
Other commenters pointed out that a
pH of 10 is often considered the
optimum pH for removal of most metals
from wastewaters and that requiring a
pH of 6 to 9 would cause severe
disruptions hi most metals removal
treatment systems. These treatment
systems generally consist of chemical
precipitation hi tanks to remove metals
followed by neutralization of the
effluent in surface impoundments prior
to discharge.
As a result of all of the comments oil
pH ranges mentioned above and for the
reasons mentioned below, the Agency is
not promulgating the proposed pH range
of 6 to 9. While the Agency maintains
that in some cases a pH of 6 to 9 may be
considered desirable, the Agency
believes the Clean Water Act, end-of-
pipe, NPDES limitations will address
these specific situations, where water
quality issues are of concern
(specifically where discharges of such ' .
neutralized wastewaters are into fresh
water ecosystems). (Note: The Agency
points out that pH is commonly already
regulated for such discharges.)
The Agency also notes that liquids are
not allowed in subtitle C landfills under
section 3004(c). As mentioned by the
-------
22548 ' ' Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / .Rules and Regulations
commenters (and discussed above),
requiring a pH range of 6 to 0 before
discharge to most surface
impoundments will cause severe
disruptions in existing treatment
operations. Additionally, the Agency
believes that its concern regarding the
impact of corrosive wastes on the
integrity of clay liners is addressed
mostly by the statutory restrictions on a
pH of less than 2. The Agency currently
has little data on the impact that wastes
containing pH of 2 to 6 may have on clay
liners. Finally, regarding the proposed
pH range, the Agency did not intend to
interfere with optimum pH levels
desired for treatment of metals in tanks,
nor did it intend for these standards to
interfere with other legitimate
wastewater treatment operations (such
as the biotreatment processes
mentioned by the commenter).
(ii.) Comments Concerning the
Proposed Acid and Base Requirements.
EPA additionally proposed that
"neutralization" of wastes hi the D002
Acidic and Alkaline sttbcategories be
accomplished specifically through the
use of the corresponding neutralization
chemicals (i.e., acids to neutralize the
Alkaline Subcategory and bases to
neutralize the Acidic Subcategory). As
commenters quickly pointed out, almost
all chemicals (including water which
dissociates into hydronium and
hydroxide ions) have some acid
character and some basic character
depending upon the reference chemical.
That is what is historically been taught
in academia as the "Lewis Acid
Theory". The Agency never intended to
dispute basic chemical theory, but was
merely stating its preference to
neutralize the corrosive characteristic of
these wastes with chemicals that would
result in an overall reduction in total
dissolved solids in effluent (i.e., the use
of these chemicals is coupled with the
concept of the proposed requirement to
create insoluble salts rather than the
concept of neutralization to a specific
pH). (See also the discussion on
insoluble salts in the preamble
discussion following this one.)
With respect to the use of these
chemicals (i.e., acids and bases) to
achieve the treatment standard, several
commenters stated that it is not always
necessary to use chemicals that are
specifically identified as commercial
acids or bases to achieve treatment of
D002 wastes. In fact many facilities
generate both acidic and alkaline
wastes (often from different processes)
and commonly use them to neutralize
each other. This situation also occurs at
commercial hazardous waste treatment
facilities, ir that the facilities will take
acid wastes from various generators and
will neutralize them with alkaline
wastes from other generators. In
general, commercial acids and bases are
'used to complete the neutralization
processes and often are used only for
pH adjustment of the final wastewater
discharges. Many commenters also
pointed out that the mixing of DC02
corrosive wastes with other
wastewaters (even other acidic,
noncorrosive wastes) will contribute to
an overall neutralization due to the
resultant change in pH. This is because
pH is merely a measure of the
concentration of hydronium ions (H+) in
water and is dependent upon the
equilibrium constant for the dissociation
of water into hydronium and hydroxide
ions. As more water is present, the
equilibrium will be shifted and thereby
increase the pH; resulting in
"neutralization." Because of this, EPA is
specifically allowing mixing of D002
wastes with each other and with other
wastewaters to remove the
characteristic of corrosivity (i.e.,
resulting in a pH between 2 and 12.5).
However. EPA's allowance of mixing
wastes to remove corrosivity does not
override other prohibitions on dilution
of wastes for other purposes (i.e., this
does not override other dilution
prohibitions that may be applicable for
other wastes).
Many commenters declared that
incineration should also be allowed as
treatment for D002 wastes, especially for
organic acids, mixed D001/D002 waste
streams, and other D002 wastes with
organics. Pollution control devices on
incinerators will remove corrosive gases
from the burning of these D002 wastes.
Alkaline scrubber waters are often
employed in these air pollution control
devices in order to neutralize acidic
emissions. These scrubber waters are
then further neutralized if necessary.
The Agency agrees with the commenters
that incineration is an applicable
treatment method for some D002 wastes
and is thus not precluding incineration
as treatment of D002 wastes.
(iiL). Comments Concerning the
Insoluble Salt Requirement The Agency
proposed that neutralization of wastes
in the D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories should be required to
result hi insoluble salts. The reason was
that the Agency felt that the overall
dissolved solids loading on fresh water
aquatic systems could be reduced by
establishing such a standard, even
though it would result hi an insoluble
sludge that would require landfilling.
The Agency believed that such a
standard would discourage the
generation of D002 acids and alkaline
wastes .and thereby promote ,
minimization/source reduction as well
as recycling of acids (either directly or
after some form of pretreatment). While
the Agency maintains that the goal .
behind the proposed standard is
consistent with national policy'on waste ,
. minimization and the Agency's overall
concerns on cross-media impacts of
both hazardous and nonhazardous
constituents on the entire environment,
many commenters presented technical
complications with the proposed
requirement on insoluble salts that the
Agency has found persuasive.
The Agency received numerous
comments concerning this proposed
requirement indicating that
neutralization and formation of
insoluble salts is either impractical or
technically impossible for some of the
most commonly used acids and bases
that become D002 wastes (such as nitric
acid, hydrochloric acid, sodium
hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, other
acid halides). Because the salts
generated from the neutralization of
these particular acids and bases are
very soluble in water, the proposed
requirement to generate insoluble salts
would result in treatment with exotic
chemicals in order to comply (if there
are any methods at all to create
insoluble salts). The Agency concurs
with the commenters. This is further
supported by the fact that almost all
nitrate and chloride salts of the major
metals are very soluble in water.
Other commenters stated that
requiring the formation of insoluble salts
often will negate the use of alkaline and
acidic process wastes that are generated
on-site for neutralization. This would in
effect, result in double the volume of
insoluble salts that would have to be
disposed and use up valuable virgin
commercial acids and bases that
otherwise would not be needed. As
stated in the preceding sections of this
discussion on corrosive wastes, the
Agency never intended to preclude such
on-site neutralization with wastes, and
agrees that this would probably result in
an unnecessary use of virgin materials
for waste treatment.
Additionally, one commenter points
out that in many cases neutralization of
D002 wastes that contain organics, is
often a necessary pretreatment step fot
other treatment processes (such as
steam stripping, biological treatment
and/or carbon adsorption) that remove
or destroy the organics in the waste. If a
sludge must be formed during the
neutralization process, organic
constituents that could have been
destroyed or removed while in the
wastewaters .are instead being
-------
'"Federal'Register / ;Vol. 55, iNo. 106 / ^FHday, jiine 1; 1990 / Rules ''and Regulations
22549
transferred to'the' solid phase where
they will be either disposed of untreated
or where they may require treatment
with incineration. The Agency shares
the commenters concerns on treatment.'
of organics in 13002 wastes. -
As a result, the Agency is
withdrawing the requirement for
neutralization to insoluble salts for
wastes in the D002 Acid and Alkaline
subcategories. In doing so, the Agency's
concerns of using acids and bases to
provide neutralization is .a moot point'
(iv.) Promulgated Treatment.
Standards. For the reasons.outlined in
the previous discussions, the Agency is
withdrawing the proposed treatment
standards for D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories. The Agency considered
promulgating a treatment standard as a
specified technology, namely
"Neutralization". However, the Agency
found that in certain cases,
"incineration" and "recovery" processes
were also quite applicable to wastes in
these subcategories.
In addition, many D002 wastes also
are hazardous for other reasons, and
may require that additional treatment
processes be employed besides
neutralization, incineration, or recovery.
For example, a facility may have
interpreted that biodegradatipn would
have been precluded from use, for a
D002 waste that also contained
organics. Since biodegradation may
have actually been a technically viable
alternative for this waste, the facility
would have had to submit a petition for
a treatability variance. While the
Agency probably would have granted it,
the variance process would have
created an unnecessary burden on both
the regulatory and regulated community,
and probably without incurring any
additional protection of human health
and the environment.
As a result, EPA is promulgating a
general treatment standard .for wastes in
the D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories that allows the use of any
appropriate treatment technology,
namely: "Deactivation (DEACT) to
Remove the Characteristic of »
Corrosivity". This means that the facility
may use any treatment (including
neutralization achieved through mixing
with other wastewaters) that results in a
pH above 2 but less than 12.5, and
. .thereby removes the characteristic of
corrosivity. See section 268 Appendix VI
of today's rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or in
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also § 268.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.)
.EPA has adopted this standard, in ,
part, .to avoid the massive disruptions to
wastewater treatment systems mat
would have resulted from the proposed
standard (which impacts far exceeded
any others that would have resulted
under the proposed rule), and because
the final standard does require the
removal of the property of corrosivity.
Corrosivity is not defined hi the same
way EP Toxic wastes are defined.
Corrosivity is not based on a toxic
constituent, where the environmental
concern is mass-loading in the ' - ^
environment. With respect to the issue
of toxics present hi these corrosive
wastes, EPA notes that if a corrosive -
waste also exhibits the toxicity
characteristic, it must be treated to .meet
the treatment standard for the toxic -
constituent as well (see generally
section m.A.1. of this preamble).
The Agency received many comments
regarding non-liquid wastes that are
corrosive and the applicability of
treatment technologies for aqueous and
liquid corrosive wastes to treat non-
liquid corrosive wastes. The proposal
did not specifically address corrosive
solids because there is not a definition
of corrosive solids in § 261.22 at this
time. Until the Agency amends § 261.22
to include a definition for corrosive
solids and promulgates a treatment
technology, generators must prudently
handle wastes with regard to known
hazards. Although not required under
current regulations, many generators of
corrosive solids prefer to classify these
wastes as D002 corrosives and choose
waste management and disposal
protocols accordingly hi an added effort
to protect the environment.
(2) 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 hi
§ 261.22(a)(2). They often are
nonaqueous corrosive wastes such as
certain organic liquids, but can
represent inorganic chemicals as well.
Wastes in the Other D002 Corrosives
Subcategory are generated on a :
sporadic basis and generally hi 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 the waste may be
assumed due to the presence of known
corrosive constituents). This may also
be due, hi part, to the high cost of testing
and to the difficulties hi identifying
laboratories that are experienced hi
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 hi 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 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 proposed a treatment standard of
"Deactivation" for D002 wastes hi the .
Other Corrosives Subcategory. The
Agency took this 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.
EPA continues to believe that the
proposed standard is appropriate for
wastes hi the D002 Other Corrosives
. Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) ,to Remove the Characteristic .
of Corrosivity". See section 268
Appendix VI of today's rule.fo'r a list of
applicable technologies that used along
or hi combination can achieve this.
standard. (See also § 268.42 Table 1 for
a technical description of these
technologies. A five letter code
(acronym) for each technology has been
established in order to simplify the
tables.) This standard will allow the use
of the "best" treatment based on the
-------
22SSO
Federal Register /'Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
chemical and phyiical characteristics of
the waste. , ,
BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FORD002
ACU>SUBCATCGORY261.22(a)(1)
D<«waiy»lV«(DEACT)toro(Tiowo the characteristic
trf *
BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D002
ALKALINE SUBCATEGORY 261.22{aM1)
olcotrosMty*
BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D002
OTHER CORROSIVES 26U22(a)(2)
DotcSvatton (DEACT) to remove the dwiacterisSc
erf conotMty*
*S«« section 268 appendix VI of today's wte for a
KM of «ppic*bte tectmotogioa that used Done or In
combination can octave this standard. See also
1288.42 Tabte 1 for a description of the technol-
ogfets \nOcaea by a fiw teller code.
d. Reactive Characteristic Wastes
According to 40 CFR 261.23. tiere are
eight criteria for defining a waste as a
D003 Reactive waste. Paraphrasing
these criteria, a waste can be a D003
woate If: (1) It fs unstable and readily
undergoes violent changes without
detonating; or (2) ft reacts violently with
waten or (3) it forms potentially
explosive mixtures with water; or (4)
when mixed with water, it generates
toxic gases; or (5) it is a cyanide or
sulfide bearing waste which under
certain conditions can generate toxic
gases; or (6} it is capable of detonation
or explosive reaction if it is subjected to
a strong initiating source or if heated
under confinement; or (7} it is readily
capable of detonation or explosive
decomposition or reaction at standard
temperature and pressure; or (8) it is a
forbidden explosive, a Class A
explosive, or a Class 6 explosive.
EPA tentatively determined at
proposal that these eight criteria
translated into five subcategories for
D003 wastes (54 FR 48424). Commenters
concurred with these classifications.
The first snbcategory is classified as the
Reactive Cyanides subcategory and
refers to those D003 wastes that exhibit
the properties listed in § 281.23(a)(5) for
cyanide. The second subcategory is
classified as the Explosives subcategory
and refers to those D003 wastes that
exhibit the properties listed in
§ § 261-23(a}(6) through 261.23(a)(8). The
third subcategory is classified as die
Water Reactive subcategory and refers
"to those D003 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed in §§ 281.23(a)(2}
through 261.23(a)(4). The fourth
subcategory ia classified as the Reactive '
Sulfides subcategory and refers to those
D003 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in 5 28L23(a}(5) for sulfide. The
fifth subcategory is classified as the
Other Reactive* subcategory and refers
to those D003 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed in §281.23(a)(l).
For all subcategories of DOOa wastes
except the Reactive Cyanides, the
Agency believes that development of
concentration-based treatment
standards would be difficult because
there are no known analytical tests that
'are specifically designed to measure die
particular reactivity associated with
each D003 treatabilHy subcategory, nor
is there a test that distinguishes die
reactive chemical from die deactivated
chemical.
The Agency solicited comments and
data on die physical and chemical
characterization of all five subcategories
of D003 wastes. The Agency also
requested comment on the applicability
of chemical deactivation, incineration,
and any other type of chemical or
physical deactivation technology to
these wastes.
(1) Reactive Cyanides. D003 wastes in
die Reactive Cyanides Subcategory are
by definition tiiose 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 die
environment (40 CFR 261.23(a)(5)).
Commenters requested clarification of
which analytical methods should be
used to determine reactive cyanide arid
associated toxic gas liberation, EPA's
approved analytical procedures can be
found in SW-848 VoL 1C, Chapter 7
which defines die characteristic and
regulation of reactive wastes.
Specifically, Section 7.3.3.2 describes die
"Test Method to Determine Hydrogen
Cyanide Released from Wastes" which
outlines die correct procedure of
hydrogen cyanide gas liberation from
reactive wastes. Method 9010 is die
analytical method for quantitatively
determining reactive cyanide
concentrations.
The reactive cyanide wastes typically
are generated by die electroplating and
metal finishing industries, and include
mixed cyanide salts, cyanide solutions,
and cyanide-bearing sludges. Most of
die volume of all DOGS wastes that are
generated can be identified as wastes
belonging to die 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 untreated wastes are placed in _ .
surface impoundments.
Reactive cyanide wastes (like otiier
reactive wastes) are already subject to
special requirements prior to disposal in
landfills, surface impoundments, and
waste piles under existing regulations. -
Also, as a July 8,1887 (die statutory
deadline for die California list
prohibitions), liquid hazardous wastes
having a free cyanide concentration in
excess of 1,000 rug/kg (ppm) were ;
prohibited from land disposal. No one
has suggested, however, dial diese .
existing regulations and prohibitions are
sufficient to apply to die Reactive
Cyanides Subcategory. The statute did
not specifically identify die California
Kst cyanides as D003 wastes, and
furthermore, it did not specify a required
method of treatment, nor did it establish
die 1,000 mg/kg prohibition level as a
"treatment standard".
The Agency believes that simple
cyanides (e.g. NaCN, KCN) are more
Kkely to react to liberate hydrogen
cyanide gas since tiiey are soluble and
have weaker bond energies than
complex cyanides (e.g., Fes[Fe(CN)Gj2,
Ni[Fe(CN)k, ZnzFefCNfc). Consequentiy,
EPA believes that simple cyanide ratiier
than complex cyanide is die cyanide
form most likely to give a waste
containing cyanide die characteristic of
reactivity. Accordingly, die Agency
believed at die time of proposal that
most,D003 nonwastewaters resembled
wastes containing simple cyanides (i.e..
Foil, F012 and P030) ratter tiian wastes
containing complex cyanides (i.e., F006,
F007, F008, F009). Treatment
technologies applicable for treatment of
D003 reactive cyanide wastes include
electrolytic oxidation, alkaline
chlorination and wet air oxidation.
The Agency proposed to transfer die
treatment performance of simple .
cyanide nonwastewaters (i.e., mixture of
Full arid F012) using electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline '
chlorination developed in die Second
Third final rule (54 FR 26594, June 23,
1989), die nonwastewaters in die
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory (54 FR
48425). In other words, the Agency
believed all D003 reactive cyanide
nonwastewaters could be treated to a
total cyanide level of 110 mg/kg and an
amenable cyanide level of 9.1 mg/kg
representing treatment of wastes'
containing simple cyanides (i.e., Full
and F012) instead of a total cyanide
.level of 590 mg/kg and an amenable
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, .No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules .and Regulations " 22551
cyanide level of 30 mg/kg representing
\ treatment performance of wastes
containing complexed .cyanides (Lei, ..
FQO&-FQ09). For wastewaters in the
..Reactive Cyanides Subcategory, EPA
proposed to transfer treatment
performance from treatment of F006-
F009 wastewaters using alkaline
chlorination, since &is is the best
treatment data available to the Agency
for wastewaters containing high
concentrations of cyanides. ,
With respect to the transfer being
valid, several commenters submitted : -
data indicating that D003 wastes in the
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory more
closely resemble the wastes containing
complexed cyanides rather than the
wastes containing simple cyanides and
that the .proposed treatment levels were
unachievable for some D003 wastes
because of the presence of iron cyanide
and other cyanide complexes. One
commenter claimed that, in many cases,
iron contamination in some D003
cyanide wastes is unavoidable due to
normal process operation and that a
threshold level of only 50 to 100 mg/kg
of iron is required to result in formation
of iron cyanide complex.
Based on the high iron contents shown
to be present in some D003 cyanide
wastes, the Agency believes that some
D003 cyanide wastes may contain
complexed cyanides and thus may not
be treatable to the 110 mg/kg level. One
commenter suggested that the Agency
develop two treatability groups for
nonwastewater forms in the D003
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory based
on the concentration of complex cyanide
present hi the waste: one group for
wastes containing mostly simple
cyanides (i.e., less than 110 mg/kg
complex cyanide] and the other group
for wastes containing high
concentrations of complexed cyanides
(i.e., greater than 110 mg/kg complex
cyanide). EPA believes that this concept,
while desirable, may not be viable
because of the analytical interferences
caused by the complicated matrices-of
untreated wastes. Furthermore, the vast
majority of characterization data
submitted during the comment period
seem to indicate that D003
nonwastewaters more closely resemble
the F006-FOC9 nonwastewaters instead
of the Foil and F012 nonwastewaters.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard of 590 mg/kg total
cyanide and 30 mg/kg amenable
cyanide based on the treatment of
wastes containing complex cyanides
(i.e., F006-F009 nonwastewaters) for
nonwastewaters hi the D003 Reactive
Cyanide Subcategory.
For the wastewaters hi the D003 .
Reactive Cyanide Subcategory, EPA
proposed a treatment standard of 1.9
mg/1 total cyanide and 0.1 mg/1
amenable cyanide based on alkaline
chlorination. Comments-and data were
received from Sterling Chemicals
demonstrating'that alkaline chlorination
did not achieve those limits for D003.
Further examination of categorical
wastewater discharge standards,
pursuant to the Clean Water Act,
supported the inability of alkaline -
chlorination to achieve the proposed
amenable cyanide level. EPA is.,
promulgating an amenable cyanide
standard of 0.86 mg/1 based on the
Metal Finishing categorical wastewater
discharge standards. Data submitted by
Sterling Chemicals demonstrated
compliance with this limit With regard
to total cyanide, the Agency is reserving
the standard for further analyses to
resolve the. substantial variation hi total
cyanide levels submitted by commenters
and standards established for
categorical wastewater discharges. In
the interim, the amenable cyanide limit
will insure that alkaline chlorination of
equivalent BOAT technology is utilized
to comply with the land disposal
restriction for reactive cyanide D003
wastes.
The Agency has chosen a
concentration based treatment level for
wastes hi the D003 Reactive Cyanide
Subcategory rather than establish
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Reactivity" for the
following reasons: Fust, unlike the other
characteristic wastes, the Agency can
identify an indicator compound (i.e.,
cyanide) that is known to be present in
all D003 reactive cyanide wastes and
can analyze the indicator compound hi
wastewater and nonwastewater
matrices with EPA-approved SW 846
analytical test methods. (See also
section HI. A.6.(a) of today's preamble
for a further discussion of cyanide
treatment standards for other wastes
and a clarification of the analytical
methodology for compliance with the
promulgated standards.) Second, EPA
believes most D003 cyanide wastes are
generated from the same types of
processes that generate the FOO&-F012
and P030 wastes and thus, are
frequently of the same type, and present
similar risks when land disposed as the
listed wastes. EPA does not believe that
Congress precluded the Agency from
establishing the same treatment
standards for the D003 wastes that have
been established for the listed wastes
(assuming, of course, that such
standards are consistent with the
command of section 3004(m) to reduce
toxicity or mobility so that risks to
health and the environment are
minimized). Finally, the Agency suspects
that some generators are currently
misclassifying F006-F012 and P030
wastes as D003 reactive cyanide wastes.
While this is primarily an issue for
enforcement, the Agency is concenter1
that a less stringent standard would
discourage proper identification of the F
and P cyanide wastes.
The Agency realizes that reactive
cyanide wastes treated to meet the
promulgated standard may no longer
exhibit the characteristic of reactivity
(although the determination of reactivity
can sometimes be difficult due to the
non-quantified standard in
§ 261.23(a)(5)).The Agency believes this
appropriate. As discussed hi section
III.D., the Agency sees no legal bar in
establishing treatment standards that
are below the characteristic level. Doing
so is appropriate for these wastes
because the reactivity characteristic
does not evaluate the toxic nature of the
wastes, because Congress specifically
intended that cyanides be destroyed
where possible (see statement of
Senator Chafee, 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178-9
(July 25,1984)), and because the Agency
believes the similarity of most D003
wastes and the F006-F009 wastes
warrants the same treatment standards
for each in order to satisfy the section
3004(m) standard.
(2) Reactive Sulfi'des Subcategory.
D003 wastes in the Reactive Sulfides
Subcategory are .by definition those
sulfide-bearing wastes that generate
toxic gases (assumed to be ttS) when
exposed to a pH between 2 and 12.5, in
a sufficient quantity to present a danger
to human health and the environment.
Currently the accepted method for
quantitatively determining reactive
sulfides is outlined hi SW-846, Vol. 1C,
§ 7.3.3.2 and in Method 9030.
The Agency is hi the process of
developing a quantitative threshold for
toxic gas generated from reactive sulfide
wastes. The interim value the Agency is
considering is 500 mg of HjS generated -
per kilogram of waste. Although this
number is only an interim guideline for
the purpose of BDAT determinations,
the Agency proposed to use this number
to identify the wastes in this
Subcategory. (given the need for an
objective means of determining the
subcategory's applicability). The Agency
received several comments stating that
a test method should be finalized and a
rationale published prior to setting this
threshold as a numerical standard. EPA
agrees with the commenters that for
wastes in this Subcategory the test
method used in determining how much
-------
22552
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 /Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
gas can oe released from a waste needs
to be standardized before establishing a
concentration based, treatment standard
with the test methods. Accordingly, the
Agency's action today should not be
viewed as redefining the characteristic
for sulfide-bearing wastes.
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 chlorination,
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 solicited waste
characterization and treatment data that
could potentially be used to develop
treatment standards for these wastes.
One commenter sent data demonstrating
that treatment with chlorine dioxide is a
very effective technology for destroying
organic sulfides and mercaptans in
petroleum wastes. Another commenter
submitted stabilization data indicating
that this treatment process can treat
D003 reactive sulfide wastes by
removing the characteristic. One
commenter uses mercaptan-free and
organic-free sulfide wastes to
precipitate metals from wastewater.
Another commenter uses a thermal
process that converts sulfides to sulfates
instead of sulfur oxides.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "Alkaline Chlorination,
Chemical Oxidation, or Incineration
Followed By Precipitation to Insoluble
Sulfates" for the Reactive Sulfide
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.)
Because of the variety of treatment
processes currently used to treat
reactive sulfide wastes, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Reactivity" for
nonwastewaters and wastewaters in the
D003 Reactive Sulfides Subcategory to
allow the treatment facility the
flexibility to use the "best" technology
for the particular waste stream. See
section 268 Appendix VI of today's rule
for a list of applicable technologies that
used alone or in combination can
achieve this standard. (See also § 268.42
Table 1 for a technical description of
these technologies. A five letter code '
(acronym) for each technology has been
established in order to simplify the
tables.) The treatment standard is
expressed as.required methods of
treatment rather than as a
concentration-based standard because
the Agency has not approved a standard
analytical method for testing 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). In the future the Agency may
establish numerical standards for
wastes in this subcategory.
(3) Explosives Subcategory. 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).
Commenters expressed concern that
many types of waste may fall into a
potentially explosive classification, and
requested a standardized procedure for
making a reactivity determination to
assist in the classification of explosive
hazardous wastes. The Agency chose to
rely on the current descriptive definition
primarily because the available tests for
measuring the various classes embraced
by the reactivity definition suffer from
some deficiencies.
In 1984, under an interagency
agreement with the Bureau of Mines
(BOM), OSW sponsored research on
two test methods designed to determine
whether a substance had explosive
properties. However, in June 1985, the.
Agency issued Memorandum #7
(OSWERDir. 9445.04(85)) that explained
that the BOM test results were
inconclusive, and in the interim, OSW
supported the use of a battery of tests
submitted by the U.S. Army to the
Agency. Information on these Army
tests can be obtained from the Office of
Solid Waste's Methods Section (202-
382-4770).
Wastes classified as D003 and
belonging to the explosives subcategory,
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 hi most
types of land disposal units; rather,
commenters have indicated that they
can be treated by technologies such as
chemical oxidation or incineration. Such
treatments permanently remove the
explosive characteristic of this D003
waste by thermal or chemical
destruction of explosive constituents.
Incineration is an applicable
technology for some D003 explosive
wastes. Such units are not typically
found at commercial incineration ,
facilities. The Agency is aware that
incineration units specially designed
and fitted with explosion-proof
equipment are currently used by the
Department of Defense to treat
explosive wastes. One commenter
suggested that the Agency divide the
explosive wastes into incinerable and
nonincinerable wastes. EPA, however,
could not make a determination of
explosive wastes that could always be
incinerated 100% of the time as
generated.
The Agency proposed a general
standard of "Deactivation" 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
took this 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 because technologies exist that can
completely remove this characteristic.
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 continues to believe that the
proposed standard is applicable for
wastes in the D003 Explosive
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity" for nonwastewaters and
wastewaters hi the D003 Explosive
Subcategory. See section 268 Appendix
VI of today's rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or hi
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also § 268.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.) This
standard should provide treaters of
explosive wastes the ability to use the
"best" treatment technology based on
the chemical and physical parameters of
the explosive waste, and any'safety
considerations.
-------
Federal Ttegister / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Kules and Regulations 22553
Several commenters have indicated
that mixing with-water or organic
liquids fie., kerosene) may be necessary
in some cases to reduce potential for
explosion and thus, ensure safe handling
and/or transportation for subsequent
incineration or chemical treatment of
explosive wastes. EPA is not restricting
the use of this practice for any waste in
the D003 Explosives Subcategory.
(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
as defined in 40 CFR261^3(a)(2), (3),
and (4) are either very reactive with
water, or can generate toxic or
explosive gases with water. These
reactions are usually very vigorous and
therefore difficult to control. Wastes
considered to belong in D003 Other
Reactives Subcategory exhibit the
property listed in § 281.23(a)(l). 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
suggesting that some water reactives are
treated by incineration. During this
thermal oxidation process, the reactive
organic constituents are destroyed and
the reactive inorganic constituents form
less hazardous oxides. Other applicable
treatment technologies include
controlled reactions with water,
chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction. All the above-mentioned
technologies can remove the
characteristic of reactivity.
The Agency proposed a general
standard of "Deactivation" for the D003
Water Reactives and Other Reactives
Subcategories. The Agency chose this
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.
Because of the diversity in physical
and chemical forms of the waste in both
Subcategories, it is not possible to
determine a "best" technology for all
wastes. The Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity" for wastes in the D003
Water Reactives Subcategory and D003
Other Reactives Subcategory to allow
flexibility in the selectionof the "best"
technology. See section 268 appendix VI
of today's rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or in
combination can achieve this standard.
{See also § 268.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each ;'
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.) Tor wastes .
in the D003 Water Reactives
Subcategory, the standard is established
only for uonwastewaters since these
wastes are very reactive with water and
thus cannot exist as wastewaters.
Several commenters have indicated
that mixing with certain organic liquids
(such as kerosene) inay be necessary in
some cases to reduce potential for
violent reaction with water and thus,
ensure safe handling and/or
transportation for subsequent
incineration or chemical treatment EPA
is not restricting the use of this practice
for any waste in these D003
Subcategories.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
REACTIVE CYANIDES261 -23(a)(5)
[Nonwastewatars]
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total)
Cyanides (amenable)..
Maximum
tar any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
590
SO
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
REACTIVE CYANIDES261.23(a)(5)
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total)_
Cyanides (amenable).
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
com posi-
tion (mg/0
Reserved
0.86
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
REACTIVE SULHDES261.23(a)(5)
Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove -the Characteristic
of Reactivity*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
Explosives261.23(a)(6), (7), AND (8)
Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
Water Reactives261-23(a}(2), (3),
AND (4)
t
Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity"
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D003
OTHER REACTIVES261 -23(a)(l)
Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity"
See 40 CFR part 268 appendix VI for a Itet of
applicable technologies that used alone or In combi-
nation can achieve this standard. See also § 268.42
Table 1 for a description of the technologies as
referred to by « five letter code.
e. Effect of Treatment Standards on
Disposal Provisions in 40 CFR parts 264
and 265 for Ignitable and Reactive
Wastes
Management practices have been
established for ignitable and reactive
wastes in surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment units, and landfills
(see 40 CFR 264.229, 264.256, 264.281,
and 264.312, as well as 265.229, 265.256,
265.281, and 265.312). The treatment
standards finalized today for ignitable
(D001) and reactive (D003) wastes will
supercede the above-mentioned
provisions and exclusions for
permissable land disposal of these
waste outlined imparts 264 and 265:
therefore, the Agency is amending these
sections to reflect the new regulations in
part 268. Facilities handling ignitable
and reactive wastes will have to comply
with the promulgated treatment
standards for these wastes in order to
land dispose them.
f. EP Toxic Halogenated Pesticide
Wastes
D012EP Toxic for Endrin.
D013EP Toxic for Undone.
D014EP Toxic for Methoxychlor.
D015EP Toxic for Toxaphene.
D016EP Toxic for 2,4-D
D017EP Toxic for 2,4,5-TP (Siivex)
In the November 22,1989 proposed
rule, the Agency proposed two basic
options for the treatment standards for
EP Toxic halogenated pesticide wastes
(D012, D013, D014, D015. D016 and D017)
and solicited comments on these. In one
option, the Agency proposed
concentration-based standards that
were based on the total composition of
-------
22654 ^Federal Register /. Vol.. 55. .No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
these pesticides in treatment residuals.
r-Aa a second optiori. the-Agency * -
.proposed concentration-based treatment'.
itandairds that correspond to their-;';;""
respective characteristic concentrations.
As an alternative, the Agency stated '=*"
that technology-based treatment -^~i- -
standards couloVbe established that *'"'"
'would achieve treatment to below these -
characteristic levels. ; '- .....
V (l)Nonwastewatezs,T2PA.proposed" _
concentration-based standards for the .
nonwastewater forms of DQ12.D013,,
DOT4, D015, D016 and D017 that were
.based on the analysis of total"- ' :' : ?
composition based on,data1hat:clearly
indicated that the pestidde constituents ,
of concern (orpestiddes with similar r -
physical and chemical characteristics)
could be incinerated to detection limits
as measured in ash samples. As noted in
the proposed rule, the Agency believes
that these total constituent
concentration-based treatment
standards based on incineration, are
preferable to those in the second option
(i.e., standards that correspond to their
respective characteristic
concentrations). The Agency contends
that the total constituent concentration
standards assure 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. S 9179 (July 25-
1984) (statement of Sen. Chaffee), and
results in minimization of threats to
human health and the environment
The Agency has determined that it is
prudent to require that these EP Toxic
halogenated pesticide wastes be treated
with the best demonstrated technology
in view of their toxicity: they are
probable carcinogens. Since data clearly
indicate that incineration represents
BOAT, the Agency gave serious
consideration to establishing a
technology-based treatment standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for the nonwastewater forms of these
wastes. However, the Agency believes
that other technologies besides
incineration may be able to achieve an
equivalent performance. As such, the
Agency.is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for all EP
Toxic halogenated pesticide
nonwastewaters based on total
composition rather than establishing
"Incineration as a Method of -, . .
Treatment".
Commenters offered very little
opposition to the proposed
nonwastewater standards based on
analysis of total constituent :
concentrations, other than questioning
the achievability of the standard due to
differences in detection limits. ' '
Commenters submitted a limited amount
of additional detection limit data for ,
these pesticides in incinerator ash. The
'Agency has evaluated these additional
detection limit data, along with the data
used to propose the standards, in
promulgating the standards for D012- V
D017 nonwastewaters in today's rule.
, The Agency believes that these data
indicate that the promulgated standards
are achievable, and detectable. ; - -
These nonwastewater standards are .
based on the analysis of total
constituent concentrations. Some of the .
standards on their face appear higher
than the characteristic levels. This is not
the case, however, since the
characteristic levels are based on levels
in a leachate rather than total
constituent analysis. Given the 20 to 1
dilution factor inherent to the TCLP (and
the EP) protocol it is apparent that none
of the final treatment standards in fact
exceed characteristic levels because
none of them are 20 times higher than
the characteristic level
(2) Wastewaters. The Agency
proposed one set of concentration-based
standards for D012-D017 wastewaters
based on detection limits of the
pesticides as measured in scrubber
waters. Just prior to proposal the
Agency completed its analysis of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters from various data sources.
(See, generally, the discussion of the
development of treatment standards for
U and P wastewaters using these data in
section m.A.5.(a)(l) to today's
preamble.) As a result the Agency
proposed alternative concentration-
based treatment standards for various
wastewaters based on these wastewater
treatment data. While the Agency did
not specifically propose these as
alternatives standards for wastewater
forms of D012-D017, the Agency
believes that these standards could have
been promulgated, if it were not for
circumstances discussed below.
Based on the aforementioned
wastewater treatment data, the Agency
has identified specific treatment
technologies that are considered to be
demonstrated on D012-D017 pesticide
constituents (or pesticides with similar
physical and chemical characteristics)
and can achieve destruction of the
pesticide constituents to below their
respective characteristic levels. By
adopting treatment methods for these
. wastewaters rather than concentration-
based standards, the dilution prohibition
attaches at the point of generation when
these wastes are managed in Clean ,
Water Act systems, and destruction of
these constituents is assured. (See
section HLD. of today's preamble.) As a
result concentrations below the
characteristic levels will be achieved
through the use of these treatment
technologies rather than through the
potential use of simple dilution. The
Agency is therefore promulgating
technology-based treatment standards
for the DOI2-D017 wastewaters.
The Agency has identified
incineration, wet air oxidation, chemical
oxidation, carbon adsorption, and/or
biodegradation as BOAT treatment
technologies as BDAT for D012-D017
wastes, as discussed in EPA's Final Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) Background Document for U
and P Wastes and Multi-Source
Leachates (F039), Volume A:
Wastewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards. The technology-based
standards are as follows: (1)
Incineration and biodegradation have
been specified as BDAT for D012 and
D015 wastewaters; (2) incineration and
carbon adsorption for D013
wastewaters; (3) incineration and wet
air oxidation for D014 wastewaters; (4)
incineration, chemical oxidation, and
biological treatment for D016
wastewaters; and (5) incineration or
chemical oxidation for D017
wastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D012. D013, D014, D015, D016. AND
D017
[Nonwastewaters]
Waste code
D012
D013.... _
D014
Doi 5.
D016
D017. . ....
Regulated
constituent
Endrin.. .................
Undane
Metnoxychlor.
Toxapnene
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
10
7.9
, *
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D012
ANDD015
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INC1N) or Biodegradation (BlODG) as a
method of treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106,/Friday, June l.: 1990 7 Rules and .Regulations 22555
.BDATTREATMENT.STANDARDSFORlX)13
BOAT TREATMENT.STANDARDS FOR D0 14.
- , .- (Wastewaters)
Incineration (INCIN) or wet air oxidation (WETOX) as
methods of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D016
(Wastewaters)'
Incineration (INCIN) or chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
or biodegradation (BIODG) as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D017
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INCIN) or chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
as a method of treatment
3. Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes
a. Introduction
Metal wastes are hazardous wastes
containing metals or metallic
compounds such as inorganic metallic
salts or organometallics. Certain F, K, U,
and P wastes were listed specifically for
the presence of metallic compounds.
Additionally, a waste can be identified
as a characteristic waste based on the
concentration of one of eight different
metals as specified in 40 CFR 261.24:
arsenic, barium cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium, or silver (i.e.,
D004 through D011 respectively) at a
concentration equal to or greater than
the levels presented in 40 CFR 261.24
Table IMaximum Concentration of
Contaminants for Characteristic of EP
Toxicity.
Treatment standards for most U and P
metallic compounds are based on a
quantitative analysis for the metal
constituent only, and not for the specific
U or P metallic salt (i.e., compound). The
Agency received comments supporting
this proposed approach and it agrees
that regulation of only the metal
constituents for these wastes will
address the primary toxic hazard
associated with these metallic
compounds. (Except those few U and P
wastes where the anionic species also
poses a toxic hazard, such as for metal-
cyanide salts.)
(^Development of Treatment
Standards for Metals. In today's rule,.
the Agency is promulgating treatment.
standards fof several of the U and P- ;
wastes expressed as concentrations of
-specific metals. In general, performance
data that are available from the - . : :
treatment of various F and K wastes
containing these metals have been
transferred to these U and P wastes.
Gommenters also provided information
and data to support the characterization
and treatment of certain metal wastes.
These data have been used in some.'
cases to establish metal U and P
treatment standards. (These comments
and data are discussed in the preamble
section pertaining to the specific metal
waste, and,are discussed in detail in the
Response to BDAT-Related Comments
Background Document)
The Agency proposed a similar
approach for characteristic metal
wastesi.e., transferring treatment data
from F and K listed wastes to these D-
coded wastes. Significant comments
were received, however, describing
potential problems associated with this
approach that EPA finds persuasive.
Commenters pointed to the fact that
characteristic wastes may be generated
in many different matrices and thus take
any number of forms. A transfer of data
from treatment of any one particular
matrix would thus be unlikely to be
routinely achievable unless the
treatment data being transferred
represented a waste more difficult to
treat than any characteristic waste. The
Agency has further determined that the
data generally do not support the
proposed transfer of concentration-
based treatment standards from the
specified listed wastes to these
relatively non-specific characteristic
wastes. The Agency found that the data
and information submitted by the
commenters further supported that
certain matrices from particular
industries (or particular waste types)
appear to be so unlike the matrix of the
listed waste (from which the Agency
originally proposed to transfer treatment
standards) that the treatment standard
could not be achieved. All waste-
specific comments are further addressed
below in the sections pertaining to each
metal, or in the Response to BDAT-
Related Comments Background
Document.
While there are certain treatability
groups that are exceptions, the general
approach for regulating metal wastes is
as follows. The Agency is establishing
treatment standards for arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver at
a level corresponding to their respective
characteristic levels..For most metals
. the data received by the Agency ,-' '
indicate that concentrations below these
characteristic levels can be achieved
through the use of either stabilization
processes or vitrification; however, the
exact concentration achievable by
stabilization processes is apparently
dependent upon the industry and
processes from which the waste was
generated. This is most likely due to. the
wide variability of other constituents
(both organic and inorganic) present in
the waste which interfere with the
performance of stabilization.
The treatmentstandard for D010
selenium wastes is established at a level
slightly greater than the characteristic
level, because the Agency had only a
limited amount of data on these wastes.
In fact, the majority of information
suggests that while there are relatively
few generators of D010 wastes, most of
them are recovering the selenium from
them. Treatment standards for D009
mercury wastes with high
concentrations of mercury are set as
required methods of treatment. See also
the discussion in section IH.D. of this
preamble.
(2) Treatment of Organic Debris and
Inorganic Solids Debris. Comments
were received indicating that many of
the D004 through D011 characteristic
metal wastes may be generated in
organic matrices. Rather than set up
specific organic treatability groups
under each characteristic metal waste
code, the Agency is stating as a matter
of treatment policy that prohibited metal
wastes that are generated as an organo-
metallic or in an organic matrix can be
incinerated (in accordance with the
technical operating requirements of 40
CFR 264 or 265 Subpart O) to destroy the
organo-metallic bond or the organic
matrix containing the metal, prior to
subsequent treatment of the ash (if
necessary), in order to comply with a
concentration-based standard or prior to
application of the technology-based
metal treatment standard. This includes
characteristic metal wastes that are
identified specifically as "debris". D004
through D011 wastes identified as debris
that are comprised primarily of organic
materials are referred to as "organic
debris" (e.g., rags, paper, cardboard,
clothes, gloves, paints, paint chips,
wood, grubbing materials, blankets,
hoses, bags, resins, plastic liners and
PVC piping). (This does not preclude the
washing or extraction of metals from
"organic debris" that is only a
characteristic wastes due to surface
contamination (i.e., provided the
residual "organic debris" is no longer a
characteristic waste for metals). In fact,
much of the D004-D011 "organic debris"
-------
22KRB
Federal 'Register / Vol. 55, ^No. 106-/:FWday, June 1,1990 / Rules and Regulations
may be treatableby washingcr .
extraction rather than innhiCTaiJon.-':-'
Ho waver; incineration may be a
preferred pretreatment when the . .
"organic debris" are expected to contain
organo-metallio or are otherwise
impregnated with inorganic metal dyes
or pigments (e.g^ paints, paint chips,
and/or resins)). =
The Agency also received comments
requesting that the Agency clarify the
appropriate treatment for characteristic
metal wastes that are identified as slags,
glass, concrete, bricks, and other
inorganic solid debris. They stated that
these materials would probably have to
be crushed or otherwise reduced in size
prior to stabilization in order to comply
with the D004 through D011 treatment
standards. The Agency agrees that these
as well as other similar wastes form a
different treatability group, and is
identifying this group of D004 through
D011 wastes as the "inorganic solids
debris" treatability group. Wastes in this
treatability group are denned in
§ 288.2(a)(7) of today's rule as follows: ,
"nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.5 mm
standard sieve that require cutting, or
crushing and grinding in mechanical
sizing equipment prior to stabilization,
limited to the following inorganic or
metal materials: (1) Metal slags (either
dross or scoria); (2) glassified slag; [3]
glass; [4) concrete [excluding
cementitious or pozzolanic stabilized
hazardous wastes); [5) masonry and
refractory bricks; (6) metal cans,
containers, drums, or tanks; [7) metal
nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps, valves,
appliances, or industrial equipment; and
(8) scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR
2Bl.l(c)(6). (Note: The 9.5 mm
requirement on sieve is based on a
similar requirement for pretreatment of
samples that are to be analyzed using
the TCLP. This size also approximates
the size of small pebbles that are often
incorporated into some forms of
concrete.)
While the Agency is establishing a
separate treatability group for these
"inorganic solids debris", it is
promulgating the same concentration-
based treatment standards for these
wastes as for other characteristic metal
wastes. Thus, there are no separate
treatment standards for inorganic solid
debris D004 through D011 wastes
appearing in today's rule. The Agency
has determined, however, that there is a
national capacity shortage for treatment
of this treatability group. Therefore, the
standards for D004 through D011 wastes
do not apply to "inorganic solids debris"
until May 8,1992.
Several commentere suggested that
treatment standards should not apply at
all to these wastes; that no treatment
technology io technically applicable to -
these wastes; and that these wastes
should be allowed to land disposed as
is. Other commenters pointed out that -
crushing processes create dust '
emissions or discharges to surface
waters that may result in a significant
increase in releases of toxic constituents
to the environment They pointed out
that stabilization should not be
necessary because of the relatively
impermeable nature of these inorganic
solids and that stabilization results in a
significant increase in volume of waste
to be land disposed.
While the Agency finds these
comments persuasive, it is somewhat
limited by RCRA section 3004(m) into
developing treatment standards for
these wastes, since absent a treatment
standard, the statutory land disposal
prohibition applies. However, from a
purely common sense standpoint, it may
make little sense to pulverize these
relatively cement-like materials only to
re-cement them again before land
disposal The Agency believes today's
actions provide the opportunity to
revisit these standards during the two-
year national capacity variance and to
address these commentere concerns in
greater detail. In addition, the Agency
points out that many of these same
issues will be addressed in a
forthcoming proposed rule for soil and
debris.
(3) Reexamination of Proposed of Co-
disposal Prohibitions. EPA requested
comments at proposal on whether it
should establish requirements under 40
CFR parts 264 and 265 for certain
chemical species of arsenic, selenium,
and mercury. The proposed
requirements called for segregating
certain wastes containing these metals
in monofills or in separate cells within
landfills, and for prohibiting the addition
of alkaline materials to these wastes.
These proposed requirements were the
result of available data showing that the
solubility of certain metal species is
likely to increase under alkaline
leaching conditions as compared to their
relative insolubility under acid
conditions (see 54 FR 48430,48441).
Several comments were received
addressing this issue, most of which
stated that specific co-disposal
requirements are not needed at this time
because operators of landfills must
. monitor leachate collection systems for
the migration of metals. Other
commenters pointed out that some
operators of landfills already segregate
these particular metal-bearing wastes as
part of their waste analysis plan, and
such requirements should be made, on a
site-and waste-specific basis. In
addition, vendors of specialized
stabilization materials submitted data
that show some promise in treating low
concentration of these alkaline-soluble
metal species.
EPA finds these comments persuasive
and is therefore not promulgating its
proposed co-disposal prohibitions for
wastes containing arsenic, selenium and
mercury. Additional information is
necessary to develop a comprehensive
national prohibition standard for these
wastes. EPA also concurs with ,
commenters that permit writers can
effectively address these co-disposal
prohibition requirements on a case-by-
case basis under the omnibus authority
in RCRA section 3005(c)(3).
b. Arsenic
D004EP toxic for arsenic
K031By-product salts generated in the
production of MSMA and cacodylic acid.
K084Wastewater treatment sludges
generated during the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic -
or organo-arsenic compounds.
KlOlDistillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds.
K102Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the . .
production of veterinary phannaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-arsenic '
compounds.
P010Arsenic acid
P011Arsenic (V) oxide
P012Arsenic (HI) oxide
P036Dichlorophenylarsine
P038Diethylarsine
U136Cacodylic acid
These wastes are grouped together
because they all contain arsenic as the
primary hazardous constituent. Like
other metals arsenic exhibits a positive
valence state; however, it shows little
tendency to exist as solitary cationic
species in aqueous matrices. Arsenic
typically exists in aqueous conditions as
oxo-anions (e.g., arsenic appears
primarily as anionic arsenite (AsQz) or
arsenate (AsO*"*)). This behavior is
important, because selection and,
performance evaluation of treatment
technologies for other metals are based
primarily on the cationic behavior of the
metals hi aqueous conditions (i.e.,
wastewaters and leachates). Thus,
treatment technologies for wastewaters
and nonwastewaters containing arsenic
are often different from, technologies for
wastes containing only other metal
constituents. "
(1) Nonwastewaters. To identify the
technologies that are applicable for
-------
' -ffff ' '*} s ' ' -
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June tl. 1900 /.Rules and Regulations . 22557
treating metals in nonwastewaters. the .-
Agency evaluates'treatment'- .,r ^'-:- -,'- -
. technologies that either reduce the, 'f~-r-i.
leaching of the metals or recover the -
metals for reuse. The Agency identified ;':
.stabilization technologies (e.g., cement
asphalt, vitrification), :and recovery as .
, potentially applicable technologies for "
treatment of arsenic present in, :,:
nonwastewater matrices, -v :
(a) Inconclusive Stabilization -r,
Performance Data. EPA has relatively
inconclusive performance data for - :
stabilization of arsenic in three different
wastes using nine different binders.
Analysis of these data indicates that the
effectiveness of any particular
stabilization binder appears to be highly
dependent upon the waste types. This .
result is what might be expected giving
the chemical nature of arsenic, (see
preceding discussion of arsenic
chemistry) and the relative sensitivity of
the effectiveness of stabilization
. processes with respect to the presence
of organics and organo-metallics.
Data on a K031 waste with an
untreated teachability of 533 mg/l
(based on analysis of an EP extract)
indicate that the teachability of arsenic
decreases somewhat for all binders. The
best results were obtained from asphalt
stabilization, which provided reductions
to 25.3 mg/l (EP). Data on a D004 waste
identified as an arsenic sulfide waste
show an increase in teachability when
cement, silicate polymer, clay, and
polyethylene binders are used.
However, data on this waste using an
asphalt binder indicated a reduction hi
teachability of arsenic from 41 mg/l to
1.7 mg/l (EP). Data and information on a
smelter dust that leaches aresenic
indicate that cement binders can
increase the teachability of the arsenic,
while silicate polymers and asphalt
binders decrease the teachability.
However, these data do not contain
operating information (e.g., binder to
waste ratios) or QA/QC information.
The Agency has also tested cement,
lime/fly ash, and kiln dust stabilization
on K031 nonwastewaters that when
untreated contain more than 130,000
ppm total arsenic and leach 5,930 mg/l
(based on analysis of a TCLP extract).
Some of the TCLP data on the K031
wastes that were "stabilized" with
cement, appear to indicate an increase
in arsenic teachability of 10 percent. The
best results were achieved when the
lime/fly ash binder was used, however,
these data show minor reductions of
arsenic from 5,930 mg/l to 4,687 mg/l in
the TCLP extract.
Chemfix submitted performance data
for a proprietary "alkaline stabilization
system". These limited data show an
acid production byproduct liquid waste
(believed to be a D004) with 73,000 ppm
total arsenic-leaching 2.7 mg/l arsenic in.
the treatment residue TCLP leachate. No
binder-to-waste ratios, binder additives
or untreated TCLP concentrations were
presented, making it difficult to assess
the viability of this treatment process for
all D004 nonwastewaters, in particular
those arsenic wastes known to contain
organics. .
Data were submitted by the . .
.Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC) showing stabilization using
proprietary reagents of a boiler stack
residue designated D004, generated from
the demolition of stacks and site closure
of an electric utility. The reagents are
added to induce cementitious, siliceous,
and pozzolanic stabilization reactions.
The solid waste was first slurried with
tap water to facilitate reaction with the
reagents. The data show reductions of
arsenic in the TCLP leachate from 409
mg/l to 2.27 mg/l. The volume ratio of
waste to binder was 1 to 1;
consequently, the volume for disposal
increased by 100 percent. The Agency is
uncertain that this technology would be
applicable for wastes containing
organics or organic arsenicals.
Another commenter, Solidiwaste,
submitted stabilization data for D004
arsenic sulfide wastes using a
proprietary silicate-rich matrix under
neutral or slightly alkaline conditions.
Under these conditions, the arsenic
sulfide may have been converted to an
insoluble complex silicoarsenate
compound. The data show an untreated
waste containing 35,000 ppm total
arsenic, which after treatment contains
0.08 mg/l arsenic in the TCLP leachate.
The commenter did not submit TCLP
data for the untreated waste,
information concerning waste to binder
ratios, or analytical QA/QC data. The
Agency is also uncertain that this
technology would be applicable for
wastes containing organics or organic
arsenicals.
(b) Performance Data Indicating
Broader Applicability. The Agency
received data from American NuKEM
demonstrating that incineration and/or
chemical oxidation followed by
coprecipitation and subsequent .
stabilization is effective treatment for a
variety of arsenic wastes. The Agency
believes that the arsenic compounds
treated by this procedure are first
oxidized to the arsenate form by either
thermal and/or chemical treatment. The
arsenate, which ends up in the scrubber
water (hi the case of incineration) or in
the wastewater (in the case of the
chemical oxidation), is then -
coprecipitated with iron salts. (Note:
The coprecipitation process is very pH
dependent and even under optimum
conditions the amount of ferric ..
hydroxide generated is two to eight,. ; . -.
times the concentration of ferric ... -
arsenate precipitated.) The iron ; ;
precipitate containing the arsenate is
then stabilized with dolomitic lime.. *
.Performance data submitted by -" . -
American NuKem for their chemical
oxidation wastewater treatment train
described above indicate that a D004
arsenic sulfide waste containing 750,000
ppm total arsenic can be treated to 0.75
mg/l (TCLP). However, these data'do
not indicate whether the arsenic sulfide
waste was significantly diluted prior to
treatment. In addition, it is important to
note that the stabilization step with
dolomitic lime required careful control
to avoid making the stabilized mass
significantly alkaline, implying that the
arsenic may have been quite teachable
under alkaline conditions and thus, may
not be truly "stabilized".
Performance data were also submitted
by American NuKEM using incineration
followed by treatment of scrubber water
indicate that organo-arsenic wastes
designated as a combined P011/D004
waste with concentrations up to 1,200
total arsenic can be effectively treated.
The treatment facility states that
essentially all of the arsenic compounds
in the feed volatilize during incineration
and are completely oxidized to arsenic
oxides and ultimately to arsenate ions,
which are removed by flue gas
scrubbing using alkaline solution
scrubbers with large liquid-to-gas ratios.
As mentioned above, the scrubber water
treatment (discussed in a subsequent
discussion on treatment of arsenic
wastewaters) consists of coprecipitation
with iron salts and stabilization of the
precipitate. No data on the
characterization or treatment of the
incinerator ash residual were submitted.
Also, the commenter failed to provide
untreated TCLP results or waste-to-
binder ratios.
(c) Vitrification Performance Data. As
an alternative to conventional
stabilization processes such as
cementitious stabilization for arsenic
wastes, the Agency identified
vitrification as technology that is .
applicable to nonwastewaters
containing arsenic (54 FR 48431-33).
Vitrification is a technology that uses
heat 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. This technology can
be applied to wastes containing organic
as well as inorganic forms of arsenic
since it operates at high temperatures
-------
.22558
Federal Kegister / VoL 55. No; 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(1200 *C to 1500 *C) that will destroy the
organics pteientln the wastes."- *. ' ;
* The AgencyaoTidted and received- : - "
comments on thin atabilization '; " .' .
tedinique'for arsenic wastes. Several
commenters said that vitrification is
neither "demonstrated" nor "available"
to treat arsenic-contafaiiig wastes. The ,
Agency also received comments-! '
supporting the argument that : '"
vitrification can treat areenifc wastes ;--"
effectively and that the units are ' ''
available for sale. One commenter even
conducted a study that determined that
vitrification would provide a
significantly better method of disposal
than other stabilization processes for
D004 arsenic sulfide wastes generated
from phosphoric add purification
containing 2 to 3% total arsenic. This
determination was made because the
waste volume for disposal is reduced by
more than 7595, even though fixation and
fluxing agents were added, and the
resultant product leaches arsenic levels
less than OJ mg/1 (TCLP). However, the
commenter did not submit TCLP results
on the untreated waste or analytical
QA/QC data.
Other data available to the Agency
indicate that vitrification can
incorporate arsenic in concentrations up
to 23.595 into a glass/slag matrix with a
maximum teachability of arsenic at 1.8
mg/1 (EP). In all, these data consist of 14
separate data points, with arsenic
* concentration in the untreated wastes
ranging from 03% to 23.595. Data on the
treated (Le., glassified) wastes ranged
from 0.007 mg/l to 1.8 mg/1 (EP). All of
these data clearly indicate that
vitrification can consistently achieve
stabilization of arsenic to leachate
levels below the characteristic level 5.0
mg/1 (based on EP). However, these
data did not have any analytical QA/
QC or any information about volume
increases/reductions on the treatment
residues.
Several commenters expressed
concern about air emissions associated
with the vitrification units. The Agency
believes that these concerns are
addressed because these devices will
typically have to be permitted under 40
CFR part 264 subpart X and will
therefore have to meet designated air
permit requirements. In addition, one
commenter said that to avoid arsenic
loss due to vaporization, a special
furnace configuration with a recycling
vapor scrubbing system is being
investigated for use with the facility's
vitrification unit. Thus, the Agency
anticipates that this technology
currently under development will result
in an additional safety precaution (with
regards to potential air emissions) for .. .
this technology in the near future. . -
(d) Determination of BDATsfor- -
Nonwastewaters. For die proposed rale,
the Agency determined that vitrification
was the "best" technology for treatment
of nonwastewaters containing arsenic. -
EPA made this determination based on -
the performance data available at the
time of proposal. Most data that was
.then available appeared to indicate that
conventional stabilization (e.g., cement) .
arsenic wastes since the stabilized
wastes showed little reduction in
arsenic leaching or leached more arsenic
than the unstabilized wastes. In the
proposed rule, the Agency requested
that facilities submit data demonstrating
treatment of arsenic nonwastewaters.
Several commenters submitted new
data mat appear to indicate that wastes
containing high concentrations of
specific inorganic forms of arsenic can
be treated by stabilization using cement,
silicates, and/or proprietary binder
mixtures. Generally, these stabilization
data are relatively inconclusive, due to
the lack of necessary treatment
performance data and to the relatively
limited applicability of these
stabilization processes to wastes
containing oiganics or organo
arsenicals. In addition, while the data
do indicate low levels of leachable
arsenic are obtained, in some cases the
reductions may be attributed to dilution
with the binders caused by undesirable
high binder-to-waste ratios (resulting hi
considerable increases in the amount of
waste to be land disposed). While the
Agency believes that these stabilization
technologies have considerable
drawbacks, the data do appear to
indicate that they may provide adequate
treatment for some specific forms of
D004 inorganic arsenic wastes.
However, the Agency has not based
BDAT treatment standards for all D004
wastes -on these stabilization
technologies. The Agency is not
precluding their use, but cautions that
their use should be determined on a
case-by-case basis. At this time, the
Agency cannot determine a separate ,
treatability subcategory for D004 wastes
for which these technologies could be
used to establish treatment standards.
The technology that appears to have a
broader applicability to wastes
containing organics or organo arsenicals
. is the American NuKem process (i.e« the
process where the arsenic is first
thermally or chemically oxidized,
coprecipitated with iron or aluminum
salts, and then stabilized in an insoluble
...form such as ferric arsenate).
Unfortunately, this' treatment may also
increase the amount of waste for land . ,
disposal because of the huge amounts of
ferric hydroxide that maybe ^ ..-,..-
precipitated.with the ferric arsenate.
However, because of the broader.
applicability of this technology, the -
Agency considered this process to be an
alternative technology to vitrification for
K031, K084, KLQ1, K102.JM36, P038, U138
and D004 wastes containing organics
and organo arsenicals. - .
The Agency still believes that
vitrification represents the "best"
technology because the data support.
treatment of arsenic present at
percentage concentrations along with
volume reductions for land disposal. The
Agency also believes that incineration
or complex chemical treatment followed
by stabilization may work for some
forms of arsenic in some wastes, but the
increases hi volume for disposal make
this technology less desirable than
vitrification. .
(e) Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewaters. The Agency used the
vitrification data from the study that
used EP toxicity testing to evaluate
treatment performance. These EP
leachate data were used to calculate the
treatment standard because one of the
fourteen data points represents a waste
containing 23.5 percent arsenic whereas
the vitrification data that were based on
TCLP analyses represent a waste
containing only 3 percent arsenic. EPA
hence believes that the EP vitrification
data demonstrate treatment of a waste
matrix that is more difficult to treat
EPA calculated the treatment
standard for arsenic nonwastewaters
based on the highest leachate data point
of 1.8 mg/1 for the matrix containing 23;5
percent arsenic. Analytical recovery
data were transferred from the Agency's
analysis of K102 incinerator ash (which
had the appearance of a slag) were used
to adjust the value for analytical
accuracy. The adjusted value was
multiplied by a variability factor of 2.8,
. and 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 transferring the
concentration-based treatment standard
of 5.6 mg/1 hi the EP toxicity leachate
arsenic to K031, K084. P010. P011, P012,
P036, P038, and U136 nonwastewaters,
primarily due to similarities hi total
arsenic concentrations anticipated in .
these wastes when compared to the.
23.5% total arsenic that was vitrified -
. (i.e., the basis of the 5.6,mg/1 standard).
For example, waste characterization
data indicate total arsenic
concentrations of 0.1 to 18% for K031
. and 10 to 25% for K084, with theoretical
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, fiine 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22559
arsenic content in the LLandP wastes
' ranging from approximately 25% total
arsenic in P036 to a maximum of 75% in
- P011. While some of these U and P
wastes may contain percentage levels of
arsenic greater than the amount in the
untreated waste used to develop the
treatment standard (i.e., 23.5 percent),'
the Agency believes that the arsenic
content in these wastes are similar
enough to transfer this standard, in
addition, for such wastes, die Agency
believes that more glass-forming
reagents can be added to the molten
slag/waste mixture dining the
vitrification process in order to achieve
the promulgated treatment standard.
Based on EPA's analysis of additional
vitrification data, the Agency believes
that the performance of the vitrification
technology and analytic variability of
treatment residues will not change
significantly for different arsenic-
containing wastes; thus, this transfer is
legitimate.
For D004 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating the characteristic level of
5.0 mg/1 arsenic as the treatment
standard. The Agency has taken this
approach because available data
indicate that treatment below the
characteristic level is achievable (albeit
the extent is not readily ascertainable
for the entire group of D004 wastes) and
because of the concern for the potential
regulatory disruptions and confusion
that could be created by establishing a
standard slightly higher than the
characteristic level. In addition, given
the statutory hard hammer, EPA would
not establish a treatment standard at a
higher level unless there clearly was a
problem treating to the hard hammer
level. Although the data are equivocal,
the Agency does not believe that
treatment to the characteristic level is
unachievable. Furthermore, the Agency
believes that persons will normally try
to ensure that their waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic in order to have
less expensive subtitle D disposal, and
also because these technologies cannot
easily be "turned off' at precisely the
characteristic level, so that the
characteristic level will more readily be
achieved.
Since the vitrification performance
data that EPA used to develop the
nonwastewater treatment standards for
arsenic were EP toxicity leachate data,
the Agency has based the
nonwastewater standards on the arsenic
concentration hi the EP leachate.
However, since the Agency has some
information that appears to indicate that
the TCLP test is more aggressive than
the EP test for determining ars'enic
teachability, the Agency is establishing
thatif a waste does not achieve the
arsenic nonwastewater .standard based
on analysis of a TCLP extract but
achieves the standard based on analysis
of an EP extract the waste is considered
to be in compliance with the arsenic
nonwastewater .standard* Thus, a
facility can use the TCLP test to
demonstrate compliance for D004, and
also K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, POM,
P012,P036,P038,nndyi3B
nonwastewaters.
(f) Comments Concerning Recovery.
The Agency believes that for some
wastes, recovery of arsenic may be
feasible with high-temperature metal
recovery technologies used by mining
operations. Information available to the
Agency indicates that arsenic trioxide
recovered as a by-product of copper and
gold tniTitTig operations has been used by
the wood preserving industry as a raw
material in the formulation of wood
preservatives. Currently smelters
located in the United States are not
accepting hazardous wastes to recover
arsenic trioxide; however, the idea is
being investigated by a.smelter located
in Canada who is planning to market
copper arsenate as a wood preservative
in the Northwest. The plan, still under
consideration, is to have the smelter
accept back arsenic-bearing residues
from the copper arsenate customers. The
Agency requested comments and data
on the applicability of recovery
technologies for wastes containing
arsenic. One commenter claimed that
while recovery options may be
technically viable, the current market
does not make recovery of arsenic
economical.
(2) Wastewaters. The Agency
identified chemical precipitation
technologies as applicable treatment
technologies for arsenic-containing
wastewaters. When evaluating
precipitation technologies to determine
BDAT for arsenic wastewaters, the
Agency considered not only the
efficiency of removal of these metals
from the wastewater, but also the
physical and chemical state of the
arsenic that ends up in the wastewater
treatment residues..
(a) Identification of BDAT.
Wastewater treatment for most metals
is typically based on precipitation with
anionic species such as hydroxide or
sulfide. Soluble arsenic species "have
been 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 reagents has also
been reported as being partially
effective for wastewaters containing ; .
arsenic in the form of-arsenates, but -.,-
relatively ineffective for arsenites.
While arsenic sulfide is relatively. i
insoluble in water under acid . ; '
conditions, information indicates that
the teachability (/.ait solubility) of the ,.
arsenic sulfide increases under alkaline
conditions. Additionally, coprecipitation
with iron salts generates a relatively
insoluble ferric arsenate precipitate, but
the nature of the reaction also generates
ferric hydroxide, which causes an
increase in sludge volume for disposal.
The Agency solicited comment on
whether it should specify the
precipitating reagent for all wastewaters
containing arsenic as part of the
treatment standard. Commenters said
that the Agency should not specify
which reagents should be used to
precipitate arsenic from wastewaters
because the chemical matrix of each
wastewater is unique and therefore each
wastewater should be evaluated
individually to determine the
appropriate reagent for removing
arsenic. Based on the diversity of waste
characterization data for the arsenic
wastes, the Agency agrees with the
commenters and is not specifying
precipitating reagents.
(b) Standards for Arsenic-Containing
Wastewaters. In the proposed rule, the
Agency based a treatment standard of
0.79 mg/1 arsenic for all D004
wastewaters on performance data
demonstrating the precipitation of
arsenic from wastewaters identified as
D004 from the veterinary
pharmaceutical industry. The treatment
system consisted of precipitation using
lime followed by manganese sulfate and
ferric sulfate in a three-stage alkaline
process. The untreated wastewater data
were for a waste consisting of a mixture
of organo-arsenicals and inorganic
arsenic compounds in concentrations up
to 1,600 ppm. At the time of the
proposed rule, the Agency believed that
.these data represented a D004
wastewater matrix that would be the
most difficult to treat
Some commenters have indicated .that
they cannot treat to the proposed levels
because some D004 wastewaters require
more extensive treatment trams in order '
to treat other metals, and also contain .
organics, which interfere with the
treatment of the arsenic. One
commenter described a treatment
process that required a reduction step
for hexavalent chromium and an -
oxidation step with peroxides or
permanganates to treat the organo-
arsenicals. Reduction of the chromium is
required to precipitate chromium
-------
22560
Federal Register / Vol. 55.'No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
, hydroxide at highpH. The addition of
oxidizing agents to destroy the organo-.
aiaenlcal compounds will reoxidize the '
bivalent chromium to hexavalent -
chromium, and consequently .the ' ''
chromium will be leachable from the
waste. This commenter requested that-
the Agency reconsider treatment to the
characteristic level because experience
indicates that a level of 5.0 mg/1 can be
achieved but not a level of 0.79 mg/1. .
However, the commenter submitted no
data to substantiate this claim. Other
commenters also indicated difficulty
meeting the proposed level of 0.79 mg/1
arsenic when treating scrubber waters
containing arsenic and wastewaters
containing hexafluoroarsenate
compounds.
Based on the information in the
comments, the Agency believes that it
may not be possible for all generators of
D004 wastewaters to meet a level of 0.79
mg/1 arsenic. In addition, and more
important, EPA has determined not to
impose treatment standards below
characteristic levels for characteristic
wastewaters (i.e., is choosing to apply
the prohibition at the point of disposal)
in order to properly integrate Clean
Water Act (CWA) programs with the
RCRA land ban, and due to general
protectiveness of class I nonhazardous
UIC well disposal for dilute metals.
Hence, EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of 5.0 mg/1 arsenic for D004
wastewaters. It should be mentioned
that EPA still believes precipitation to
be BDAT for arsenic wastewaters
because even a difficult to treat waste
(i.e., the hexafluoroarsenate waste)
shows a reduction in total arsenic
concentration.
The constituents for which P010, P011,
and P012 wastes are listed are all
inorganic forms of arsenic. The
constituents for which P036, P038, and
U136 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. Although
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 the treatment
process itself and thus require treatment
standards. The Agency is transferring
the D004 performance data and
concentration-based treatment standard
of 0.79 mg/1 to K031, K084, POIO, P011.
P012, P036, P038, and U138 wastewaters.
The Agency has chosen to transfer
treatment perfonnance'from the
treatment of the D004 veterinary
pharmaceutical wastewatere because
these wastewaters should contain
similarorgano-areenical and inorganic
arsenic compounds that can be removed
-by lime followed Tjy manganese sulfate
.and ferric precipitation.
" (3) 'Revisions toKWl andK102
Treatment Standards. In the First Third
Final Rule (53 FR 31170. August 17,
1989), the Agency established two
subcategories of K101 and K102 ,
nonwastewaters based on the
. concentration of arsenic in the waste. A
low arsenic subcategory was
established for waste containing less
than 1 percent arsenic and a high .
arsenic subcategory for waste
containing 1 percent or greater. In
today's" rule, the Agency is changing the
nonwastewater standards for K101 and
K102 promulgated in the First Third
Final Rule as proposed by eliminating
the low and high level arsenic
subcategories and by replacing the
existing metal standards with a
concentration-based treatment standard
for arsenic of 5.6 mg/1 (measured in the
EP extract) based on the performance of
vitrification. The organic standards will
remain the same as those established in
the First Third Final Rule.
The Agency is also promulgating new
wastewater treatment standards for
K101 and K102 in today's rule.
Standards for K101 and K102
wastewaters were promulgated in the
First Third rule (53 FR 31170, August 17,
1988) and were applicable to all forms of
K101 and K102 wastewaters (i.e., 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
reevaluating the D004 wastewater
treatment data for today's rule,
however, EPA discovered an error in the
calculation of the promulgated K101 and
K102 wastewater standards for the
metal constituents. The Agency is
correcting this error by amending the
wastewater standards for the metal
constituents (arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and mercury) in K101 and K1Q2 as
proposed. 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
promulgated. Since there was no error in
the calculation of the promulgated
standards for the organic constituents,
' they are not being changed. The
promulgated standards for the organics
are being presented for convenience of
'the reader.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D004
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic. ..A, .*...».»...»...
5.0
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, EP
leachate1
(mg/1)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D004
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
.total
composition
(mg/1)
6.0
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K031, K084, P010, P011, P012, P036,
P038. AND U136
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic-..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, EP
leachate >
(mg/l)
5.6
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K031, K084. P010, P011, P012, P036,
P038.ANDU136
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic-
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.79
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K101
[Nonwastewaters *]
Regulated constituent
Nitroanillne
Arsenic
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
14
NA
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, EP
leachate >
(mg/l)
NA
5.6
-------
Federal Register 7 VoL 55. No. icfe / Friday. June "1. .1990 / lUiles and Regulations 22561
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR,
I-'-' rsV-.l'-.'-.S;: SK101 .>-:;^ K.rr. C>i.-
^JBesutotedcooetituwfl.
Arsenic-
Cadmi
4_ead
^ny single
grab sample,
total
iposttion
027
0.79
;<0082
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
INonwastewaters *J
Regulated constituent
Ortho-Mi j>)>fii6nol.
AroAnir ...:
Maximum
tor any
single orab
sampfe,
total
composition
(mg/0
13
NA
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, EP
leachate'
Kfn^ifn , ± ,
loorf
Mercury
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/0
0.026
0.79
O24
0.17
. 0.082
1 The TCLP test can also be used to demonstrate
compliance (or these wastes.
'This removes subcategories based on high and
low arsenic content
c. Barium
D005 Characteristic Barium Wastes
P013 Barium Cyanide
The Agency proposed treatment
standards for all D005 wastes (wastes
containing 100 mg/1 barium as measured
in the EP leachate) as well as for all
barium cyanide wastes listed as F013 (54
FR 48434). The proposed wastewater
treatment standard for D005 and P013
was U5 jng/1, based on a limited
amount of data from the EPA Office of
Water's Effluent Guidelines program.
The proposed nonwastewater treatment.
standard for D005 and P013 was
expressed as a method of treatment,
"Acid or Water Leaching Followed by
Chemical Precipitation as Sulfate or
Carbonate; or Stabilization". An
alternative ior all characteristic wastes.,
was also presented, that of establishing
the characteristic level as the treatment
rstahdard. , " .. :..
Because the proposed treatment
standards were based on very limited
data, the Agency solicited comments
and data on waste characterization and
treatment Several data sets were -
received pertaining to D005
nonwastewaters. These data have been
Used in today's rule to support that D005
.nonwastewaters can be treated to levels
below the characteristic level of 100 mg/
1. In most cases, however, the data were
not adequate to support a specific
treatment standard for DOOSand P013. .
because they lacked QA/QC
information, influent/effluent levels, or
did not provide enough data points to be
representative of these wastes. One
data set was used, however, to establish
today's final treatment standard for P013
nonwastewaters, as is further discussed
in section (2) below.
Several comments were received on
the proposed approach for regulating
D005. No comments were received
pertaining specifically to P013.
Additional comments other than those
addressed in this preamble were
received on the proposed approach for
regulating barium wastes. All comments
and the Agency's responses are found in
the Response to BDAT-Related
Comments Document, in the RCRA
Docket.
(1) D005Characteristic Barium
Wastes. Today's rule promulgates
concentration-based treatment
standards for all D005 wastes expressed
as the characteristic level for barium,
100 mg/1. The Agency is adopting this
approach because of the data
deficiencies discussed above, and issues
that were raised in the public comments
that are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Several commenters -requested that
the treatment standard be set at the
characteristic level. As mentioned
above, the Agency received data for
D005, all of which demonstrates
treatment to below the characteristic
level of 100 mg/1. Because D005 wastes
are so diverse (in fact, an organobarium
waste stream was identified by two
commenters when the Agency primarily
characterized this waste as an inorganic
waste stream) and the data received
during the comment period so :
inconclusive as to establishing a
concentration-based treatment standard
for all D005 wastes, the Agency is
promulgating the characteristic level as
the treatment standard. The Agency is
confident, however, based on the data
received, that treatment to achieve the
100 mg/1 level is possible for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
ofDOOa; .:; . ".. "^ -..: -. . .r.v.
Many commentersTequested that a
concentration-based standard be -
established for DOQ5 nonwastewaters: .
rather than the proposed method of . , .
treatment. As explained above, this is
the approach that is being promulgated
in today's rule. The Agency prefers to
set a concentration-based treatment
standard rather than specifying a . -
, method of treatment because it allows
the treater of any of the various forms of
D005 maximum flexibility in the choice
of treatment technology most
appropriate for the waste. Additionally,
some commenters disagreed with the
proposed specification of precipitating
reagents (i.e., precipitation as sulfate or
carbonate). The Agency agrees that
specifying precipitating reagents may
cause unnecessary problems for the
treatment industry in that treatment of
barium often takes place in a waste
stream containing other metals for
which the specified reagent is
inappropriate.
Commenters opposed the proposed
D005 wastewater treatment standard as
being unattainable, stating further that
the 1.15 mg/1 standard is overly
restrictive because it is very close to the
, Agency's drinking water standard. 'Only
one data point was received during the
comment period for treatment of D005
wastewatere, not enough data to support
a concentration-based standard for the
diverse forms of D005 wastewaters.
Additionally, some commenters
disagreed with EPA's discussion of
typical precipitation reagents suitable
for D005 (and P013). The Agency has
data indicating that barium is usually
precipitated as a sulfate salt.
Commenters expressed concern that the
Agency should neither set precipitation
as a required method of treatment for
these wastewaters nor specify required
precipitation reagents. .The Agency is
not promulgating a treatment standard
expressed as a required method, and
agrees that specifying precipitating
reagents may cause unnecessary
problems for the treatment industry.
(2) P013Barium Cyanide. Today's
rule promulgates barium treatment
standards for P013, barium cyanide.
wastes. Treatment standards for
cyanide in P013 were promulgated in the
June 23,1989 final rule for Second Third
wastes (54 FR 26614).
Data was provided during the
comment period on stabilization of D005
nonwastewaters that is being used as
the basis of a treatment standard for
barium in P013 nonwastewaters. Based
on these data, a treatment standard of
-------
22562
'Federal Register / Vol. 55; No. 106 / Friday; June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
62 mg/1 has been calculated. Use of this
data f or P013 is justified even though it »
was not used for D005 nonwastewaters.
As one of the "P" listingflVPOlS is a ::
specific waste, while D005, a >'"",,;..- "
characteristic waste, may take diverse
forms. Generally,: the jnore specific P013"
Is expected to be characterized"-" -' '-"
conalstently.The data is appropriate fof^
establishing a waste-specie treatment
standard for P013 because the waste's -
properties are not likely to change.'
Therefore, the standard should be, -
achievable for all P013 nbnwastewafers.
No data were received during the ,
comment period to set a treatment
standard for PW3 wastewaters.
Commenters objected-to the proposed
1.15 mg/1 D005 wastewater standard as
being unattainable, and the Agency is
considering these comments applicable
to P013 as well. Commenters also
objected to the specification of
precipitation reagents for D005
wastewaters. The Agency is therefore
disinclined to establish a method of
treatment (i.e., chemical precipitation
with specified reagents) for P013
wastewaters. In the absence of any data
on treatment of P013 wastewaters,
therefore, the Agency is not
promulgating a barium wastewater
treatment standard. The cyanide in P013
wastewaters is regulated under the land
disposal restrictions (54 FR 26814);
therefore, P013 wastewaters will not be
subject to the "hard hammer" (i.e.,
banned from land disposal on May 8,
1900).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D005
(Nonwastewaters)
BDATTfiEATMENT STANDARDS FOR P013
",'_'.'_ "(Nonwastewaters) .. v.'.
Regulated constituent
Boriwn - nn-T.-MM
100
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample
TCLP
leachate -
(mg/1)
BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D005
(Wastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample
(mg/l)
, *
Barium
". .. Ti -. ,' - .-* * i -' '"' '
' ' , - - . l * , -= >.L
Regulated constituent
---.-. _...: -v.
... , , - .......
Maximum'
for any
single grab
sample
TCLP
leachate =
. (mg/D .
/' . ", 52
100
d. Cadmium ' .'. .., ...
DOOOCharacteristics cadmium wastes.
Today's rule promulgates wastewater
and nonwastewater treatment standards
for D006 wastes. Comments and data
were received asserting that it was not"
possible to meet the proposed treatment
standards for D006 cadmium, which
data EPA finds persuasive. Data are
also insufficient to reliably establish a
standard below the characteristic level
that is generally achievable. Data were
submitted during the comment period,
however, indicating that the wastes can
be treated to meet the characteristic
level Therefore, the Agency is
promulgating the characteristic level of
1.0 mg/1 cadmium (as measured by the
TCLP) as the treatment standard for
D006 nonwastewaters and wastewaters.
EPA is also establishing an additional
treatability group for cadmium batteries
that are characteristic hazardous
wastes. The standard for cadmium
batteries is thermal recovery.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
regulation of cadmium in D006 wastes at
treatment levels below the
characteristic level. Two commenters
submitted performance data showing
various wastes treated by different
stabilization technologies (e.g., different
chemical reagents) and data supporting
that the proposed standards were
unachievable. The data, however,
showed that D006 wastes can be treated
to meet treatment levels at or about the
characteristic level of 1.0 mg/1 for
cadmium (as measured by TCLP for
nonwastewaters) once the proper
chemical reagents and waste to binder
ratios are used. Based on these data,
EPA is not finalizing the proposed
treatment standards for D006 and
instead, is promulgating treatment
standards at 1.0 mg/1 cadmium for both
wastewater and nonwastewater (as
measured by TCLP) forms of D006.
Some facilities submitted comments
asserting that their wastes were unique
or simply unable to meet concentration
based treatment standards developed
by the Agency and requested that EPA
promulgate a method of treatment for
their D006 wastes. These facilities failed
to identify a method of treatment that
may meet BDAT criteria or to provide
adequate data that may enable EPA to
assess the validity of their claims. As a
result, these facilities' claims of not even
being able to treat to the characteristic
levels must be addressed (if at all) by
requesting a treatability variance, as
provided in 40 CFR 268.4. , .
. EPA proposed that cadmium- ! , ;
containing batteries be a separate
subcategory of D006 wastes. See '54 FR
48436, listing several examples of
industries, manufacturing processes, or
commercial users that generate " "
cadmium batteries. The proposed rule
called for batteries containing leachable
cadmium above 1.0 mg/1 (as measured
by EP Toxicity) to be treated for ,
cadmium recovery in thermal recovery
units as a prerequisite for land disposal.
Commenters fully supported the
Agency's determination that thermal
recovery of cadmium represents BDAT
for D006 wastes in the cadmium-
containing battery subcategory. Their
comments pointed out that these wastes
are routinely treated in industrial
furnaces such as smelters for the
recovery of cadmium and other valuable
metals.
Commenters asked the Agency to
clarify in its final rule the status of
residues from cadmium battery
recycling operations. Cadmium is
typically recovered hi pyrometallic
operations or by smelting (typically as a
byproduct hi zinc smelting operations).
Batteries can also be broken to extract
recoverable cadmium, which cadmium
is then sent to thermal recovery.
Residues from these various operations,
including ait pollution control sludges,
thermal recovery furnace residues, and
residues from battery breaking, are no
longer hi the cadnu'um-containing
battery subcategory. If they continue to
exhibit the characteristic for cadmium,
however, they would still be prohibited
wastes hi the D008 treatability group
and would have to be treated to meet
the standard for that treatability group
(i.e., treated so that they no longer
exhibit the characteristic). Residues
most likely to exhibit the characteristic
for cadmium are the residues from
battery breaking, and ah* pollution
control residues from thermal recovery.
Commenters also questioned whether
small consumer-type nickel cadmium
rechargeable dry cell batteries were
covered by the prohibition. EPA|is
making no determination in this rule
whether such batteries are hazardous
wastes. This is a question of fact based
upon whether such batteries exhibit the
EP characteristic when a representative
sample of the battery is tested. In
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. Ifli/ Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22563
addition,- many of these batteries, even
if hazardous, would be household - :
hazardous wastes and thus are excluded
from all-subtitle C regulation {40 GFR ::
BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR.D006
"..'. . --v -if Nonwastewaters] -. -, , .-.--'
Regulated constituent
Cadmium-
Maximum
for any
.single grab
sample
TCLP
teachate
(mg/l)
1.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D006
TWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample
(mg/l)
1.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D006
[Cadmium-Containing Batteries]
Thermal Recovery of Metals or Inorganics (RTHRM)
as a Method of Treatment
e. Chromium
D007EP Tox for Chromium
U032Chromic acid (HaCrCU, calcium salt)
EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of 0.094 mg/l chromium (total),
as measured in the leachate generated
by use of the TCLP for nonwastewater
forms of TJ032. The wastewater
treatment standard for U032 is 0.32 mg/l
chromium [total]. For nonwastewater
and wastewater forms of D007, EPA is
promulgating a treatment standards of
5.0 mg/l chromium (total) (as measured
by TCLP for nonwastewaters). A
technical description of U032 and D007
can be found hi the listing documents for
each waste.
Several commenters objected to the
proposal to regulate total chromium
rather than hexavalent chromium in
D007 and U032. They believe that EPA
should only regulate hexavalent
chromium since "EPA-has recognized
that only the hexavalent chromium
presents a threat to humans and the
.environment * * *" The Agency is not
persuaded by these arguments,
maintaining that treatment of total
chromium will provide the most
effective regulation of hexavalent forms.
These comments moreover improperly
characterize the Agency's position,
which is long-established, and is not . ; -
being reopened for consideration in this
rule. Under Subtitle C, EPA regulates on
. a total chromium basis unless it is
demonstrated that chromium is
exclusively {or nearly exclusively) '-"'-
bivalent, the chromium is generated
from a process that uses only .trivalent
chromium, and that the waste is
managed in non-oxidizing environments.
See § 261.4(b](6)(i) (1980). To date; EPA
is unaware of any generator submitting
a demonstration to EPA for processing.
EPA repeats that it is not reopening this
long-settled issue in this proceeding.
Detailed discussions of the
development of treatment standards for
D007 and TJ032 can be found in the final
BDAT Background Document for these
wastes in the RCRA docket.
(1) D007. EPA proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for D007
wastewaters and nonwastewaters
based on a transfer of treatment
standards for K062. (K062 wastes are
spent pickle liquors generated by the
iron and steel industry.) This was
because the chromium standards that
were promulgated for K062 wastes were
based on treatment of a mixture of K062
and other EP Toxicity wastewaters
(including D007 wastes). The treatment
process included hexavalent chromium
reduction (to the trivalent state)
followed by chemical precipitation,
settling, filtering, and dewatering of
solids. As an alternative, the Agency
also proposed treatment standards for
D007 wastes based on a transfer of
chromium standards promulgated for
F006 wastes (wastewater treatment
sludges from the treatment of
wastewaters from the electroplating
industry). Treatment data for F006
wastes were based on the performance
of conventional cementitious or
pozzolanic stabilization.
(i) Wastewaters. Commenters
indicated that the proposed levels for
D007 wastewaters based on the transfer
from K062 wastes (i.e., 0.32 mg/l) could
not be achieved for the majority of their
D007 wastes. In support of their position,
they submitted ten specific sets of data
on the treatment of various D007 wastes*
However, these data primarily included
treatment information with an emphasis
on the nonwastewater residues and did
not include very much data on the
wastewater residuals. Data from one
commenter supported their claim, but
indicated that the characteristic level for
chromium (i.e., 5.0 mg/l could generally
be achieved. While these wastewater
data were mostly above the proposed
0.32 mg/l standard for chromium, none
of these data submitted could be used to
support an alternative wastewater
treatment standard that is below the ' -
characteristic level/Based on these data
and for reasons outlined in section ni.D.
of today's preamble, 'the "Agency is not
promulgating the proposed treatment
standard of O.32 mg/l and, instead, is
establishing the characteristic level (i.e.,'
5.0 mg/l) as the treatment standard for
D007 wastewaters.
(ii) Nonwastewaters. Except for D007
refractory bricks (see discussion below),
the majority of the commenters believed
that the 0.094 mg/l TCLP standard based
on a transfer from K062 wastes could
not be achieved. However, the
alternative standards proposed for D007
nonwastewaters (i.e., 5.2 mg/l TCLP
based on the transfer from F006 and
capping the standard at the 5.0 mg/l
characteristic level) could be achieved
on a routine basis. In support of their
position, they submitted ten specific sets
of data on the treatment of various D007
wastes. The Agency examined the
quality and completeness of these data
for the nonwastewater residues.
The Agency determined that eight of
the ten data sets could not support the
development treatment standards due to
a significant lack of information on:
influent concentrations, waste source
descriptions, binder/waste ratios,
treatment operating/design information,
the existence of a pretreatment step
(hexavalent chromium reduction), and/
or quality assurance and quality control
information. The Agency also
determined that the other two data sets
also have some deficiencies in the
above criteria, but do represent similar
treatment trains used to establish the
chromium standards for K062 and F006.
The Agency emphasizes that none of
these ten data sets are as complete as
the data for either F006 or K062.
In considering the usefulness of the
two data sets that are more complete
than the others, the Agency examined
what treatment standards would have
been if they were derived from these
data. One data set (from Cyanokem)
would have resulted in a standard of
0.86 mg/l and another data set (using
only 10 of the more complete data points
from the HWTC) would have resulted hi
a standard of 0.74 mg/l. (Note: Both are
based on TCLP analysis.)
However, the HWTC-data contained
an additional 32 incomplete treatment
data points (no untreated TCLP
analyses), many of which could not
meet the 0.86 mg/l or the 0.74 mg/l
treatment standards. Assuming that
these previously rejected 32 data points
represent valid treatment, the Agency
decided that both the 0.86 mg/l and the
0.74 mg/l standards calculated on just 20
-------
22564
Federal.Register / VoL 55..No. 106 /Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
data points Were not achievable on-a .....
routine basis. The Agency found that it ,
was difficult to ascertain (per treatment
facility) .the mixing ratios of waste. .
, volumes that were received from each of,
jhe different industries..While the data r
indicated that some wastes contained. ,,
very high concentrations of chromium,
the lack of information on mixing ratios
and feed rates made it difficult to assess
the true effectiveness of treatment (Le.,
the Agency could not determine the
chromium concentration of the mixed
D007 wastes just prior to.treatment)
The Agency points out that the data
from Cyanokem represented primarily
treatment of liquid wastes (some with
very high concentrations of chromium).
Some of the sludges generated from this
process did not require further treatment
(i.e., stabilization). This same situation
occurred with the process used to
establish the promulgated treatment
standards for K062 wastes, in that the
wastewater treatment process employed
for treating the combined K062/D007
wastes was effective enough that the
treatment sludges were not
characteristic for chromium and did not
require any further stabilization. (Thus,
the derivation of the 0.034 mg/1
proposed standard for D007 wastes.)
While Cyanokem's data clearly
indicated that the proposed 0.094 mg/1
could not be achieved and thus implying
that their combined D007 wastes were
more difficult to treat, their data did not
represent wastes similar to those
represented by the HWTC data which
was comprised primarily of sludge
stabilization data.
The Agency then decided to examine
what the treatment standard would be
based on all of the data from Cyanokem
and the HWTC [i.e., using all 52 data
points, except for one from the HWTC
data that the Agency believes to be an
outlier). In doing so, it significantly
increased the number of data points and
also represented a greater variety of
wastes from a greater cross-section of
industries. Despite all of this, the
Agency took a conservative approach
and assumed that proper and effective
treatment had occurred for all of the ,
data.
The resultant standard using these
combined data was 43 mg/1 based on .
TCLP. While the combined data are .
technically "weak" due to various
deficiencies in BDAT information, the
combined two data sets dp reflect the
treatment of a greater variety of wastes.
The Agency comtemplated promulgating
the 43 mg/1 standard as an alternative
to the 52 mg/1 from FOOft however, this
level is so close to the 5.0 mg/1
characteristic level that the Agency does
not believe the significant regulatory
disruptions and uncertainties inherent in
applying direct part 268 regulation to
subtitle D faculties is warranted.
The Agency notes that the 5.2 mg/1 .
P006 standard was also generated by .the.
. commercial treatment industry and that
.further combination of the F006 data
with the commeritera' data would
probably result in a standard even
closer to the characteristic level of 5.0
mg/1. As it is, a measurement of 4.3 mg/1
by the TCLP test is approximately 86%
of the 5.0 mg/1 characteristic level and
within the analytical error that may be
expected for such an analysis.
' As a result of these comments and
data, EPA is withdrawing both of the
proposed treatment standards for D007
wastes (i.e., the transfer from F006 and
from K062). While the Agency
contemplated promulgating the 52 mg/1
F006 standard, it is even closer to the
characteristic level than the 43 mg/1
calculated using the commenters' data.
The treatment standard promulgated
today, therefore, is set at 5.0 mg/1
chromium (total) (as measured by
TCLP). While the majority of
commenters supported this approach _
from a policy standpoint, the Agency is
convinced that the available data
submitted by them clearly indicate the
validity of the achievability of this
standard.
(iii) D007 Refractory Bricks. Some
D007 nonwastewaters are generated in
the form of refractory bricks containing
percent levels of hexavalent chromium.
The Agency has identified one facility
that is recovering chromium using a high
temperature thermal recovery process.
The bricks are crushed and recycled as
feedstock along with other raw
materials in the manufacture of
refractory bricks or metal alloys. This
recovery technology is currently used
for bricks that contain up to 20%
chromium but the facility believes the
technology can treat bricks containing
up to 40% chromium. However, the
facility also indicated that there are
upper limits on the amount of
phosphorus present in the bricks that
would lower the quality of the product
EPA has determined that this thermal
recovery process is an alternative
treatment for some forms of these D007
refractory bricks. However, the Agency
is currently uncertain to what extent this
thermal recovery technology is
demonstrated for all of the various types
of refractory bricks currently being land
disposed. Thus, the Agency is not
establishing high.temperature thermal.
recovery as a treatment standard for .
these D007 wastes, but is not precluded
from doing so in the future. At the same
timer faculties are not precluded from
using this technology for these types of
wastes. ,.-.,..-. :
Some commenters submitted data on
the stabilization of these spent
refractory bricks. These data are one of
the seven data sets rejected by the
Agency for reasons outlined in section
m.A.2.(e)(l) above. These data consist
of analysis on two TCLP extracts of
crushed refractory brick that were
subjected to two different stabilization
technologies. One technology utilized
cement as a stabilization reagent and
achieved a treated TCLP level for
chromium of 70 mg/1. The other
technology was a glassification process
that achieved a treated TCLP level for
chromium of 110 mg/1. While these
performance data are incomplete, they
appear to indicate that chromium bricks
could be more difficult to treat than the
other chromium containing wastes
tested by EPA (KB62 or F006) or, more
likely, that stabilization of chromium
bricks may need to be preceded by a
hexavalent chromium reduction step.
Congress in fact contemplated that
hexavalent chromium would be reduced
to the maximum extent possible before
prohibited wastes are land disposed.
Statement of Senator Chaffee, 130 Cong.
Rec. S 9178 (July 25,1984). EPA thus
does not view these data as representing
BDAT, nor as minimizing threats to
human health and the environment.
See also preceding section
fflA.3.(a)(2) discussing treatment
standards for inorganic solids debris
(including refractory bricks) and the two
year national capacity variance granted
for these wastes.
(2) U032. The treatment standards
promulgated today for U032 are
transferred from the treatment of K062
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
believes that K062 wastes are more
difficult to treat than U032 wastes, in
that U032 wastes should contain lower
concentrations of potentially interfering
metals than K062 wastes and should
primarily contain only one specific
chromium compound (i.e., the calcium
salt of chromic acid). Because of this,
EPA sees no technical bar to
transferring data to establish treatment
standards for U032 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. *
-------
' ' '.$!> . >.-; ' -
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 /Friday. June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations 22565
" >V-...J,tNonwastewaters], ^, . . . --.-V
Regulated constituent
Maximum.
forany
-single grab
. sample, .
TCLP(mg/l)
- /5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DOD7
.'.- [Wastewaters] ,.-:-. -" -
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)..
Maximum ..
forany
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U032
tNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)...
Maximum
forany
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.094
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U032
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total) '...
Maximum
forany
single grab
sample,
total
composition
0.32
f. Lead
D008EP toxic for lead.
P110Tetraethyl lead.
U144Lead acetate.
U14SLead phosphate.
U146Lead subacetate.
K069Emission control dust/sludge from
secondary lead smelting.
K100Waste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emission control dust/sludge '
from secondary lead smelting.
(1) D008 Wastes. The Agency, as one
alternative, proposed treatment
standards below the characteristic
levels for nonwastewaters and
wastewaters as 0.51 mg/l TCLP and 0.04
mg/l, respectively. The Agency also
proposed an option of capping the
treatment standards for DOOB at the
characteristic level. Additional data and
comments were received that indicated
that the proposed levels of 0.51 mg/l
TCLP and 0.04 mg/l were unachievable
for many DOOB wastes on a routine i >.
basis; After detailed analysis of the ;--;-
-available data, EPA concludes that
treatment to 5.0 mg/l EP best represents
the achievable treatment standard for-
the entire spectrum of DOOB --...
nonwastewaters. In addition, EPA is ' "'
establishing the treatment standard for
; wastewaters at the characteristc level :
for the reasons stated in section m.D of i
the preamble. / . " - ";v
(a) Nonwastewaters. The Agency
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. Consequently, the
Agency proposed two treatability
groups for lead based on the 2.5% cutoff
as the Low and High Lead Subcategory.
The Agency solicited comments on the
use of the cutoff level and whether the
2.5% total lead gives an accurate
description of lead that can be recycled
from DOOB nonwastewaters. Many
commenters requested that the Agency
not promulgate the cutoff level. In fact,
many commenters suggested that it is
not economically feasible to recycle
lead from wastes with less than 25%
lead. Many commenters (inlcuding those
from secondary lead industry itself) also
stated that lead concentrations are not
the sole measure of recyclability. The
commenters presented data that
indicates that DOOB nonwastewaters
with greater than 2.5% total lead can
often be stabilized. Therefore, the
Agency has decided not to promulgate
the cutoff levels and has decided not to
adopt proposed high and .low lead
treatabUity groups for DOOB
nonwastewaters and instead to
promulgate generically applicable
treatment standards.
In addition, the Agency proposed and
solicited comments on three options for
the development of treatment standards
for DOOB nonwastewaters. The first
option was to develop a numerical
treatment standard for those DOOB
nonwastewaters that can be stabilized.
Consequently, the Agency proposed a
numerical treatment standard of 0.51
mg/l for leachable lead based on a
transfer of the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes. The ;
second option was to specify Thermal
Recovery as a method of treatment as
the treatment standard for DOOB
nonwastewaters where the lead could
be recovered. The third option was to '
limit the treatment standard for DOOB
nonwastewaters to the characteristic
level. '.
During the comment period, the
Agency received DOOB nonwastewater
data from various sources. Most of the
' data came from stabilizing specific DOOB
nonwastewaters. Some of the data were -
', from the foundry industry, secondary
lead smelters, the glass industry, and
: commercial treaters of DOOB: ;^r. : .
nonwastewaters. The majority of the ' *
- data received by the Agency did hot ;
'have the proper QA/QC, corresponding -
influent and effluent data, and design
and operating parameters, so the ' ;
Agency is hesitant to use the 'data in
developing treatment standards. The
' Agency, nevertheless, evaluated all of
the data to assess the range of waste
variability and what standard could
typically be achieved.
Stabilization data was submitted by
the foundry industries by Wheland
Foundry and the American Foundrymen.
The untreated lead concentration ranged
up to 88 mg/l leachable using the EP
toxicity test. An analysis of the data
indicates that the performance of the
treatment system could achieve
leachable levels of lead lower than the
characteristic level. In fact, the highest
leachable concentration of lead is 1.4
mg/l. Although these data showed that
the leachable concentration of lead was
below the characteristic level, the
leachable level for cadmium was higher
than the characteristic level. These data
clearly show that the other metals in the
wastes "could affect the performance of
stabilization for this waste. Put another
way, this means (assuming proper
treatment performance) that the
performance of the treatment system
could achieve concentration levels
below the characteristic level for lead
but levels higher than the characteristic
level for cadmium.
Data was submitted by two glass
manufactures, Vision Ease and Ciby-
Geigy Corporation. Vision Ease
submitted treatment data for
stabilization of ground glass particles,
wastewater treatment sludges, and
polishing and grinding dust The type of
binder used was hydrated lime and
sodium monophosphate. The commenter
indicated that these untreated wastes
contained total lead concentrations
greater than 2.5% and leached higher
than the characteristic level; however,
no actual influent concentrations were
submitted. The commenter also did not
submit QA/QC data. If the Agency
calculated a treatment standard using
the stabilized data, the standard would
be the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/l
measured by the EP test.
Ciby-Geigy submitted treatment data
for waste produced in the manufacture
of glass enamels. These wastes were
produced from equipment and container
washing during the manufacturing
-------
22568
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
. procest.^These.'washing were treated by
a WMtewatertreatment system that
, generated * sludge that exhibited tire ? -
«characteristic of toxkdty for lead.-The
commentersubmitted two sets of data.
The firsrset of data was treatment of a- .-
' 25.6% lead oxide sludge by stabilizing ".
° with days,-flhits, and calcaum^hloride
and then heating the waste to a -
maximum temperature of 1850 degrees.
Fahrenheit to produce a ceramic - -
materiaL Thin ceramic material leached
lead concentration ranging from 0.2 to
0.4 ppm as-measured by the EP test If
the Agency calculated a treatment
standard for this waste, the treatment
standard would be 0.89 mg/1 measured
by the EP teat For this data set, there .
' was no untreated leachable
concentrations of lead, therefore the
Agency cannot determine whether the
waste was hazardous before treatment.
The second data set contained lead
oxide concentration ranging from 13% to
75%. The waste was mixed with borax
and then heated to a maximum
temperature of 1950 degrees Fahrenheit.
This ceramic material leached lead at.
levels ranging from 0.2-40 ppm measued
by the EP test. Of the 11 data points that
were collected by the commenter, 4 of
the 11 would fail the EP test The
Agency did not use these data to
calculate a treatment standard,
however, because each used different
binder ratios. These two data sets from
glass manufacturers clearly show the
diversity of the waste and a difference
in treatable levels. In some cases
stabilization can reduce teachability of
lead at, or somewhat below, the
characteristic level.
The Agency received data from the
Secondary Lead Smelters Association
(SLS A) on the treatment of slag by
stabilization. The wastes contained total
1 concentrations of up to 10 percent lead.
The types of binders that were used
were portland cement polymers, and >
silicates. The commenter submitted
approximately 110 data points from two
different plants. The binder to waste
ratios ranged from 1 to 2, to 1 to 15. In
the data submission, there was no QA/
QC data and no corresponding influent
leachable lead concentration. One data
set was based on use of portland cement
as a stabilizing agent with a binder to
waste ratio ranging from 1 to 5, to 1 to
10. The Agency calculated a treatment
standard of 2.47 mg/l-was measured by
the TCLP from these data. The other
data set was based on the use of
polymers and silicates as stabilizing
agents with binder to waste ratio
ranging from 1 to 5, to4 to 10. There
were approximately 94 data points, and
of these data points, one was above the
characteristic level forlead. The Agency
used these data to calculates treatment
.standard of 4^2 mg/1 as measuredby,
the TCLP.. - '
The Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC) submitted eight data
-sets for the treatment of D008 «.."=-
Honwastewaters. There was no QA/QC
and influent leachable concentration of
lead. The data set with the highest
concentration of total lead was-a zinc
ammonium chloride solid from the
manufacture of containers. This waste .
had a total lead concentration of 49,000
ppm. This waste was stabilized to a
leachable level of lead ranging from 6.47
to 8.7 ppm as measured by the TCLP.
This stabilized waste represented a
volume increase ratio ranging from 1.8 to
2.5.
The data set with the next highest
total lead concentration was generated
from an incinerator fly ash from the
aerospace industry that contained 810
ppm of total lead. Based on the data
provided in the comments, this waste
would not be considered
characteristically hazardous due to the
fact that the untreated leachable level
for lead is 04)749 ppm. This waste was
treated by stabilizing with a binder to
waste ratio ranging from 0.89 to 2.8. The
treated leachable levels ranged from 0.1
to .27 ppm as measured by the TCLP.
The third highest data set represented
data from three soils contaminated with
lead and petroleum, with concentrations
ranging from 29 to 561 ppm total lead.
This waste contained total lead
concentration of 29 ppm, and had a
corresponding untreated leachable level
of 6.01 ppm as measured by the TCLP,
which is above the characteristic level.
These soils resulted in the best
treatment with levels ranging from .066
to 0.257 ppm as measured by the TCLP.
This represented a volume increase
ranging from 1.6 to 3.4.
The HWTC provided three other data
sets representing waste generated «s
water filtrate and sludge from the
manufacture of conduit as ammonium
hydroxide sludge from electroplating,
and as sump sludge from the
reconditioning of metal drums. These
wastes had total lead concentrations
. ranging from 234 to 460 ppm. There was
no untreated TCLP data corresponding
to the total lead levels. The stabilized
wastes ranged in concentration from .06
to .10 ppm as measured by the TCLP.
The binder to waste ratio ranged from
1.6 to 3.5.
Of these data, the waste with the
highest total lead concentration shows
treatment levels barely above the
characteristiclevelof-5 ppm.These data
. show that a high concentration of lead
(approximately 5%) could barely be
.stabilized to the characteristic level
(although the data are so sparse that no
hard conclusions are possible). These
data also show that most of the ,.
untreated wastes discussed in the '
HWTC comments did not exhibit a
.characteristic before stabilization; Also,
these data highlight the diversity of O008 ,
nonwastewaters that can be treated.
The HWTC commented on data.
submitted to EPA from the Secondary
Lead Smelters Association (SLSA). The
HWTC concluded that the treatment .
data support concentrations of lead
below the characteristic level. The
HWTC also stated mat these data
support the proposed BDAT treatment
standard of 0.51 mg/1, or at least
achieving levels below the characteristic
level. The HWTC points out that agents
such as fly ash, lime, and sulfide would
provide for a higher degree of
stabilization than just adding portland
cement.
The Agency does not agree with the
HWTC that these data support
treatment levels significantly below the
characteristic level. The data provided
by SLSA clearly show that two treated
data points of 87 were above the,
characteristic level. The Agency used
the data to calculate a treatment
standard of 4.82 mg/1, very close to the
5.0 mg/1 characteristic level, fa addition,
the Agency does not agree with HWTC
that other stabilizing agents may
provide a higher degree of stabilization.
At the least the proposition is not self-
evident. The data provided by SLSA
show treatment by three types of
binders and a significant range of binder
to waste ratios. Using the highest binder
to waste ratio for these wastes, the
treated level is higher than the
characteristic level, (fa addition, there
are issues of whether stabilization of
slag is appropriate treatment. See
discussion of inorganic debris in
preamble section III.A,l.a.(2).)
The Agency does not believe that the
data it received hi response to the
proposed rule represent the entire
spectrum of characteristic lead
nonwastewaters. Also, these data do not
support the assumption that
characteristic lead nonwastewaters can
typically be treated to levels
significantly less than the EP
characteristic level. The limited amount
of data does not reflect the full measure
of waste variability inherent in a
characteristic waste, particularly -
variability of matrices and lead
concentrations. In addition, the
commenters do not address how
treatability of other metals could be
affected by optimized lead treatment,
-------
Federal Registeri/-YoL -55, No. 106/ ..Friday.- |une 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22567
nor has EPAhad-the time to address this
issue. With the treatment of the Vision
Ease waste to S.Omg/1 as measured by
the EP and the SLSA data, demonstrating
treatment to 4JJ2 mg/1 as measured.by . '-
the TCLP. and data points above .the .-... >-
characteristic level submitted by the ,
waste treatment industry, the Agency is
adopting for nonwastewater forms of :
D008 wastes, the treatment standard ",.
equal to 5.0 mg/1 as measured by the EP
procedure. The Agency is adopting this
approach to address the range of
variability inherent hi the D008 wastes.
Because a f acility may generate a
waste containing lead 'and other metals,
the TCIJP (which is required for most
other metals) may be used to measure
compliance with this standard. EPA is
not basing the standard for D008 on the
TCLP, however, because that protocol is
more aggressive for lead than the EP.
The Agency is not sure that levels of 5.0
mg/1 as measured by the TCLP are
typically achievable. The TCLP can be
used to demonstrate compliance.
However, if the analysis shows that the
waste leaches below 5JO mg/1 for lead as
measured by the TCLP, then the facility
has complied with the standard. If the
waste leaches above 5.0 mg/1 for lead,
then the facility may analyze the sample
using the EP procedure. (It should be
noted, however, that if a waste exhibits
the amended toxicity characteristic, it
must still be managed in a Subtitle C
facility even if it is not prohibited from
land disposal).
(b) Wastewaters. In the November 22,
1989, proposed rule, the Agency
proposed a treatment standard for D008
wastewaters of O04 mg/1 based on a
transfer of the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide,
filtration, and settling for K062
wastewaters. In addition, the Agency
solicited comments on the approach of.
specifying a precipitant as a method of
treatment for D008 wastewaters.
Comments were solicited on whether
the Agency should develop treatment
standards based on data provided from
the primary and secondary lead
smelters industries as part of the
Agency's effluent limitation guidelines
program.
Many commenters questioned the'
Agency's technical capabilities of the
transfer of the performance of the
treatment system for K062 wastes as
compared to D008 wastewaters. In
particular, the commenters pointed out
that the untreated K062 wastewaters
. had low concentration of lead compared
to .the D008 wastes as actually
generated. However, commenters
submitted additional data indicating
that although the 0.04 mg/1 for lead was
unachievable,, precipitation and
filtration treatment could achieve
concentrations of lead in the effluent .....
lower than the characteristic level.
In particular, the Agency received
treatment data for BOOS wastewaters -
from three Sources. One set of data
submitted to the Agency-was from the
Battery Council. Inc (BCI). These data
represented a small portion of the data
that was collected in the effluent
limitations guidelines program for the
battery and nonferroos metals point
source .category. BCTs contention was
that if the Agency decides to develop
treatment standards lower than the
characteristic level for D008
wastewaters, then the Agency should
base the levels on the effluent guidelines
for the battery and nonferrous metals
categories. The Battery Council
submitted treatment data using the
following treatment technologies: lime
settling, lime settling and filtration, and
carbonate precipitation, settling, and
filtration. This data showed influent
concentration levels ranging up to 300
ppm. The data showed a substantial
reduction of lead and other metals from
the treatment system. BCI submitted
corresponding quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) information for the
data. If the Agency uses the data from
the treatment system, the calculated
treatment standard would be roughly 0.6
mg/1, an order of magnitude lower than
the characteristic level.
In addition, the Agency received D008
wastewater data from Trial
Environmental Services, a treater of
D008 and other characteristically
hazardous wastewaters. However, this
waste was commingled with other waste
before treatment, thereby blending
down such that the concentration of
lead would be lower than what was
actually reported. Data was submitted
on the treatment of lead by precipitation
with phosphate, followed by settling,
and filtration. The concentration of lead
in the influent before blending down
ranged up to 50,000 ppm. If the Agency
used all of the treatment data in order to
calculate a treatment standard, the
performance of the treatment system
indicates that a calculated treatment
standard is-0.2 mg/L which is more than
an order of magnitude lower than the
characteristic level. The Agency would
hesitate to use me data in developing
treatment standards for D008
wastewaters due to the lack of QA/QC
.data and corresponding influent and
effluent data. Because of the initial
concentration of lead and
concentrations of other dissolved metal,
the Agency believes that these wastes
represent the variability associated with
the characteristic wastes. .,
Also, the Agency received treatment
data from a foundry facility treating --, '' ,
D008 wastewater. This data represents "
treated wastewaters by precipitation
with high magnesium lime and filtration. -
The lead concentration in the untreated -
wastewaterranged op to 27&mg/l. If 1he
Agency used all of the treatment data,
the calculated treatment standard is 0.4
mg/1, which is an order of magnitude :
lower than the characteristic level. For -
this data, the Agency evaluated the QA/
QC data, the design and operating
parameters, and corresponding influent
concentrations.
Based on the evaluation of all of the
wastewaters data received from
comments, as well as the various Clean
Water Act, effluent limitation guidelines
and pretreatment standards regulating
lead (for example, the Combined Metals
Data Base and regulations for primary
lead, secondary lead and battery
manufacturing), the Agency concludes
that well designed and well operated
treatment systems can achieve total
concentrations of lead lower than the
characteristic leveL As explained in
Section m.D, however. EPA has
determined not to require hazardous
wastewaters to be treated to levels less
than the characteristic level in order to
avoid significant and potentially
environmentally counterproductive
disruptions to the NPDES/pretreatment
and UIC programs.
In addition, many commenters
suggested that the Agency not specify a
precipitant as a method of treatment for
D008 wastewaters. Many commenters
suggest that particular precipitants may
perform better depending on the
characteristics of the waste. For
example, Trial Environmental points
out that phosphate is a superior
precipitant than carbonate or sulfate
because of the low solubility of lead
phosphate. The Agency agrees with the
commenters and is not promulgating a
precipitant as a-method of treatment. In
fact, the Agency is promulgating the
treatment standard at the characteristic
level, thereby treaters and generators of
D008 wastewaters may select any
precipitant in order to meet the
characteristic level.
(c) Lead Acid Batteries. For lead acid
batteries, the Agency is promulgating a
standard of "Thermal recovery of lead
hi secondary lead smelters (RELEAD)"'
(See §268.42 Table 1 in today's rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code in the parentheses.)
The Agency believes that virtually all of
-------
22568 Tederal ^Register / VoL .55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
,»the treaters of lead acid batteries are ';
using a recovery process. -,^ ; ' -
« Incidentally, the Agency notes that ,
* lead add batteries themselves, when
stored* are not considered to be land ,
disposed because the battery is
considered to be a container (see 40 CFR
2Q4.314(dH3)). Battery storage, however,
typically is subject to the subpart J
storage standards (relating to secure
storage! secondary containment in some
instances, and other requirements). See
subpart G of part 268.
Other commenters questioned
whether the slag or matte from recovery
processes would need further treatment
and whether these wastes should be
placed in monoBlls. The residuals from
the recovery process are a new
treatability group (i.e. the residues are
not lead acid batteries) and therefore
their status as prohibited or
nonprohibited is determined at the point
the residues are generated. Such
residues would thus only be prohibited
and therefore require further treatment
if they exhibit a characteristic. See
discussion of inorganic debris in section
III.A.3.Q of today's rule.
(2) P120, U144, U145, and U146
Wastes. The Agency proposed
wastewater treatment standards for
lead forPllO, U144, U145, U146 based on
a transfer of the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide,
filtration, and settling for K062
wastewaters. While these U and P codes
represent primarily organo-lead
compounds and one may consider that
the transfer from an inorganic lead to an
organic lead is not feasible, no
comments were received indicating the
lack of achievability. The Agency's
judgment is that the standard is
technically feasible. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating a standards for
lead to PllO, U144, U145. U146
wastewaters of 0.04 mg/1 as proposed.
The Agency has determined that some
nonwastewater forms of lead wastes
including PllO, U144, U146, and some
D003 wastes, would need to be
incinerated prior to .stabilization due to,
the presence of high concentrations of
organics in order to, achieve a treatment
standard based 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 on organic
wastes containing up to 1,000 mg/kg
lead (such as K087 wastes) followed by
stabilization of the ash. These data
indicate that the proposed standard (i.e.
0.51 mg/1 leachable lead) can'be
achieved for wastes that also contain
' significant concentrations of organics,
provided the organics are destroyed by
pretreatment. Lead acetate (U144) and
lead subacetate (U146) are anticipated
to be less difficult (or at least of-similar
difficulty) to treat than tetraethyl lead. "
The Agency is therefore promulgating
the 0.04 mg"/l standard for organo-lead
compounds, PllO, U144, and U146.
Additionally, the Agency received no
comments on the feasibility of the . :. :.
transfer of lead in K082 wastewaters to
lead phosphate U145.Therefore, the
Agency will promulgate as proposed.
(3) KOB9. In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
K069 nonwastewaters in the Calcium
Sulfate Subcategory, and for wastewater
forms of K069. In addition, the Agency is
revoking the no land disposal based on
recycling as a treatment standard for the
Non Calcium Sulfate Subcategory for
K069 nonwastewaters and is
promulgating "Thermal Recovery of
Lead in Secondary Lead Smelters
(RLEAD)". See § 288.42 Table 1 in
today's rule for a detailed description of
the technology standard referred to by
the five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
For K069 wastewaters, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
cadmium and lead. For cadmium, the
treatment standard is based on the
performance of chemical precipitation
with lime and sulfide and sludge
dewatering for K062 wastes. For lead,
the treatment standard is based on the
performance of chemical precipitation
with magnesium hydroxide followed by
clarification and sludge dewatering for
D008 wastewaters. This treatment data
was submitted as part of the public
comment period. The Agency believes
that these wastewaters better represent
a K069 wastewater due to the
concentration of lead (i.e. up to 300
ppm). The Agency believes that the
performance of both technologies can
achieve the regulated concentration due
to the fact that both precipitating agents
are hydroxides.
BDAT 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 indicated 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 transferring the performance
of stabilization of K061 to K069
nonwastewaters. This is a technically
feasible transfer because the K061 waste
is a more difficult waste to treat. In fact.
the lead concentrations in K061 waste
ranges up to 20,300 ppm thus, the
performance of the treatment system'
can be legitimately transferred.
\4)'K100. In today's rule, the Agency is ,
promulgating treatment standards for .,
wastewaters and nonwastewater forms
of KlOO wastes as proposed. For ].
cadmium and total chromium in K100
wastewaters, treatment standards are
based on a transfer of the performance
of chromium reduction followed by.'lime
and sulfide precipitation, and
dewatering for K062 wastes. For lead in
K100 wastewaters. treatment standard
is based on the performance of chemical
precipitation with magnesium hydroxide
followed by clarification and sludge
dewatering for D008 wastewaters. The
Agency believes that both technologies
can achieve the concentration of the
regulated constituents due to the fact
that both precipitating agents are
hydroxides. For K100 nonwastewaters
treatment standards are based on the
transfer of the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes.
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 FR18836) 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).;" The
Agency received no comments on the
treatment standards for KlOO wastes;
therefore, the Agency is promulgating as
proposed.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum
, for any
single grab
sarnple, EP
(mg/1)
Lead..
5.0
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, TL990 / Rules and Regulations 22569
BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
.' " ,'", [Wastewatew] - ...,-.
^Regulated constituent'
,.,"-.
Lfffid.... - HI ii
vngii)
SJO
Maximum
for any ' -
-Single ffsb
sample,
totaT
corepositon
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
. [Lead Acid Batteries]
Thermal recovery (RLEAD) of lead in secondary lead
smeHers
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P110,
U144,U145,ANDt)146
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead.
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.040
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P110,
U144, U145, AND U146
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.51
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Lead.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
1.6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
CALCIUM SULFATE SUBCATEGORY
'[Nonwastewaters}
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Lead
Maximum
for any
.single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS T=OR K069
NON-GALCIUM SULFATE SUBCATEGORY
[Nonwastewaters; Revised From No Land Disposal]
Thermal recovery Of toad In secondary lead smelters
. - (RLEAD) -
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K100
[Wastewaters; Revised From No Land Disposal]
. 0.14
O.24
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
1.6
0.32
0.51
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K100
[Nonwastewaters; Revised From No Land Disposal]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium _
Chromium (Total)-
Lead..-
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.066
5.2
* See § 268:42 Table 1 in today's rute for a de-
tailed description of the technology standard referred
to by the five letter technology code in parentheses.
g. Mercury
D009EP toxic for mercury.
K071Brine purification muds from the
mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately prepurified
brine is not used.
K106Wastewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production.
P065Mercury fulminate.
P092Phenylmercury acetate.
U151Mercury.
EPA is today promulgating treatment
standards for D009, K106. P065, P092,
and U151. EPA has revised the proposed
regulatory approach for some of these
wastes in response to comment. EPA is
also withdrawing the proposed revisions
for K071 nonwastewaters. These wastes
are described fully in the respective
Listing Background Documents.
(1] Review of BOAT for
Nonwastewaters. EPA identified
thermal recovery processes,-acid
leaching, stabilization, and incineration
as BDAT for mercury wastes.
Commenters questioned whether
thermal processing of mercury should be
the basis (or the exclusive basis) for-the
treatment standard. Use of thermal .,
processing raises issues of .cross-media
transfer of mercury, as well as the
environmental benefit of thermal
processing over stabilization or land
disposal. Other comments questioned
the amenability of mercury sulfide
wastes to stabilization as well as EPA's
proposed restrictions on co-disposal of .
mercury wastes with alkaline wastes.
The stabilizatjon.comments and the co- t
disposal issues are -addressed in section
Multimedia issues raised by thermal
processing of mercury materials involve
the potential transfer of mercury and
sulfuriiioxide from the retorting/
roasting chambers to downstream air
pollution control devices (APCD) and
potentially to environmental media (e.g.,
air to water). Specifically, commenters
felt that EPA had not properly
addressed the issue of mercury air
emissions from retorting and urged EPA
to quantify mercury emissions prior to
determining whether roasting or
retorting represents BDAT for mercury
and sulfide wastes (i.e., K106).
The Agency acknowledges the
legitimacy of the commenters' concerns,
which the Agency shares. The Agency
discussed the issue of ah- controls for
mercury retorting at 54 FR 48501. In
addition, the Agency provided
calculations in the administrative record
for the proposed rule of the potential
amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions to
the air that could result from the
retorting or roasting of mercury sulfide
wastes such as K106, based on available
performance data from a facility
thermally processing cinnabar ores. EPA
also included the document entitled,
"Review of National Emission
Standards (NESHAPs) for Mercury"
(EPA 450/3-84-014, 1984) in the
proposed administrative record. In this
1984 document EPA provided
quantitative analysis for the potential of
mercury air emissions from several
industrial operations that include the
thermal processing of cinnabar ores as
well as the retorting of mercury
containing wastes.
The available air emission
information shows that both mercury
and sulfur dioxide emissions can be
effectively controlled by well designed
and well operated air pollution control
devices that allow for the recovery of -
valuable mercury. Based on available
air emission information, performance
data from the thermal processing of
. cinnabar ores, and performance data
from the retorting/roasting of mercury
wastes, EPA determined that retorting/
roasting represent BDAT for mercury
wastes. EPA reaffirms -this '
determination in today's rale. In order to
assure that air emissions from mercury
-------
Tederal -Register /. Vol. 55, No. 406 / Friday. June 1.1990 / Rules and Regulations
.are controlled adequately, the Agency is .
.Bpedftdngaspartof BDATthat.the - , >*
rdtorting.unit either, (aj be subject tp.the _
mercuryNESHAP; (h) be subject to a ...-_
BACT or LAER standard formercury - ;
imposed pursuant to a PSDjoermit; or (c)
that it be subject to a state, permit that. ,
establishes emiBsion limitations (within
lhp meaning of section 302 of the Clean .:
Air Act) for mercury. The Agency
believes that with such air emission _
controls retorting is a treatment - - .
technology that minimizes" threats to
human health and the environment and
so satisfies the requirements of section
3004(m). (Pending amendments to the
Clean Air Act may also result in
imposition of standards for these units.)
(The Agency's authority to impose these
conditions on performance of a mercury
retorting device comes directly from its
authority under section 3004(m) to
establish methods of treatment EPA is
Indicating here that part of the
designated method includes operating
pursuant to standards that prevent
cross-media contamination. Such
standards are enforceable under RCRA
pursuant to the authority in section
3008(a).) In addition, as discussed more
fully below, the Agency believes that
this technology is preferable to
stabilization.
Several commenters believe that the
treatment standards of roasting and
retorting are not needed for K106 wastes
that are generated as mercury sulfides.
According to the commenters, these
K106 wastes contain mercury in one of
its less soluble forms. As a result, the
commenters argued that sulfide
stabilizationincluding the sulfide
precipitation treatment that generates
the K106should be considered a mode
of treatment under RCRA section
3004(m). The commenters also believe
the migratory potential of mercury from
sulfide sludges to the air or water is less
than what could result from retorting/
roasting.
EPA has evaluated these comments
carefully but determined that treatment
standards for those mercury wastes
amenable to recovery should be based
on recovery technologies. There is a
strong preference in the land disposal
restrictions legislation for treatment
standards to be based on recovery
where possible (e.g., S. Rep. No. 284 at
17). This preference.is reinforced by the
overall goals of RCRA to encourage
waste minimization and resource
recovery (e.g., RCRA section 1003(a)(6)).
The Agency further concludes that
compliance with the mercury NESHAP,
PSD BACT/LAER controls, or state
permitting requirements will ensure that
air emissions of mercury are controlled
so asio.be protective of human health,.
and the environment. Commenters also.
raised the potential for fugitive air ...
emissions from mercury waste handling
operations preceding retorting. Since -
retorters would normally require RCRA
storage permits, however, permit writers
are able to craft controls to adequately
control fugitive emissions using the
omnibus authority in RCRA section
3005(c)(3). (The Agency intends to issue
guidance to permit writers on this : . ,
matter.) .. '-
rJEPA has also considered the argument
that wastes from retorting will contain a
more leachable form of mercury than at
least the mercury sulfide wastes (such
as K106) being smelted in the unit.
Although this will be true in some cases,
as demonstrated in the record leachable
mercury in retorting wastes'will still be
at low levels, and well below the
characteristic level. More important,
there will be less mercury to leach
because most mercury will be recovered
as product The Agency estimates,
based on data from the thermal
processing of cinnabar ores and the
retorting/roasting of a mixture of K071
and K106 wastes, that mercury retorting
can recover 98-89% of mercury
contained in the feed material. The
overall potential of disposed mercury to
be released to the environment will thus
be significantly reduced. Retorting/
roasting also achieves volumetric waste
minimization compared to stabilization,
because it reduces the overall volume of
waste to be disposed, unlike
stabilization which increases overall
volume. The Agency thus concludes that
retorting/roasting is the appropriate
method of treatment for recoverable
mercury wastes. As explained below,
however, the Agency has modified its
proposed approach with respect to
which mercury wastes are recoverable.
(2) Revisions to the Cut-Off Level for
Mercury Subcategories. EPA proposed a
cut-off level of 16 rag/kg of total mercury
in a hazardous waste to delineate two
subcategories of mercury wastes (54 FR
48441-42), high and low, with high
mercury wastes being required to meet a
standard based on recovery. The 16 rag/
kg cut-off level was calculated from two
sets of retorting/roasting data collected
by EPA. One data set represents the
retorting/roasting of mercury chloride/
mercury sulfide wastes (mixture of K071
and K106). The other data set represents
the thermal processing of cinnabar ores
which the Agency believes can simulate
the retorting/roasting of mercury sulfide
sludges (i.e., K108 wastes) because
wastewater treatment sludges (including
sulfide sludges) are routinely burned in
multiple hearth furnaces, the same (or
.similar) type of furnace that processes
cinnabar ores. EPA relied on the K071/
K106 treatment residual data, on the
analytical data of cinnabar ore thermal' "
recovery, and on the performance data
from the thermal processing of cinnabar
.ores for the purpose of calculating the 16
mg/kg cut-off level. The level reflected
the Agency's view of mercury levels.
remaining after properly conducted
recovery, and assumed that any higher
level is recoverable. The majority of the
commenters'have submitted comments
and data urging EPA to reconsider the
proposed cut off level of 16 mg/kg in the
retorting residual use at proposal to
define the two subcategories of mercury
wastes.
The Chlorine Institute (CI) and
OxyChem have submitted performance
data based on the retorting/roasting of
mercury wastes. The Chlorine Institute's
performance data consists of bench- and
pilot-scale test studies for the roasting of
K106 having mercury sulfide species.
OxyChem performance data consist of
full-scale retorting tests of K106 and
D009 wastes. None of OxyChem's K106
and D009 wastes had mercury sulfide
species.
The Chlorine Institute's data show
that mercury sulfide sludges (K106
wastes) differ from cinnabar ores with
regard to the concentration of chloride
salts. The Chlorine Institute believes
that the high concentrations of chloride
salts in K106 are likely to interfere with
the overall performance of retorting/
roasting operations. As explained in
detail in the BDAT and Response to
Comments Background Documents,
however, EPA believes these chloride
salts can be effectively controlled by a
pretreatment step prior to retorting/
roasting along with the optimized
operation of the retorting/roasting
process.
The Chlorine Institute also believes
that their roasting data show that higher
concentrations of residual mercury, in
the order of 160 mg/kg mercury, may be
left behind in the residues from
retorting/roasting operations. OxyChem
likewise believes that their performance
data show that lower concentrations of
residual mercury cannot routinely be
achieved and thus should not be
required for mercury wastes below 260
mg/kg.
Another commenter pointed out more
fundamentally that EPA should base the
cut-off level ibr "Mercury
Subcategories" not on treated residuals
from the retorting/roasting operations
but rather on mercury concentrations in
the waste before retorting. In other
words, the determination of what is
recoverable should not be determined
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules' and Regulations 22571
solely by levels reflecting mercury :.
treatment The commenter also believes
that basing the cut-off level of "High
Mercury .Subcategory" on untreated '--
- mercury concentrations will better -.-.: .......
reflect similar BOAT determinations .
:EPA had made for other recoverable -
wastes such as K061. EPA's data for
untreated mercury wastes being ; ' .
.retorted/roasted domestically show ; '
. minimum concentrations of mercury up '
to 255 mg/kg (fora mixture of K106 and
KOTlwastes). - - '-"- "* -
Based on these comments, EPA is :';
revising the proposed cut-off level from
the proposed 16 mg/kg to 260 mg/kg ; .-
(rounded to. two significant figures).
Although the new cut-off level is based
on the available data for low mercury
concentrations of untreated mercury
wastes being retorted/roasted, EPA
points out that this new cut-off level of
260 mg/kg shuld not be deemed as a
relaxation of the standard or treatability
group. Instead, the new cut-off level
takes into account consistency in
identifying treatability groups and the
variability inherent to mercury sulfide
wastes, as documented by EPA's
thermal processing data of cinnabar
ores and the fact that available data on
these low levels of recoverable mercury
fully support that well-designed and -
operated thermal recovery processes
allow routine recovery of valuable
mercury.
For the purpose of this rule, mercury
nonwastewaters with mercury
concentrations equal to or above 260mg/
kg mercury belong to the High Mercury
Subcategory. Mercury nonwastewater
with mercury concentrations below the
260 mg/kg mercury belong to the Low .
Mercury Subcategory.
(3) Standards for All Wastewaters.
EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of 0.030 mg/1 mercury for K106,
P065, and P092. This treatment standard
is based on the precipitation of mercury
from wastewaters identified as K071
from the chlor-alkali industry using
sulfide as the precipitant.
EPA acknowledges that there may be
certain wastewaters that may require
combinations of other wastewater
treatment technologies which may -
include-either additional treatment (for
the destruction or removal of organics)
or additional treatment by sulfide
precipitation and filtration for the
purpose of meeting today's treatment
standards. The use of other wastewater
treatment technologies are not
precluded by this rule. This
determination seems to be supported by
the concurrence of other commenters
either with the proposed standards or
with EPA's determination of BDAT-for-
mercury wastewaters.
.. Some commenters objected to EPA's
rationale to.transfer the K071 . , .
performance data to K106, P065, P092,
U151. and D009 wastewaters. Among
these commenters, one believes the ; . =
proposed treatment standards .are based
on performance data that may not take
into account other forms of mercury v
constituents which can be less
amenable to sulfide treatment However,
this commenter submitted no specific
data.and thus-failed to demonstrate that
combinations of other wastewater .
technologies are unable to meet the / .
standards. ''.'.. -. , '
Other commenters concurring with
EPA's identification of BDAT believe
.EPA should base the treatment
standards on the Office of Water (OW)
performance data' supporting the
treatment standards for multi-source
leachate. These commenters believe the
OW-performance data represent the
treatment of a more-diverse universe of
K071 wastewater than the one tested by
EPA. These alternative performance
data result in a treatment standard of
0.11 mg/1 mercury.
The multi-source leachate treatment
performance data represent the
treatment provided by sulfide chemical
precipitation to different characteristic
wastewaters that may include K071
wastewaters. EPA believes that the data
developed from treating the specific
mercury wastes is preferable to a
transfer of performance data. Moreover,
the commenters advocating the transfer
submitted no data and so failed to
demonstrate unachievability of the
standards or whether their wastes are
significantly different from the treated
wastewaters supporting the proposed
standards. The Agency is not convinced
by these comments and thus, is
promulgating treatment standards for
"K106, P065, P092, and U151 as proposed.
For D009 wastewaters, EPA proposed
two regulatory options. One option was
to transfer K071's performance
treatment data and require a level of
treatment below the D009 characteristic
level. The other option Was to set a
treatment level at the characteristic
level. For reasons discussed in preamble
section I1I.D., EPA is promulgating
treatment standards at the characteristic
level of 0.20 mg/1 mercury for D009
wastewaters as measured by TCLP.
(4) Standards for K106 and U151
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
. treatment standards for these two
wastes as proposed (54 FR 48441). The
threshold for the High and Low Mercury
Subcategories is revised, however, as
explained hi section (2) above.
High Mercury. Subcategory K106 and
U151 wastes are required to be treated
by retorting/roasting as a prerequisite
'for land disposal. Residues from
retorting/roasting operations are not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0,2 mg/1, as
measured by the .TCLP (see § 268.9 of
the final rule indicating that normally. . ,
any disposal of a waste exhibiting a .
characteristic is prohibited). Data
indicate, .however, that residues from .
retorting these wastes do not leach . .
mercury at this level. Residues.' >.
unacceptable for land disposal (i.e., ,
above 0.2 mg/1) are required to comply ,
with the appropriate standards for K106 -
or U151 wastes (i.e., High or Low
Mercury Subcategory) presented below. -
It is impermissible to dilute a High
Mercury Subcategory waste to reduce
the mercury concentration to less than
260 mg/kg.
For K106 and U151 nonwastewaters in
the "Low Mercury Subcategory" (i.e.,
less than 260 mg/kg) the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of
0.025 mg/1 mercury as measured by the
TCLP leachate. This level is transferred
from acid leaching data for K071
nonwastewaters. Residues from this
acid leaching process must be evaluated
for mercury content to determine
whether they should undergo roasting/
retorting. KlOB and U151
nonwastewaters that contain less than
260 mg/kg and that also leach less than
0.025 mg/1 mercury (as measured in the
TCLP extract) are considered to have
met the BDAT and can be land
disposed.
(5) Withdrawal of Proposed Revisions
to K071 Nonwastewaters. EPA proposed
that certain K071 nonwastewaters be
retorted or roasted (54 FR 48442). The
Chlorine Institute and generators of
- K071 submitted comments to EPA
emphasizing that existing treatment
standards should not be revised. These
commenters pointed out that their K071
wastes currently being land disposed
already have low concentrations of
mercury (10 to 120 mg/kg mercury,
average) which EPA had deemed to
meet the requirement of 3004(m) of
HSWA. They believe these low mercury
concentrations are unattractive for
retorting/roasting operations. In
addition, they believe that retorting/
roasting may have not been
demonstrated'for these K071 wastes
since thp available data to EPA for the
retorting/roasting of K071 wastes
describe the treatment of untreated K071
wastes having low mercury
concentrations of up to 255 mg/kg.
Although EPA believes these treated
forms of K071 can be treated by
retorting/roasting, EPA is not adopting
the proposed revisions to K071 wastes
because their xecyclability is
-------
22572
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
' quB8tionable."The existing slandardior
, thesawastesthuaitffllstayinplace(53 ;
FR 31168, Augustl7.1888 and §268.41
{treatment standard forKOTl * -
nonwastewaters)). However, today's -
decision does fcot preclude the Agency
from revising the K071 treatment .
standards if new data becomelavailable.
WStandaida-forFOBSandP092 , -
Nonwaatewateis. EPA is promulgating
incineration ms the treatment standard
for FOBS and P092 nonwastewaters
followed by recovery or treatment of
mercury from the incineration treatment
residues if those residues are in the high
mercury subcategory. (As noted at
proposal, Ihese organo-mercury wastes
are not directly amenable for recovery,
bnt must be pretreated to destroy
carbon-metal bonds (54 FR 48442).)
Incineration nonwastewater.residues
from these wastes that are-above or
-- equal to 280 mg/kg are considered to
belong to the High Mercury Subcategory
and thus must be recovered by retorting
or roasting. Incineration wastewater
residues must meet the treatment level
of 0.030 mg/1 mercury as a prerequisite
for land disposal. Nonwastewater
residues from retorting/roasting
operations are not prohibited from land
disposal unless they leach mercury
above O2 mg/1, as measured by the
TCLP. Retorting/roasting residues
unacceptable for disposal (i-e., above O2
mg/1) are required to comply with the .
appropriate standards for the High or
Low Mercury Subcategory, depending
on whether their total mercury
concentration exceeds 280 mg/kg.
Incineration residues below 260 mg/kg
are considered to belong to the Low
Mercury Subcategory which are not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0.025 mg/1 (as
measured in the TCLP extract). See
section (4) above fora discussion of this
mercury leach leveL
(7) Standards for D009
Nanwastewaters.Th& treatment
standards for D009 nonwastewaters in
the High Mercury Subcategory are
promulgated as "Roasting or Retorting
as a Method of Treatment, or
Incineration followed by Roasting or
Retorting of Incinerator nonwastewater
residues (e.g., calcinates, soot. ash. or
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of incineration scrubber
waters) provided such residues exceed
260 mg/kg total mercury. Residues from
retorting/roasting operations are not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0.20 mg/1, as
measured by the TCLP. Retorting/
roasting residues unacceptable for
disposal (Le., above 0.20 mg/1) are
required to comply with the appropriate
standards for the High or Low Mercury
Subcategory.The applicable standards
for wastes in the Low Mercury
xSubcategory are discussedat the end of
this section. As aTesult, if the initial
organic content is too high forthe
retorting or roasting, incineration can be
used as a pretreatment step to the
retorting/roasting. -'. ' T
At least one facility submitted data
showing that wastes with
concentrations of semivolatile organics
up to 30 percent are currently being
. retorted outside the United States. The
facility described its waste as a mercury
spent catalyst contaminated with an
intermediate chemical used in the
, manufacture t>f polymers. The facility
sends this D009 waste overseas for the
purpose of direct retorting of mercury.
Based on this information, EPA believes
the proposed standards can be
promulgated as proposed.
Several commenters have identified a
list of D009 wastes which they believe
meet EPA's criteria of contaminated
soils and debris. The commenters
believe this list of D009 debris are not
amenable to retorting/roasting.
However, they have proposed
alternative treatment standards based
on the use of a chemical
decontamination technology. The
chemical decontamination standards
require the use of three steps: (1)
Decontamination of debris wastes based
on polysulfide or hydrochloride
solutions; (2) triple water rinses of the
chemically decontaminated wastes; and
(3) (sulfide) chemical precipitation of
mercury from contaminated solutions
arid water washes. The chemically
decontaminated and triple water rinsed
debris would not be prohibited from
land disposal.
EPA has been unable to determine
whether the alternative chemical
decontamination technology specifically
represents BDAT for these wastes. EPA
currently lacks performance data from
the use of this technology on D009
debris wastes. If performance data
become available, the Agency may be
publishing revisions to today's
standards as it continues the general
effort to develop separate standards for
soil and debris wastes. See also section
m.A.3.(a)(2) for a further discussion of
treatment for inorganic solids debris.
Another reason that the Agency is not
adopting these procedures as the
treatment standard for mercury debris is
the possibility that mercury could
ultimately be recovered. One commenter
provided information indicating that
their facility routinely recovers
chromium from debris such as waste
refractory bricks containing chromium.
The bricks are crushed and recycled as
feedstock along with other raw
materials in the manufacture of
refractory brick. EPA believes that this
recycling technology, (following
pretreatment) may be generally
applicable and can be used to treat at
least some DO09 debris.
For D009 wastes in the Low Mercury
Subcategory, EPA is promulgating a
treatment standard of 0.20 mg/1, as
measured by the TCLP. Achievability of
these standards are supported by K071
treatment data and other stabilization
data submitted to the Agency. The Final
BDAT Background Document for ;
Mercury contains a detailed technical-
discussion for the development of all the
treatment standards promulgated today.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
ANDU151
t All nonwastewaters in the High Mercury Subcateoo-
ty (i.e., greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg total
Roasting or Retorting (RMERC)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
ANDU151
CNonwastewaters that are residues from RMERC
and are in the Low Mercury Subcategory
-------
Federal Register /; Vol. 55. No. T.06 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and .Regulations 22573
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
IAD nonwastewaters that contain mercury and or-
fjanics (and are not incinerator residues) and are
. Sso in .the High Mercury Subcategory 0-e., greater
than or equal to.260mg/kg total mercury)]
'Incineration of wastes with organics and mercury
(IMERC) or roasting/retorting (RMERC)
BDAT.TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
INonwastewaters that are Inorganics (including in-
cinerator residues and residues from RMERC) and
are in the High Mercury Subcategory (i.e.. greater
than or equal to 260 mg/kg total mercury)]
Roasting or retorting (RMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
IAN nonwastewaters In the Low Mercury Subcatego-
ry (Le., toss than 260 mg/kg total mercury)]
Regulated constituent
Mercury.
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT.STANDARDS FOR D009
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Mercury...
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P.065
--<; ANDP092 '
[Nonwastewaters that are incinerator residues (and
are not residues from RMERC) that are also in the
' Low Mercury Subcategory (Le., less than 260 mg/
kg total mercury)]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
[All nonwastewaters that are not incinerator resi-
dues and are not residues from RMERC; regard-
less of Mercury Content]
Incineration of wastes with organics and mercury
(IMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P092
[All nonwastewaters that are not incinerator resi-
dues and are not residues from RMERC; regard-
less of Mercury Content]
Incineration of wastes with organics and mercury
(IMERC) or roasting/retorting (RMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
ANDP092
[Nonwastewaters that are either incinerator residues
or residues from RMERC, -and are in the High
Mercury Subcategory (i.e., greater than or equal to
260 mg/kg total mercury)]
Roasting or retorting (RMERC)
. ' . " - - ,-.f-~ - '
'- Regulated constituent
Maximum'
for any
single grab .
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.025
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P092
[Nonwastewaters that are residues from RMERC
and are in the Low Mercury Subcategory. (le., less
than 260 mg/kg total mercury)]
Regulated constituent
Mercury..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
ANDP092
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Mercury -
.
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.030
h. Selenium -
D010EP toxic for selenium
P103Selenourea
P114Thallium selenite
U204Selenious acid
U205Selenium disulfide
For the proposed rule the Agency had
no specific treatment data on RCRA
hazardous wastewaters or
nonwastewaters containing significant
quantities of selenium (54 FR 48433).
However, based on the similarities in
chemical behavior of arsenic and
selenium, the Agency extrapolated the
treatment performance data for arsenic-
containing wastewaters and
nonwastewaters to the selenium-
. containing wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, respectively.
(1) Standards for Selenium-Containing
Nonwastewaters. The Agency believes
that for most wastes containing high
concentrations of selenium, recovery of
selenium is feasible using recovery
technologies used by copper smelters
and copper refining operations. The
Agency does not have any performance '
data for selenium recovery, but
information available to the Agency
indicates that recovery of elemental
selenium out of certain types of scrap
material and other types of waste is
currently practiced in the United States.
The Agency requested comments and .
data on the applicability of these, and
any other, recovery technologies for
wastes containing selenium; however,
the Agency received no responses to .
these issues. . -
The Hazardous Waste Treatment :
Council (HWTC) submitted treatment
performance data for stabilization of
selenium wastes using proprietary
reagents to induce cementitious,
siliceous, and pozzolanic stabilization
reactions. One data set shows a D010
waste containing selenium
concentrations of 5 ppm total selenium
and 2.97 mg/l in the TCLP extract
reduced to concentrations of 0.282 mg/l
in the TCLP extract The binder-to-
waste ratio was 1 to 1. Another data set
shows results for treatment of a mineral
processing waste believed to be a D010
waste because of the high selenium
concentrations in the TCLP leachate.
The waste contains up to 700 ppm total
selenium and 3.74 mg/l selenium in the
TCLP leachate. The treated residuals
leach between 1.80 and 0.154 mg/l
selenium based on TCLP methodology.
This waste also contains high
concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and
lead. The binder to waste ratios varied
from 1.3 to 2.8.
Data were also submitted by the
HWTC for the stabilization of wastes
containing selenium dioxide (U204) an
selenium sulfide (U205). Data for
stabilization of the discarded pure
product show values of 30 and 6.05 mg/l
in the TCLP leachate for U204 and LT205,
respectively. The binder-to-waste ratios
were 1.8 for each study. Data for
stabilization of spiked soil samples
containing 1000 ppm of the U204
compounds show values of 45.6 mg/l in
the unstabilized TCLP leachate and 2.88
mg/l in the stabilized TCLP leachate.
Data for stabilization of spiked soil
samples containing 1000 ppm of the
U205 compounds show values of 0.207
mg/l in the unstabilized TCLP leachate
and 0.154 mg/l in the TCLP leachate.
For the proposed rule, the Agency had
no stabilization data for selenium and
could not investigate the potential
problems in stabilization for high
concentrations of selenium. The Agency
believed, based on selenium's chemical
similarities to arsenic, that the same
complications would occur (e.g.,
increased leaching when using alkaline
binders). Therefore, the Agency
determined that vitrification was the
"best" technology for selenium wastes
-------
22574
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. ^06 / Friday. June 1.1990 / Rules and Regulations
, and extrapolated-the performance data
for vitrification of Bwenicto D010' . -
nonwastewaters and proposed.-the same
concentration-based standard, 5.6mg/l
eelerdumsjs measured in the leachate
generated by theEP-toxidty test (54-FR
48432). Inaainiilar manner, iheAgency
proposed toiransfertliis concentration-
based treatment standard of 5.8mg/l '
selenium to P103, P114, U204, and U205
nonwastewaters. The Agency has
received a comment indicating that
selenium parallels the-melting behavior
of arsenic and that the transfer of
performance data was valid; however,
no performance data for the vitrification
of selenium were submitted during the
comment period.
EPA still believes that vitrification is
an applicable technology for treatment
of selenium wastes based on the history
of the commercial glass industry using
the metal as an additive and the melting
behavior of selenium, which is similar to
that of arsenic. However, unlike arsenic,
no known generators of selenium wastes
are investigating vitrification as a
treatment technology. The Agency
continues to believe that most wastes
containing high levels of selenium are
being recovered because of the high
market value of selenium
(approximately SlOJM/pound).
The Agency has developed
performance standards based on
stabilization as BDAT since the only
treatment data submitted by
commenters, and available to the
Agency, were for the stabilization of
selenium. Because EPA has information
indicating that wastes containing high
concentrations of selenium are rarely
generated and land disposed, the
Agency does not believe that the pure
product and simulated wastes are
representative of wastes that would
require stabilization treatment but are
more representative of wastes that
should be recovered for the selenium
content Consequently, the Agency is
not using any performance data for
treatment of these wastes, but is using
the performance data for the D010 waste
containing up to 700 ppm selenium since
this waste contains more selenium than
the other wastes and is believed to be
the most difficult to treat waste. Based
on these data, the Agency has used an
analytical recovery of 85 percent to
calculate a corrected average
concentration of 0.80 mg/1. Next.
multiplying the corrected value by a
variability factor of 7.15 (calculated from
the same selenium treatafaility data)
gives a treatment standard of 5.7 mg/1
selenium in the TCLP leachate. The
Agency is transferring the stabilization
performance from D010 to P103, P114,
U204, and U205 because EPA believes
this waste to beTaost representative of
wastes requiring stabilization and not
recovery. , '. - -
Because this treatment standard (5.7
mg/1) is above the level of leachable
selenium that defines the waste as D010
(1.0 mg/1), D010 wastes that are
generated at a level between 5.7 mg/1
and 1.0 mg/1 meet the treatment
standard but-are still considered io be
hazardous wastes (assuming the TCLP
value exceeds 1.0 mg/1) and, therefore,
must be land disposed in a subtitle C
facility. .
(2) Standards for Selenium-Containing
Waste waters. Based on the lime,
manganese sulfate, and ferric
precipitation wastewater treatment data
used to calculate the proposed
standards for the arsenic wastewaters,
the Agency proposed a treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/1 selenium for the
selenium in D010, P103. P114, U204, and
U205 wastewaters (54 FR 48431). The
Agency also proposed a second option
of limiting the treatment standard for
D010 wastewaters to the characteristic
level of 1.0 mg/1.
The Agency solicited comments
regarding the transfer of the arsenic
performance data to selenium
wastewaters and specifically solicited
additional treatment data for
wastewaters containing treatable levels
of selenium that would classify the
wastewaters as D010 prior to treatment.
Although several commenters support
EPA's determination that arsenic and
selenium typically exist in aqueous
conditions as oxo-anions and do not
exhibit the cationic behavior of other
metals, they do not agree that all
selenium and arsenic species can "be
removed by the use of the same
treatment technology (i.e., chemical
' precipitation).
One commenter sent treatment data
indicating that precipitation of selenium
using ferric chloride at pH 7.0, calcium
hydroxide at pH 12.1, aluminum at pH
7.0, ferrous iron at pH 7.0, or sodium
sulfide at pH 6.5 could not achieve the
level of 0.79 mg/1 selenium. Another
commenter said that selenium cannot be
removed from wastewaters using lime,
but can be removed by sulfide
treatment. The commenter stated that
for the treatment to be effective a pH of
less than 2.0 is required.
The Agency received information
about the treatment performance of
selenium removal using sulfide
treatment. This information indicates
that selenium can be reduced in
wastewaters to the characteristic level
(i.e^ 1.0 mg/1 selenium). Additionally,
' the precipitate contains elemental
selenium, which can be recovered and
sold for reuse. Based on the new
performance data the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of "1.0
mg/1 selenium for the selenium in D010,
P103, P114, U204, andU205 wastewaters."
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 103,.
P114,U204,andU205
INonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP
leachate
(mg/l)
5J
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D010, P103, P114, U204, and U205
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Selenium ,,, .. >
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 /Friday,-June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22575
- wastewater streams contain-more than
. one metal-and the use of a-required ..
precipitating agent for one metal-could
interfere with the precipitation of any;
other metals In ihe waste stream. The
lAgpnny.agrpf g TAriffi thp nmrnngnteria....-..;,.
position and is therefore not specifying .
precipitating agents for silver. . .
The Agency also solicited comments
on the applicable technologies to treat
silver wastewaters to the proposed . - -
concentration based standard. Based on
a-review of the comments, the Agency
received information that indicated that
ion exchange is an applicable
technology for silver wastewaters,' but
will not be able to achieve the proposed
standards. Therefore, because of the
lack of treatment-data and because of
the diversity of Dull wastewaters, the
Agency is promulgating the treatment .
standard for D011 wastewaters at the
characteristic level of 5.0 mg/1 as
measured by the EP toxicity.
(b) Nonwastewaters. The Agency
proposed three options for treatment
standards for D011 nonwastewaters.
One option was based on the inherent
economic value of silver and the general
lack of treatment data for wastes
containing various levels of silver. This
option proposed "Recovery as a Method
of Treatment". Another option proposed
was to transfer the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes to silver
non-wastewater (i.e. a numerical
treatment standard of 0.072 mg/1 as
measured by the TCLP). The third
alternative for the characteristic wastes
was to establish the treatment level at
the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/1 as -
measured by the EP toxicity. The
Agency solicited data on the treatment
of D011 nonwastewaters. No data was
received but many comments pointed
out that the proposed treatment
standard is unachievable. The
commenters claimed that silver in many
D011 nonwastewaters can not be
recovered because these wastes contain
silver sulfate complexes. In addition,
many commenters stated that the
treatment standard of 01072 mg/1 is not
achievable due to the diversity of the
D011 wastes. The Agency agrees with
the commenters that some x>f the Dull
wastes can not be recovered or be
treated to the treatment level. The
commenters did not provide any -
treatment data for D011
nonwastewaters but did provide
, substantial technical arguments (based '
on the chemical nature of wastes. . -
classified as Dull, nonwastewaters) that
recovery is not an applicable technology
for all Dull nonwastewaters and that .
the performance of stabilization for -,- -
D011 nonwastewatercnay not achieve
similar treated concentrations of silver..
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating -
the treatment standards for D011 -
nonwastewaters at the characteristic-
level of 5.0 mg/1 measured by the EP
.toxicity.-" ':..:".,.' r" "
(2) P099.andPl04iThe Agency is
promulgating the wastewater treatment
standard for silver as proposed. The
Agency received no comments disputing
the technical feasibility of the transfer xrf
the Effluent Guidelines data to P099 and
P104 wastewaters, As a point of
clarification, the Agency is promulgating
a numerical treatment standard as
opposed to a method of treatment for
silver. Treatment standards for cyanides
contained in P099 and P104-
wastewaters, and cyanides as well as
silver in P099 and P104 nonwastewaters,
were promulgated in the Second Third
final rule on June 23.1989 (54 FR 26614).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D011
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
total
composition
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D011
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Siluar , , .
5.0
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
total
leachateby
TCLP
-------
22576 Federal Itegister /'Vol. SS/'No. 106 /Friday. June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT -STANDARDS "FOR
' P113, P115, U214; U215, U216; AND
' \ ; U217, ;;:.:,;r,; ;v~;' :x:; .;.;.;
. . = * ' i ;.v (Nonwastewaters)...... .-..- .
Thermaf recovery (RTHRM) or stabilization (STABL)
' ' : as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P113,
P115, U214, U215, ,U216, AND U217
« iWastewaters) -' ~; '
Regutatod constituent
TN*m
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.14
k. Vanadium
P119Ammonium vanadate
P120Vanadium pentoxide
At proposal, the Agency had no data
from the treatment of P119 and P120
nonwastewaters upon which to
establish concentration-based treatment
standards. The Agency had data,
however, on the recovery of vanadium
from spent catalysts that typically
contain about 5% vanadium. The Agency
also anticipated that wastes containing
vanadium could also be stabilized. This
recovery and stabilization information
were the basis of the proposed
nonwastewater treatment standard for
P119 and P120 expressed as required
methods of treatment: thermal recovery
or stabilization. Commenters generally
supported the proposed nonwastewater
treatment standard.
One commenter, however, suggested
that the thermal recovery treatment
standard should be revised to include
recovery by dissolution, chemical
precipitation, followed by thermal
treatment The Agency agrees that
pretreatment practices such as
dissolution, chemical precipitation,
cation exchange, or resin adsorption
that are performed in tanks or
containers are not precluded by today's
final treatment standard. However,
since these recovery processes are not
precluded by any treatment standard (as
long as the recovery is not performed in
land disposal units) and since the
Agency currently lacks information to
clarify a description of a specific
thermal recovery process for vanadium'
wastes in § 268.42 Table 1 (i.e., it is
uncertain that the thermal recovery
process for vanadium matches the
description for thermal recovery listed
under the five letter technology code
identified as RTHERM), the Agency is
promulgating a standard for P119 and . '
P120 that only specifies stabilization as
a method of treatment. -; ' <
A treatment standard was proposed
. for vanadium wastewaters of 0.042 mg/l.
based on data from the EPA Office of
Water's Effluent Guidelines program.. , .
Commenters asserted that this -., ... ...
wastewater treatment standard and was
unattainable and was probably due to
the effects of dilution. Upon .- . ..-.-
reexamination of these data, the Agency;
tends to agree that this low level,was . .
due to dilution and is, therefore,'not .
promulgating this treatment standard in
today's rule. The Agency received data
that were classified as Confidential
Business Information during the
comment period from a proprietary
wastewater treatment technology. Since
these data reflect the actual treatment of
P119 and P120 wastewaters (and the
Agency has no other treatment data for
these wastes) the Agency has decided to
use them to calculate today's final
wastewater treatment standard of 28
mg/l.
The proposed rule included a
statement that P119 and P120
nonwastewaters can be generated as
spent catalysts from chemical
production or as fly ash from the iron
and steel industry. Commenters pointed
to this statement as a mistake, and
requested clarification on the definition
of P119 and P120 wastes. The Agency
regrets the confusion that was caused
by this statement and agrees that it was
a mistake. The statement would actually
apply to vanadium-containing
compounds that do not meet the
definition of listed P119 and P120 wastes
(i.e., they are not unused commercial
chemical products). Spent catalysts and
iron and steel industry fly ash are not
classified as P119 and P120.
Commenters requested that the
Agency establish another treatability
group for P119 and P120
nonwastewaters because containers or
container liners from the shipment of
ammonium metavanadate or vanadium
pentoxide as commerical chemical
products may become P119 or P120
hazardous waste. The Agency disagrees
that another treatability group is
needed. In the event that a non-empty
container from the shipment of P119 or
P120 is generated and today's treatment
standard cannot be met, the generator
may petition the Agency for a variance .
from the treatment standard.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P119
\' 'ANDP120 ,
..>../-£..,.., ^(Nonwastewaters)'..;
Stabilization (STABL) as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
* ' ' '- P119ANDP120
', '"'"' (Wastewaters) , '
Regulated constituent
Vanadium ........
24 hour
composite
sample,
total
composition
:(mg/D
28
4, Treatment 'Standards for Remaining F
andK Wastes
a. F002 and F005
F002The following spent halogenated
solvents: Tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-
trichloro-1.2,2-trifluqroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichloro-
fluoromethane, and 1,1.2-trichloroethane;
all spent solvent mixtures/blends
containing, before use, a total often
percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above halogenated solvents
or those listed in F001, F004, or F005; and
still bottoms from the recovery of these
spent solvents and spent solvent
mixtures.
F005The following spent non-halogenated
solvents: Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine,
benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nitropropane; all spent solvent mixtures/
blends containing, before use, a total of
ten percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above non-halogenated
solvents or those solvents listed in FOOl,
F002, or F004; and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures.
EPA is promulgating treatment:
standards for 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
benzene,-2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nitropropane. EPA has revised its
-proposed approach for wastewaters in
response to comments. These four
organic compounds were added as
hazardous constituents to. the F002 and
F005 spent solvents in 1986 (see 51FR
6737, February 25,1986). Today's
treatment standards only apply to these
four new solvents. Treatment standards
for other solvents in F002 and F005
remain as promulgated in the 51 FR
40572, November 7,1986, Solvents and
Dioxins Rule. A technical description of
these four new spent solvents can be
found hi the Listing Document for F002
and F005, as amended in 1986, and in 40
CFR 261.31.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22577
The Agency received comments
addressing various issues related to
these wastes. One commenter pointed
out thai there were discrepancies
between the proposed treatment " '
standards forl,l;2-trichloroethane in
bothwastewater and nonwastewater
forms of F002. The' discrepancies
occurred in the concentration-based
standards presented in the preamble,
and the regulation (see 54 FR 48461, -
November 22,1989). A similar ~
discrepancy occurred in the wastewater
treatment standard for 2-nitropropane in
F005. EPA thanks the commenter for
pointing out these typographical errors.
The proposed BDAT Background
Document Amendment for F002 and
F005 confirms that the concentration-
based standard for 2-nitropropane in
wastewater forms of F005 in the
preamble discussion was in error. The
concentration-based standards printed
in the regulatory tables for 1,1,2-
trichloroethane wastewaters and
nonwastewaters likewise were in error.
The preamble and the proposed
Background Document Amendment
presented the correct treatment
standards. The correct treatment
standards are being finalized in today's
rule.
(1) Revisions to the Proposed Rule for
Wastewaters. Other commenters urged
the Agency to develop treatment
standards for wastewater forms of F002
and F005 based on residues from
wastewater treatment technologies
rather than incineration scrubber
waters. Commenters felt that EPA has
several performance data from
wastewater treatment technologies
treating wastewaters containing the
same or similar constituents to F002 and
T005 which EPA can use in order to
develop treatment standards. .
Commenters emphasize that these
performance data better, represent the
treatment of organic-containing
wastewaters rather than incineration
scrubber waters alone.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26829] and reiterated hi
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390), when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. -
Commenters to the proposed First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third
rules almost unanimously supported that
EPA should promulgate wastewater
standards based on die performance of
specific wastewater treatment rather
than incinerator scrubber water
constituent levels. After reviewing all ,
available data and comments, the
Agency agrees with these comments,
and is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for 1,1,2-
trichloroethane and benzene based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber water for all wastes that were
proposed in the Third Third rule. While
the Agency did not specifically identify
the standards based on wastewater
treatment data as alternatives for F and
K wastewaters, the Agency believes that
this is a logical outgrowth of the notice
and comment process. As such, the
Agency is today modifying the
wastewater treatment standards for
F002andF005.
(2) Treatment Standards for 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane (F002) and Benzene
(F005). The treatment standards
promulgated today for organics in
wastewater forms of F002 and F005 are
based on performance data generated
from one, or a combination of two or
more of the following BDAT
technologies: Biological treatment,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
liquid extraction, and others. (See
Section ni.A.6.(3) of today's preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data.) Those treatment standards are
expressed as concentration levels for
1,1,2-trichloroethane (F002) and benzene
(F005).
The treatment standards promulgated
for organics in nonwastewater forms of
F002 and F005 are based on incineration.
These treatment standards are
expressed as concentration based
standards for 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(F002) and benzene (F005).
Each treatment standard is based on
the treatment of another waste
containing the same or similar.
constituents to the one of concern. EPA
believes that none of the constituents in
F002 and F005 are likely to interfere with
the treatment of organics in F002 and
F005. As a result, EPA is transferring the
available performance data to these two
wastes.
(3) Treatment Standards Expressed as
Methods of Treatment forZ-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane.
Comments were received indicating
drastic detection limits discrepancies in
nonwastewater forms that contain 2-
nitropropane. The proposed treatment
standards relied on pilot-scale data from
the stripping of synthetic wastewaters
along with incineration performance
data for a waste containing a
constituent as difficult to treat as 2-
nitropropane. Based on the available
data, EPA believes that.2-nitropropane
may not be amenable to analytical
quantification and thus, a concentration-
based treatment standard is not be a
viable regulatory option at tmVtnne.
(See section ULAJi.b) - ... . - ..
.. -Another problematic constituent is 2-
ethoxyethanol. As with 2-nitropropane,
the proposed treatment standards relied
on in-house treatment studies and
performance data from similar wastes. -
For 2-ethoxyethanol, EPA specifically
conducted bench-scale studies for die
biological treatment of synthetic
wastewaters spiked with 2-
ethoxyethanoL Modifications to existing
analytical test methods were needed in
order to enable EPA to analyze these
two organic constituents in wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. EPA has
determined that the available
information is insufficient to promulgate
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of F005 at this
time. As a result, EPA is withdrawing
the proposed concentration based
treatment standards for F005 wastes
that contain 2-nitropropane and 2-
ethoxyethanol respectively (i.e., F005
wastes that are listed due to the
presence of these constituents). EPA is
instead promulgating required methods
as the treatment standard.
EPA proposed incineration or steam
stripping followed by carbon adsorption
as methods of treatment for F005
wastewaters containing 2-nitropropane.
This proposal relied on in-house pilot
scale steam stripping studies of 2-
nitropropane as well as a transfer of
steam stripping data for wastewaters
containing nitrobenzene. EPA's in-house
treatment study indicated that 2-
nitropropane is likely to form an
azeotrope with water. Therefore, any
technology-based treatment standard
that specifies steam stripping for these
wastes must also specify (or at least
emphasize) operating conditions
capable of treating this type of
azeotrope (or prevent its generation). At
this time, EPA lacks sufficient
information to develop such detailed
standards. EPA is thus withdrawing
steam stripping as part of an alternative
technology-based treatment standard.
The Agency has determined that
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption as well as wet air oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption represent
BDAT for F005 wastes listed for 2-
nitropropane. This determination is
based on available performance data for
wastewaters containing organic
constituents that are as difficult to treat
as 2-nitropropane. EPA does not expect
any of the other constituents in F005
wastewaters to interfere with the'
-------
22578
Federal Register /-Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
.treatmentof 2-nitropropane when . '-., -
t -toated by these technologies. As.a -.-.-.
result, EPA is promulgating these two,
treatment-trains along with incineration,:
; ns technology-based treatment-''- - '
e tondards for F005 wastewaters listed
"for 2-nltropropane.; -;-,';,-:.--,.-/,
Based on the revisions to the
proposed treatment standards for F005
\vastewaters containing 2-nltropropane, ,
EPA ia also withdrawing its proposed - [_'_
criteria for defining wastewaters in this" '
category of F005 wastewaters (i;e., less
than 495 TOG and less than 195 TSS.) The
definition of wastewaters and
nonwastewaters is thus consistent with"
those established for all hazardous
wastes (i.e., as defined in section
26U2(a)(6) of today's rule but not
including the wastewater definitions
excluded in | 258.2{a)(6) (i) through (iv).)
EPA is promulgating the proposed
technology-based treatment standards
for F005 wastes listed for 2-
ethoxyethanol as incineration or
biodegradation. EPA believes that these
technologies are BDAT based on a
transfer of information on the treatment
of n-butyl alcohol using activated
sludge. EPA believes that n-butyl
alcohol is as difficult to treat as 2-
ethoxyethanol.
For nonwastewater forms of F005
containing these two constituents, EPA
is promulgating a treatment standard of
"Incineration" as a method of treatment
EPA is specifying further that
incinerators operate in accordance with
the technical requirements of part 264
subpart O or part 265 subpart O.
Residues from incineration are not
precluded from land disposal. However,
nonwastewater forms of F005 resulting
from the required wastewater treatment
processes must comply with the
Incineration treatment standards as a
pre-requisite for land disposal.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F002,
LISTED FOR 1,1,2-TRicm.oROETHANE
[Nonwastewaters]
Rogulatod constituent
1,1^-TrichtofOcthana.
Maximum
for any
single, grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F002,
. LISTED FOR 1,1,2-TniCHLOROETHANE ,
.- ,'.-' -' ' '"'" ''' [Wastewatersi ' ''"' '.
. , -Regulated constituent
1.1.2-Trichtoroethane..
Maximum for
any
..composite .
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.030.
.BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR BENZENE
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene-
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
3.7
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR BENZENE
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Maximum
for any
composite
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.070
7.6
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR 2-NnnopROPANE OR 2-
ETHOXYETHANOL
[Nonwastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN) as a method of treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR 2-ETHOXYETHANOL
[Wastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN); or biodegradation (BIODG) as
methods of treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR 2-NITROPROPANE
[Wastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN); chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
followed by carbon adsorption (CARBN); or wet air
oxidation (WETOX) followed by carbon adsorption
(CARBN) as methods of treatment
b. F006 and F019
In today's final rule, the Agency is
promulgating an amendment to Method
9012, used for analyzing wastes for
cyanides. In this amendment, the .
Agency is specifying that in order to .
determine compliance with the
promulgated treatment standards for
nonwastewaters in cyanides, a facility
must use a 10 gram sample size .and a
distillation time of 1 hour and fifteen
minutes.
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
26610-26615). 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 the treatment standard)
was SW-846 Method 9012.
Commenters suggested that the
Agency not amend the analytical
method and that the Agency conduct a
study that investigates improvements for
the analytical method for cyanides and
treatment of F006 wastes. The Agency
appreciates the commenters* concerns
about the analytical method. The
Agency is aware that analytical
problems exist for measuring total and
amenable cyanides in nonwastewaters.
The Agency believes that these
problems exist because there is no
specific sample size and distillation time
specified in Method 9012. Because a
generator or treater may use any sample
size or distillation time, the Agency has
decided to amend the analytical method
9012 by promulgating constraints on
sample size and distillation time of 10
grams and one hour and fifteen minutes,
respectively. 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).
By promulgating these specifications
on sample size and distillation time, the
Agency believes that compliance with
the BDAT treatment standard will occur
as a result of actual treatment. EPA does
not believe that tiis promulgated
clarification to the analytical method
affects the achievability of the cyanide
standards already promulgated. After
the close of the Second Third
rulemaking, a potential loophole in the
cyanide analytic method was brought to
EPA's attention. The Agency solicited
-------
Federal Register ,\ .Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 /Rules .and Regulations
., information from generators, and treaters
as to the sample size and distillation
time used as standard operating :
procedures. These facilities indicated ;'.
. that they were achieving the F006 - ,
nonwastewater cyanide standard by
, using 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. Also, see 54 FR
48447 noting this information for public
comment in this rulemaking). Therefore,
the Agency believes that the data hi the
Second Third rule documenting ,
achievability of the cyanide treatment
standard reflects the analytic procedure
. being promulgated today. ,-.'
(1) F006 Wastewaters. Today's rule
promulgates wastewater treatment
standards for amenable and total
cyanides and metal constituents for F006
wastewaters as proposed.
(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 Final Addendum to
the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for F006.
In addition,,commenters believe that
the transfer of the treatment for K062
wastewaters to F006 wastewaters is
inappropriate. The Agency disagrees
with the commenters and believes that
the transfer is technically feasible
because of the high concentration of
metals in K062 as compared to F006
wastewaters, making these wastes more
difficult to treat Furthermore, hi
determining today's promulgated
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 to develop
today's promulgated F006 metal
standards because the metal finishing
waste characterization data indicated
that the untreated concentrations of
these metals hi these wastewaters were
low compared to those hi F006
wastewaters. The Agency believes,
therefore, that these treatment data for
the metal finishing wastewater streams
do not Tepresent treatment of F006
wastewaters and may result hi -.--
wastewater treatment standards that
would be unachievable for actual F006
wastewaters. Thus, the Agency is not
promulgating F006 wastewater
treatment standards based on these
data. '..-,;.;. V..W .,.,', .',,.,__, :'.-
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
IWastewatersl > = ->
. Regulated constituent
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable).
Cadmium .....
Chromium _ ......
Lead
Nickel
.Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
1.2
.86
1.6
.32
.040
.44
(2) F019. Today's rule promulgates
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanides and total chromium in
F019 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
The treatment standards for the
amenable and total cyanides in the F019
wastewater and nonwastewaters are
based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination. The treatment standard for
the chromium hi the F019 wastewater is
based on chromium reduction followed
by precipitation with lime and sulfide
and sludge dewatering. Treatment
standard for the chromium hi the F019
nonwastewater is based on
stabilization.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited comments on two options. The
first option proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for cyanides
based on the performance data for wet
air oxidation (that is the 390 mg/kg and
20 mg/kg for total and amenable
cyanides, respectively). The second
option proposed was to transfer the
concentration-based treatment
standards for cyanides based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
F006-F009 (electroplating wastes) to
F019 wastes (that is the 590 mg/kg and
the 30 mg/kg for total and amenable
cyanides, respectively).
Based on a review of the comments,
the majority of the commenters
suggested that the Agency promulgate a
standard based on the 590 mg/kg limit.
The commenters suggest that the
electroplating wastes are similar to the
F019 waste because of the iron
concentration hi the untreated wastes.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
cyanide standards based on a transfer
of the performance of the treatment
system for electroplating wastes. The
Agency believes that the .transfer is
technically feasible because of the
following reasons. First, the Agency
believes, as stated in the Final Second
TWrd Rule, that these wastes contain
high concentration of iron" complex
cyanides. The waste characterization
data for E006 through F009 indicate that
the influentiron concentrations, hi some
cases, are similar to the F019 wastes -
based on available waste -
characterization data. Second, at the
time of the proposed rule, the only .
relevant treatment data available to the
Agency to establish treatment standards
.for these wastes were the performance
of wet ah- oxidation of F019 wastes and
from the transferred performance -of
alkaline chlorination for F006 through
FOO9 wastes. The Agency was reluctant
to use the wet ah- oxidation data to
develop treatment standards for F019
because of the analytical discrepancies
hi the influent concentration of cyanides
of typical F019 wastes, suggesting
strongly that the wastes treated were
unrepresentative. Therefore, the Agency
solicited comments on the use of wet air
oxidation or any other technology used
to develop treatment standards for F019
wastes. During the comment period, the
Agency received no treatment data and
many comments questioned whether
wet air oxidation is applicable .
technology for these wastes or is
demonstrated on a full scale basis.
Therefore, the Agency's only alternative
hi developing cyanide treatment
standards for the wastegiven the lack
of any other data and absence of
commentis to transfer the
performance of alkaline chlorination of
the electroplating wastes to the F019
wastes.
In addition, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard for
amenable cyanides hi F019 .
nonwastewaters based on the
reproducibility of the analytical method
for total cyanides. Details of the
calculation of the amenable cyanide
.standards can be found in the
background document. The Agency used
a similar procedure for developing
treatment standards for amenable
cyanides hi FOOB-F012 wastes hi the
Second Third Final Rule (see 54 FR
26611). .
The Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for total chromium hi F019
wastewaters based on the performance
of chromium reduction, lime and sulfide
precipitation, and sludge dewatering for
K062 wastewaters. The Agency believes
that this is a technically feasible
transfer due to the influent total
chromium concentration of 7000 ppm for
-------
K062-is almllarto the concentration of
chromium in FOWwastewaters. -,.- .
'r The Agency is also promulgating
"treatment »tandardBfortotaljdironiium
tnF019Jibnwa8tewater8basedona
transfer of performance data from ine
Btablllzation
-------
Federal Register /Vol. SB, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22581
appropriate particular surrogate which
would ensure adequate treatment of
these constituents. Finally, the Agency
believes that incineration technologies,
can effectively treat chlorinated,: 4 .
dibenzo-dioxins and furans based on the
results obtained from the Agency-
sponsored incineration treatment test of
F024 wastes containing these
constituents. . _
"Therefore, based on the afcove
considerations, the Agency is revising .
the treatment standards promulgated on
June 23,1989 to'specify incineration as a
method of treatment for F024 wastes
(organic constituents only). If these
wastes are incinerated, the record
indicates that dioxins and furans, as
well as all of the other hazardous
constituents in the waste will be
substantially destroyed. To ensure that
incineration is fully effective, the
Agency will also retain in the rule the
existing standards for organics
promulgated in the Second Third rule.
Thus, there will be no specific standard
for dioxins and furans in the rule, which
should alleviate the treatment industry's
reluctance to accept these waste. The
§ 268.7 certification would refer to the
designated method for treating this
waste, and certify that the standards for
organic hazardous constituents (which
do not include dioxins and furans) have
been satisfied. Standards for metals
would remain as numerical limits,
however. These standards are discussed
below. (Ordinarily the Agency would
not alter a regulatory standard due to
industry recalcitrance. In this case,
however, the clear existence of a
problem, the Agency's desire to have
industry resume treatment of these
wastes (there was no capacity shortfall
until EPA promulgated the Second Third
treatment standard), and the statutory
prohibitions on disposal and storage
(which foreclose all legitimate waste
management options) have led EPA to
revise die treatment standard.)
Two commenters stated that die
proposed treatment standards for metal
constituents may preclude F024 from
being accepted at commercial
incineration facilities. The Agency feels
that the treatment standards calculated
from stabilization testing of F024
incinerator ash appropriately reflect the
level of performance achievable via
stabilization for chromium, lead, and
nickel in F024. In addition, EPA has" not
received treatment performance data
from the regulated community indicating
that the proposed treatment standards
cannot be met Therefore, the Agency
has no reason to believe that the
treatment standards proposed for
chromium, lead, and nickel in
nonwastewater forms of F024 cannot be
reliably met on a routine basis and is
; not revising the proposed treatment
standards in today's rule. . _ __. _ "
-One commenter expressed concern
.that other.forms of incineration (i.e.,
liquid and gas phase incineration) are
precluded from use in meeting the
treatment standards for organic
constituents in F024 if rotary kiln ..
incineration is specified as BDAT.
Liquid injection incineration and
fluidized bed incineration may provide
equivalent levels of treatment to rotary
kiln incineration and, therefore, may be
considered equivalent BDAT
technologies for organic constituents in
liquid and solid forms of F024,
respectively. As is the case for all
concentration-based treatment
standards promulgated in the land
disposal-restrictions program, the use of
other treatment technologies that can
achieve the promulgated concentration-
based treatment standards in F024 is not
precluded by the second third rule (54
FR 26615). Nor is the incineration
standard specified as an alternative
treatment standard in today's rule based
on any particular type of incineration.
One commenter stated that the
treatment standards promulgated for the
nine volatile and semivolatile organic
constituents in nonwastewater forms of
F024 (54 FR 26815) were set below
practical quantitation limits (PQLs) and
should be revised. The commenter is
incorrect. The treatment standards for
these nine organic constituents in
nonwastewater forms of F024 were
based on the detection limits of these
constituents achieved on F024 residuals
analyzed following the Agency-
sponsored incineration treatment test.
The PQLs the commenter refers to were
obtained from analyzing a non-F024
incinerator ash.
One commenter expressed concern
that the definition of F024 had been
revised to include watewaters. The
wastewater treatment standards
adopted for F024 are applicable to.
wastewater residuals derived from the
treatment or leaching of nonwastewater
forms of F024 as defined hi 40 CFR
261.31. This does not include process
wastewaters from the production of
- chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
.... [Nonwastewaters] -
Incineration (INCIN) as a method and meet the
- . following standards
' ;
- " s "' "
Regulated constituent
-..*' ' . ..-...
2-Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene ,...'. .-..'.
3-Ch!oropropene... _jm !..
1 ,1 -Dichloroethane ._ . :....;
1,2-Dichloroethane~ . ...
1,2-DichIoropropane «««.»«.»...«««....».
cts-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phmalate.
Hexachloroethane .«.»........«..
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg) -
0.28
0.28
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
1.8
1.B
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total) .«.....».
Lead.- ._ .
Nickel ..
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
TCLP (mg/l)
0.073
0.021
0.088
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
2-Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene ...........................
3^hloropropend.».«»..»«»»..»....«»«»
1 1-Dichloroetnane ». . . . «
1 ,2-Dtehloroethane «...».
1 ,2-Dichloropropane .
C)8-1,3-Dicnloroprop8ne.,_.... ..... .
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Hexachloroettiane ...... ...
Chromium (total) ».».«....««««»....»..»......
Nickel.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.28
0.28
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.036
0.036
0.35
0.47
d. F025 Waste
F025Condensed light ends, spent filters and
filter aids and spent desiccant wastes
from the production of certain
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons by
free radical catalyzed processes. These
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons are
those having carbon chain lengths
ranging from one to and including five
with varying amounts and positions of
chlorine substitution.
On December 11,1989, (54 FR 50968)
EPA amended its regulations under
RCRA by listing as hazardous one
generic category of waste generated
during the manufacture of chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons by free radical
catalyzed processes having carbon
-------
22KO2
Federal Jtecister / Vol. 55. .No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and JRegulations
fflrptn |AngtKa yahging from one io five -
TEPA Hazardous Waste No. F025); The
listing of EPAHazardonB Waste No.
F025 becomes effective on June 11,1990.
In anticipation of Ibis listing, the Agency
proposed concentration-based treatment
standards for F025 wastes in the
November 22,1989 land disposal
restrictions proposal (54 FR"48450) for
third third wastes. The Hazardous and ,
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) require the Agency to
determine specific treatment standards
which the waste must achievepriorto
land disposal within six months of the
listing of the waste as hazardous.
Therefore, today's rule promulgates final
treatment standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of F025 waste as
proposed.
F025 wastes are characterized as
condensed light ends, spent filters and
filter aids, and spent desiccant wastes
from the production of certain
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. 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. As such,
the Agency is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards to reflect these differences in
physical and chemical composition.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for all wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of F025 are
promulgated today based on 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 IU..A.2.C.
and III.A.2,d. for additional information).
Because no comments were received on
the proposed regulation for any of the
specific constituents of F025
wastewaters ornonwastewaters, the
Agency assumes that generators and
treaters of F025 agree with EPA's
assessment of the treatment of this
waste. Further information on the
development of treatment standards can
be found in the Background Document
for F025 Wastes in the RCRA docket
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
* ' ~ [Nonwastewaters] '
[Utfit Ends Subcategory]
'. Regulated constituent
l,2Dichtoroethane.i
1 1 Dkrhtoroethylftrm ..,,,,,,,,,
Methylena chloride ,.. M-I -"-
Carbon tetracWoride .".
1 1I2TricWoro6than6«...«-.-..«iLiin
Trichtoroethyterw .' ....-.,
Vinyl chloride ,,
Maximum for
any single'
grab sample,
total
composition
(rng/kg)
62
&2
&2
31
6.2
&2
S.6
33
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
F025Continued :
tWastawaters]
[Spent Filters/Aids and Desiccante Subcategory]
Regulated constituent
j -j p-Triohlofmlhnnfl ......,.,
Trichtoroothytene ...._.»«
Vinyl chloride ,,., ,,,,-,.
Hexaehtorobenzene - __._. ..........
HerRChlorobut&dtene _.-.-___~.i
Maximum tor
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
(mg/l)
0.054
, O.054
0.27
0.055
0.055
0055
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025 e. KOOl and U051
[Wastewaters]
[Ught Ends Subcategoryl
Regulated constituent
1 .2 Dich!oro6thane
1 ,1 -Dichtoroetnylene
Methylsne chloride.,..
Carbon tetrachlorWfi
1 1,2Trichloroethane
Trichlorootnylenfl
Vinyl chloride .
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.046
0.21
0.025
0.089
0.057
0.054
0.054
027
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
[Nonwastewaters]
[Spent Fitters/Aids and Desiccants Subcategoiy]
Regulated constituent
Methylens chloride
Carbon tetrachloride... »»«....«.««.«
1 1,2-Trichloroethane ._.-.._.
Trichloroethylene .~
Vinyl chloride ,..,
Hexachlorobenzene
HoxachlorobutariifHift
Hexachtoroethane
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
-------
calculation of the original standards.'' ~
These revisions have been reflected in
ards; Additional :;v
ni'ari"the.Tevised standards'
BDffTTREATMEWrSTANDARDS FOR K001
ANDU051
fWastewatersJ -
"igaaproposal (54FR 48410). if UQ51 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-contamination 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 promulgating 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 U051 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.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K001
ANDU051
[Nonwastewaters]
':' '--:." '-Regulated constituent
Naphthalene
Toluene... ~
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total .
composition
(mg/l)
0.031
0.18
OJ031
0.028
0.028
0.032
0.037
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No/106 / Friday, lane 1.1990 / Roles and Regulations 22583
these wastes can be found in the
Background Document for Inorganic "'
Pigment Wastes. -
(1) Nonwastewaters. In the Second
Third Final Rule (53 FR 26534, June 23,
1989), EPA promulgated treatment
standards of "No Land Disposal Basel
on No Generation" for KOQ5 and KOQ7
wastes, in today's final rule, the Agency
is revoking these standards and is
promulgating numerical treatment
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 the First Third Final Rule, EPA also
promulgated a standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" for
K004 and KOOS. 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 KC08. As a result
EPA revoked the "No Land Disposal
Based on No Generation" standard in
the Second Third Final Rule (54 FR
26617) and is promulgating numerical
treatment standards for these wastes in
today's rule.
For the K002, K003, K004, K005, KOOS
(anhydrous), K007, and KOOS
nonwastewaters, EPA is transferring the
performance of the treatment of .
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
filtration for K062 nonwastewaters to
these wastes. The Agency believes that
these wastes are similar to K062
because the wastewaters from which
K062 sludge are derived are similar in
nature to the inorganic pigment
wastewaters (i.e., consisting of inorganic
constituents).
In the case of hydrated K006
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
treatment standards for this waste
based on a performance of stabilization
of F006. The Agency believes that this is
a technically feasible transfer because
of the chromium content and other
dissolved metals which are in higher
concentrations in F006 than K008. The
Agency received supportive comments
on the transfer feasibility of F006 to
K006.
(2) Wastewaters. EPA is promulgating
treatment standards based on the
chrome pigment effluent guidelines for
Regulated constituent
Naphthalene .1.
Pentachloraphenol
TotugfW ., , ,,
Vulnnofel _-
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
toial
composition
(mg/kg)
t.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
28
33
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
051
f. K002. K003, K004. K005, K006, K007,
KOOS
K002Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome yellow and orange
pigments.
KOOSWastewater treatment sludge from the
production of molybda'te orange
pigments.
K004Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of zinc yellow pigments.
KOC5Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome green pigments.
K006Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome oxide green
pigments (anhydrous and hydrated].
K007Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of iron blue pigments.
K008Oven residue from the production of
chrome oxide green pigments.
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating nonwastewater and
wastewater treatment standards for
waste codes K002 through K008. BOAT
for metal constituents in K002. K003,
K004, K005, K006 (anhydrous), KOO7, and
K008 nonwastewaters are based on the
performance of chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and filtration. BDAT
for chromium in K006 (hydrated) is
based on the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes. BDAT for
cyanides in KOOS and K007 wastewaters
is based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination. BDAT for metal
constituents in K002. K003, K004, K005,
K006, K007, and KOOS are based on
chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and sludge dewatering.
For KOOS and K007 nonwastewaters, the
Agency is reserving the treatment
standard for amenable and total
cyanides. The Agency believes that
these wastes contain treatable
concentrations of cyanides. Because the
Agency did not propose treatment
standard for cyanides in these wastes,
in this rule the Agency is providing
notice that standards will be proposed
for restrictions in a future rulemaking.
Detailed technical descriptions of the
specific production processes generating
-------
,22584-
t
Ofederal Roaster y.;VoLi.55,;No.^l06^/'Friday;;lune,l.,-1990 / iRule8 and Regulations
discharges from* this industrial category
' regulated under 1he National JPollutant *'
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)*
' (40 CIFR415.340). The final standards are ,
taken directly from the concentrations
as stated in the "Development
Document for Efflnentlimitan'ons T -
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 metals. ', :
For K005 and K007 wastes, the '
Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for total cyanides. These
treatment standards are based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
plgmentwastes. The Agency received
no comments disputing the technical
feasibility of the transfer from Effluent
Limitations Guidelines data to pigment
waatewaters. Although the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
contain both 30 day and one day
numbers, the RCRA treatment standard
specifies only the one day standards.
Land disposal restrictions and
corresponding implementation and
enforcement procedures have been
based on either a grab or a composite
standard. Consistent with other BOAT
treatment standards, the Agency is
therefore promulgating only the one day
standards which were proposed. These
standards will provide appropriate
control of the waste prior to land
disposal without the need for a 30 day
monitoring.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006 (ANHY-
DROUS), K007 AND K008
[Nonwastewaters]
BDAT.TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K006
f :< ' (HYDRATED) ' -".
'..". ., . .[NonwastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.094
0.37
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K005
AND K007
[Nonwastewaters]
-' - Regulated constituent
. . ^ - '-/! _\ .. ' ' - -
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP(mg/l)
5.2
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K002, K003, K004, K006 (ANHYDROUS
AND HYDRATED), AND K008 .
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total) -
Lend i , .,,1 - -
Cydr&fos (Tolal)... ....,...- -«~».»«.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
'TCLP (mg/l)
0.094
- ; 0.37
Reserved.
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total).-
Lead..
Maximum for
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
2.9
3.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K005, AND K007
[Wastewaters]
.
Regulated constituent
LoQd .I.ITT-
Maxhnumfor
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
2.9
3.4
0.74
g. K011.TC013 and K014
KOllBottom stream from the wastewater
stripper in the production of acrylonitrile.
K013Bottom stream from acetonitrile
, column in the production of acrylonitrile.
KW4Bottoms from the acetonitrile
purification column in the production of .
acrylonitrile.
In the Second Third Final Rule, the
Agency promulgated treatment
standards for the K011..K013, and K014
nonwastewaters (54 FR 26614. June 23,
1989). Treatment standards for the
nonwastewaters were based on the \
performance of incineration. In addition,
the Agency proposed treatment-
standards for KOll, K013, and K014
wastewaters in the Second Third
proposed rule on January 11,1989 (54 FR
1056). Commenters on the proposed
wastewater standards indicated that
they were in the process of developing -
wet air oxidation data for these,
wastewaters.-
Since 'the-Agency concurred that wet
air oxidation was an applicable
technology for these wastes and since
the other data available to the Agency
for treatment of these wastewaters were
relatively incomplete, the Agency :chose
not to promulgate the proposed '-,-' -
wastewater treatment standards at that-
time. After the close of the comment
period, commenters submitted then-
performance'data for treatment of KOll,
K013, and K014 wastewaters using wet
air oxidation, which demonstrated
substantial reduction of waste toxicity
and mobility; As a result,-the Agency is
promulgating treatment'standards for
organics and total cyanides in KOll,
K013, and K014 wastewaters. Treatment
standards are based on the performance
of wet air oxidation for the organics and
cyanides.
Many commenters had questions on
the TOC cutoff level for KOll, K013, and
K014 wastewaters. These commenters
suggested that because the TOC levels
in wastewaters fluctuate, the Agency
should develop a higher cutoff level. The
Agency agrees that the TOC levels in
wastewaters may fluctuate above the
level proposed and is accordingly
redefining the cutoff level for
wastewaters. Therefore, the Agency is
defining KOll, K013, and K014
wastewaters (as generated) as
containing less than 5 percent (%) Total
Organic Content (TOC) and less than 1%
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The
Agency believes that the 5% cutoff level
is applicable based on the available
waste characterization data for KOll,
K013, and K014 wastes. As generated,
all of these wastes are liquid and
contain primarily water, yet they
sporadically contain over 1% TOC (but
not more than 5%) and would have been
classified as nonwastewaters based on
the Agency's standard cut-off of 1%
TOC. . .
In addition, the technology of choice
for KOll, KO13, and K014 liquids with
less than 5% TOC is wet air oxidation.
Since wet air oxidation is typically
designed to handle slightly higher than
5% TOC levels (10% TOC is cited in
guidance as a typical maximum level for
wet air oxidation, but wet air oxidation
systems are usually designed for lower
levels) the Agency determined that it is
an appropriate technology for these
wastes and that the TOC cut-off level
for KOll, K013, and K014 wastewaters
should be adjusted accordingly.
In addition, the Agency has received
comments indicating that the standard
for acrylonitrile is too low for these
wastes. Commenters requested that the
Agency reevaluate the calculation of the
treatment standard (i.e., the variability
factor) for this constituent. The Agency
does not agree with the commenters that
the acrylonitrile standard is ;
unachieveable. Based on the analysis of
the data, the concentration of ---
-------
teFederal Register /'Vol.-55.:No.;106/Priday. June, 1. 1990 /Rules arid Regulations :. . "221585
-; acrylonitrile in the treated waste was <,:
below me detection limit The BDAT: i -
1. .methodology states, that when all of ihe
. : treated data for one constituent are. at
; the level; of detection, then the Agency
believes that the data are normaDy .
distributed. Therefore, the variability
.factor is 2.8. The Agency calculates a
treatment standard by multiplying the
variability factor times the mean of the
treated wastes. Therefore, this analysis
is within the BDAT methodology.
Furthermore, the Agency received no
additional treatment data during the
comment period for the proposed rule,
demonstrating that the standard for
. acrylonitrile (based on actual treatment
performance data for these wastes) is
too low. - . ' .
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K011.K013.K014 .
CWastewaters <5% TOO and <1% TSSI
Regulated constituent
AeetonttiHa
Arryinmirto , , lrlr .,
AcrylnnHrila ..'.
R«n7«nA ,,,., ,,
Cyanides (total) __...___._....._
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
38
19.
0.06
002
21.
h. K015
K015Still bottoms from the distillation of
benzyl chloride.
The Agency is today promulgating
final treatment standards for -
nonwastewater forms of K015 as
proposed. The Agency is promulgating
treatment standards for five organic and
two metal constituents. Treatment
standards for the organic constituents
are based on a transfer of performance
data from the incineration of K019 and
KOS7 wastes.
The Agency is also promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for the metal constituents
nickel and chromium based on the
transfer of performance data from K048-
K052 waste. The Agency received
several comments regarding the nickel
standard for K015. The commenters
stated that the numerical standard for
nickel was extremely low and urged the
Agency to reconsider the proposed
standard. The treatment standard.for
nickel was proposed based on a transfer
from K048-K052 wastes which were also
proposed as part of the November 22,
1989 notice. The Agency received as
part of the K048-K052 proposal, -
additional data and information from
commenters that altered the proposed
treatment standard for nickel. See .
section m.A.4.o. of today's preamble for
a complete .discussion of .the comments,
.As a result pf the change made to the
K048-K052 treatment standard for
nickel, the Agency has determined that
-a modification to the nickel treatment .
standard for K015 is appropriate, and is
therefore revising and promulgating the
modified standard in today's rule.
Further information on the development
of treatment standards can be found hi
; the Addendum to die Background
Document for K015 Wastes in the RCRA
docket.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K015
[Nonwastewaters]
[Revised From No Land Disposal]
Regulated constituent
Anthrnrj»u> -,-,..,, ,
Benzal chloride.. . .
Benzo (b/k) fluoranthene
Pherunttirano ,,.-,.,.
Tpluonn. . , ,,,,,.,,.,..,.... ,-,-,.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
-------
. 22588 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the Agency believes that this is a logical
< outgrowth ot the notice and comment
proccw. A» such, the Agency is today
modifying and promulgating the '
Waatewater xtsndaids for bothlCOl? and
iC073 wastewaters based on the '
performance of waste water treatment.
Information on the technical
development of the constituent specific
treatment standards for these wastes
can be found in the KOI7 and K073
background documents. Detailed
information on the development of the
waste water treatment standards by
constituent can be found in the
background document entitled, Final
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for U and P Wastes and
Multi-Source Leachate (F039) Volume A:
Wastewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For Which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards.'
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K017
tNonwastewatere]
! Maximum tor
Regulated constituent
1^-tHchtofDproparw
1,2,3-Trichtoropropsne
Bs(2-chkxocthyt) ether »
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
18
28
73
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K017
tWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
1 A3-Trich!oropropane
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(ma/I)
0.85
0.85'
0.033
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K073
fNonwastowatersl
RogulBtod constituent
CMorolorm-
HoxacNoroo thane .
1.1.1-Trichtoroothane.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
63.
30
6.2
6.2
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K073
' '. " ';.' , tWastewatersl
, ..>.._. ,i . _ ' ,', :
.-- - ' '
Regulated constituent
.', « _"' .,- -- ' - -
- ,'- '
Caifoon tetrachtofklfl ,'., ,
1 texachtofogthane
1 1 1-Trtchtoroettwne,.,..
MaxilTIUfyi tor
any 24-hour
COfTlpO9lt0
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
6.057
0.046
O.OS5
0.056
0.054
J.K021
K021Aqueous spent antimony catalyst from
fluoromethane production.
Final treatment standards are being
promulgated today for nonwastewater
forms of K021 wastes as proposed. The
treatment standards for organics are,
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) waste. No comments were
received on the proposed standards.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for antimony in
nonwastewater forms of K021 are being
promulgated 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.
In the November 22,1989, proposal (54
FR 48394), the Agency simultaneously
proposed alternative concentration-
based treatment standards for antimony
nonwastewater based on the
performance of vitrification of arsenic
wastes (see section nLA~5.(a.) of the
November 22,1989, notice describing the
development of this arsenic standard for
D004 wastes) and antimony
wastewaters based on the performance
of lime precipitation, sedimentation and
filtration (see the November 22,1989,
notice (54 FR 48393} describing the
development of wastewater treatment
standards for U and P wastes). At that
tune, the Agency solicited comment
from the public on the appropriateness
of these alternative transfers. However.
because no comments or data were
received for either set of standards for
antimony, EPA assumes that generators
and treaters of K021 wastes agree with .
EPA"s initial assessment of the
treatment of antimony based on the ..
transfer of performance data from K048
and K051 wastes. Therefore, the Agency
is promulgating the proposed
concentration-based treatment :
standards for antimony based on the . -
transfer of performance data from these
wastes. Details on this transfer and the'
other nonwastewater standards for K021
wastes can be found in the Background
Document for KQ2I wastes in the RCRA
docket ' '
In the November 22,1989, notice, the
Agency also proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for
wastewater forms of K021 based on
incinerator scrubber water from K019
waste. The Agency also proposed two
sets of wastewater treatment standards
for the majority of U and P wastewaters
for which concentration-based
standards could be established. One set
of standards was based on incinerator
scrubber waste while the alternate set
of standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data from
wastewaters containing these
constituents from various data sources.
The reader is referred to the discussion
in section ni.A.5.(a.)(l.) of today's
preamble for additional information.
As stated hi the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390). when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well:
operated wastewater treatment units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations,to
develop wastewater treatment
standards.
Commenters to the proposed rules for
the First Third, Second Third and Third
Third wastes however, almost
unanimously supported the option of
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards based on the performance of
specific wastewater treatment rather
than incinerator scrubber water
constituent levels. Upon review of all
available data and comments, the
Agency agrees with the commenters,
and is today promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards based on wastewater
treatment data rather man scrubber
water for wastes that were proposed in
the "nurd Third rule.
While the Agency did not specifically
identify the standards based on '
wastewater treatment data as
alternatives for F and K wastewaters,
the Agency believes that this is a logical
outgrowth of the notice end comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying and promulgating the.
wastewater standards for K021
wastewaters based on the performance
of wastewater treatment. Detailed '
information on the development of the '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Triday. June -1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22587
wastewater treatment standards by :.
constituent can be found, in the .. . "'
background document entitled, Final
Best Demonstrated Available . .
Technology (BOAT) Background
Document For U and P Wastes and
Multi-Source Leachates (F039) Volume
A: Wastewater Forms of Organic U and
P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For Which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards.' :' \ - ._
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K021
' fNonwastewaters]
[Revised from 'no land disposal]
Carbon tetrachloride . -«. .-.«
Chloroform » ........................
Arrtimony,..,,...., ..,.....,.,.,
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
6.2
6.2
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
OJ23
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K021
CWastewatersl
Regulated constituent
Cnlorofofm
Carbon tetrachhxide.
Antimony...»»_«.«.
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.046
0.057
0.60
k. K022, K025, K026, K035, and K083
K022Distillation bottom tars from the
production of phenol/acetone from
cumene.
KQ25Distillation bottoms from the
production of nitrobenzene by the
nitration of benzene.
K026Stripping still tails from the production
of methyl ethyl pyridines.
K035Wastewater treatment sludges
generated in the production of creosote.
K083Distillation bottoms from aniline :
production. . ...
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for K022 (wastewaters only),
and all forms of K025, K026, K035, and
K083. Treatment standards promulgated
today for K025 and K083, revoke tlie "No
Land Disposal Based on No Generation"
treatment standards promulgated on
August 8,1988 and modified on May 2,
1989. (See 53.FJR 31167 and 31174
(August 17,1988) and 54 FR18836 (May
2,1989).] A technical description of
these five wastes can be found in the
Listing Background Documents for each
waste. '
(1) Revisions to the Standards for
Wastewaters. EPA developed -the
proposed treatment standards based on
the transfer of performance data from.
wastes believed to be as difficult to
treat as K022, K025, K026, K035, and
K083. The proposed treatment standards
for both wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of these five wastes, if applicable,
were based on residues from
incineration. Several commenters urged
EPA to develop treatment standards for
the organics regulated in wastewaters
based on performance data resulting
from wastewater treatment
technologies. Specifically, commenters
urged EPA to adopt the same
performance data used by EPA in
developing treatment standards for
multi-source leachate. Other
commenters urged the Agency to use
performance data from the Office of
Water.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third wastes
(54 FR 48390), when the Agency has
appropriate wastewater treatment data
from well-designed and well-operated
wastewater treatment units, it prefers to
use these data rather then scrubber
water concentrations to develop
wastewater treatment standards.
Commenters to the proposed rule for
First Third, Second Third and Third
Third wastes almost unanimously
supported the option of promulgating
wastewater treatment standards based
on the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber water constituent
levels. Upon review of all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commenters and is today
promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber water for wastes that are
proposed in the .Third Third rule.
While the Agency did not specifically
identify the standards based on
wastewater treatment data as
alternatives for F and K wastewaters,
the Agency believes that this is a logical
outgrowth of the notice and comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying the concentrationrbased
treatment standards for K022, K035, and
K083 wastewaters. However, EPA is
withdrawing the proposed .
concentration-based treatment
standards for the K025 and K026
wastewaters, EPA is instead
promulgating technology-based ' ! ~.
treatment standards. -
(2) Treatment Standards for K022
Wastewaters. The concentration-based
treatment standards promulgated today
for K022 are based on performance data
generated from one, or a combination of
two or more of the following BOAT
technologies: biological treatment, .
steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
liquid extraction, and others. (See
Section ni.A.6.{3) of today's preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data for multi-source leachate.)
Treatment standards promulgated for
metals (chromium and nickel) in
wastewater forms of K022 are based on
chemical precipitation followed by
vacuum filtration of waste waters
containing the metals of concern.
One commenter objected to EPA's
rationale for regulating chromium and
nickel in K022 wastewaters by relaying
on performance data from the treatment
of listed hazardous'wastes that only
contained metals. The commenter
pointed out that EPA should rely on
performance data for metal-bearing
wastewater that also contains organics.
According to the commenter, this is
because K022 wastewaters are likely to
contain organics and the performance
data from which the Agency was
transferring standards lack organics.
The commenter believes organics could
interfere with the treatment of chromium
and nickel. The commenter, however,
failed to provide data or information
that indicate that the proposed
treatment standards for metals could not
be achieved for K022 wastewaters. The
Agency stands by its rationale for
transferring performance data of metal
bearing wastewaters to K022
wastewaters.'.'
EPA believes these organics exist at
low concentrations such that they would
not interfere with the treatment of
metals and that if they do exist at higher
concentrations, they can easily be
treated using chemical or wet air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption in order to reduce their
potential interference with metals
treatment At the same time, these
organics would then be able to comply
with the K022 wastewater treatment
standards for organics promulgated in
today's rule. As an alternative, these
wastewaters (i.e., if they were even
higher in concentration) could also be
incinerated in order to comply with the
organics standards and then treated for
metals. All three of these technologies
have been demonstrated to treat similar ,
. wastes containing both metals and
organics. . .
-------
22588
Federal Register / *VoL'*SB,- No. 106 /Eriday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Treatment standards for KO35 and
K083. The concentration-based' "
treatment standards promulgated today
forKOJS andK083 wastewaters are
based on performance data generated *
from one, or a combination of two or
more of the following BOAT
technologies: biological treatment,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
liquid extraction, and others. (See
section HLA&(3) of today's preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data for multi-source leachate.) The
treatment standard promulgated for
nickel in wastewater forms of K083 is
based on chemical precipitation
followed by vaccum filtration.
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for organics in
nonwastewater forms of K035 andKOS3,
primarily as proposed. The treatment
standards are based on the incineration
of wastes believed to be as difficult to
treat as K035 and K083. In addition, EPA
does not believe that the constituents in
K035 and K083 are likely to interfere
with treatment to the extent of making
the promulgated treatment standards
unacbleveable. The treatment standard
promulgated for nickel in
nonwastewater forms of K083 is based
on the stabilization of incineration ash.
The Final BDAT Background Document
for each one of these wastes provides
detailed information on the development
of these treatment standards.
Cyclohexanone is one of the
constituents that was proposed for
regulation in K083 waste. EPA has
Identified other constituents for
regulation in K083 wastes that are as
difficult to treat At this time, EPA is
withdrawing cyclohexanone from the
list of regulated constituents in K083
nonwastewater. However, EPA is still
promulgating treatment standards for
cyclohexanone in K083 wastewaters.
Available performance data does not
indicate any difficulties in analyzing for
cyclohexanone in K083 wastewaters.
(4) Treatment Methods for KO25 and
K026. For K025 and K026, EPA pointed
out its preference for promulgating a
method of treatment over a
concentration based standard for these
two wastes. This is because there is a
lack of characterization data for these
wastes which raises the uncertainty as
to whether regulation of a very few
known BDAT list constituents in these
two wastes will provide regulation of
other BDAT list constituents that could
be in K025 and K028. The performance
data from the treatment of wastes
believed to be as difficult to treat as
K025 and K026 support that wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of these two
wastes can be treated to meet the
promulgated BDAT requirements. '..'
As a result, EPA is promulgating
incineration for nonwastewater forms of
K025 andK026, and as an alternative for
the corresponding wastewater forms. In..
addition, EPA is also promulgating
liquid-liquid extraction followed by
steam stripping followed by carbon
adsorption as the treatment standard for
KD25 wastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K022
-[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Acetophenone-
Phenol
Chromium (Total).
Nickel
Regulated constituent
Toluene..
Dipheoylamtne.
Diphenytnitrosamine _
Maximum (or
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.010
0.039
035
0.47
Maximum for
any
composite
sample, total
composition
0.080
0.52
0.40
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K025
[Wastewaters]
Incineration
(INCIN); or
liquid-liquid
extraction
(LLEXT)
followed by
steam
carbon
adsorption
(CARBN) as
methods of
treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K025
[Nonwastewaiers]
Incineration
(INCIN) as a
method of
treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K026
[Wastewaters and NonwastewatersJ
Incineration
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55» JNo* 106 / Friday, Jane i. 199Q '/ Roles and Regulations
22589
-. . .' --'.,*,. .:- -. -T:-.
<=-* -"' '. '*" - ,. . ' ._ ,'_,.,
-- 1 ,--'. "*--
- .-- . - ""
Regulated constituent
: _, . . - ."
- , ...... .^ . ....... ,:.. .,
Diphenylamine/diphanylnitrosarame
Phenol' __._. ~
'
NfcRel
\ Maximnm.
tor any
a'ngte
' grab
sample,
total
ccmposi-
t»n(mfl/
6.6
14
14
14
5.6
30.
Maxinusnfor
any single
grab sarrtpte,
TCLP{mg/l)
0.088
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
[Wastewatersl
Regulated constituent
AnKine.
Phenol
Cydonexanone .
Nickel
Regulated constituent
Benzene-
Diphenylamina
Kphenytnrirosamine..
Nitrobenzene.-......
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
-------
Friday, June i. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
^ ?<^4deral'Raster f-Vc^SS,"NoT 106
*' BDATTpEATMENtSiTANDARDg FORaK029
. * i -. - ,,,...? 4 .'-..*vc. -vf ' .'.v..-:'*."1'v'~" *'-'
-,-.--'< J;*.'"v'.«'IWll*8*8t?r*1 rf-^V'-::"" -
" i, H«(Matod constituent , ' -'IT
Chloroform..
Vinyl chloride.
Maximum for.
any single'
grabsarnpfe.
'total ".-.
.composition
(mg/l)
0.046
0.21
0.025
0.054
027
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K095,
tWastowatersJ
Regulated constituent
YrfrhlnmnthftflA. _...._
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
.composition
(mg/l)
.0.057
0.057
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.055
0.055
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K096
[Wastawatere]
Regulated constituent
1 1 uS-Trichkxoethano .««.««-»«
j o 4.Trichlorobonxon0 .«» .««-
Maximum for
any (ingle
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.057
' 0.057
' ' 0.058
0.054
0.054
0.036
0.055
0.055
m. K032, K033, K034, K041, K097, and
K098 Wastes.
KOSZ-iWastewater treatment.sludge from the
production of chlordane.
K033Wastewater and scrub water from the
chlorination of cyclopentadiene in the
production, of chlordane.
K034Filter solids from filtration of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the
production of chlordane. .
K041Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of toxaphene.
K097-Vacuum stripper discharge from the
' chlordahe chlorinator in the production
of Chlordane. - « -
K090Untreated process, wastewater from j
tho production of toxaphene. . .-'.
The "Agency isi today promulgating
final treatment standards for
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of K032,K033,K034, K041, K097 and
K09& wastes. The nonwastewater
treatment standards are based on
performance data from an EPA
incineration test burn that was
conducted in June 1989. (The reader is
referred to the November 22, .1989
proposed rule for additional information
on the test turn (54 FR 483901)0 No
comments were received on the
proposed standards for any of the
specific constituents of K032, K033,
K034, K041, K097 or K098
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA
assumes that generators of these wastes
agree with the Agency's assessment of
the treatability of these wastes and their
.individual constituents. Details,on the
selection of regulated constituents and
the transfer of performance data for
these K wastes are provided in the
background document for these
halogenated pesticide wastes which can
be found in the RCRA docket
In section ffl.A.l.(h.)(6.) of the
proposed rule for Third Third wastes (54
FR 48390 (November 22,1989)), the
Agency specifically proposed two
alternative sets of concentration-based
standards for the majority of the U and
P wastewaters for which concentration-
based standards could be established.
One set of standards was based on the
concentration of constituents of concern
as measured in incinerator scrubber
water while the alternate set of
standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters from various data sources.
These alternative standards were
presented in section ffl.A.7. of the
proposed Third Third rule (54 FR 48467)
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source leachate, but were
specifically identified as alternative
standards for U and P wastewaters.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390), when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
.data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
- scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. Commenters to the proposed
rules for the-First Third, SecondThird
and Third Third Wastes almost : H
' unanimously supported that EPA should
promulgate wastewater standards based
on .the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber .water constituent
levels: After reviewing all available data
,and comments,-the Agency agrees with
the commenters, and is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards based on wastewater
treatment data rather than scrubber
water for K032, K033, K034, K041, K097
and K098 wastewaters. While the' '
Agency did not specifically identify the
standards based on wastewater
treatment data as alternatives for these
wastewaters, the Agency believes that
this is a logical outgrowth of the notice
and comment process.
More detailed information on the
technical development of the constituent
specific treatment standards for
wastewaters can be found in the
background document entitled, BDAT
Background Document for Wastewaters
containing BDAT list Constituents.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Chlordane . . .
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide .
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total .
composition
(mg/kg)
2.4
0.26
0.066
0.066
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Chlordane......--....
Heptachlor '.
Heptachlor epoxide
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.057
0.0033
0.0012
0.016
BDAt TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K033
[Nonwastewaters] '
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..
Maximum
for any
sample
total
composition
(mg/kg)
'2.4
-------
Federal Register./ Vol. 55, No? 1Q6 /.Friday. June 1, 199O /Rules and Regulations 22591
; BDATTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K033
:;y .-.;-:-'?*£ ^..:. twastewaters] s^v^'-''
;v ;-; ''.' ; ;';;-'':' '-' '.
''' '^Regulated constituent . ; ,-
'' -'--' _.i'f ;'; '. ,.. ^ -, . ' ; '
..:..--':". ' j
Maximum *
for any 24-
hour
.composite
' sample.
- total
-composition
(mg/l)
'_ '; U057
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K034
[Nbmvastewatersl . '
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
2.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K034
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Hexachtorocydopentadiene
Maximum
for any 24-
hour
composite
sample,
total
comoosition
(mg/l)
0.057
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K041
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene...
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS *OR K097
'' ; ''[Nonwastewaters] ' " " ':.'
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K041
[Wastewaters] :.,
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene....
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
Regulated constituent . - -
-- . - . " - ; ,-. ^ >>', .
Hexaohkxavctopentadiene .-.
Heptachtor_. . ..
Heptachlor opoxkte _- _,__,, ,,,T..rr- ' ---
Maximum for
; any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg) .
' ~2.4 .
0.26
0.066
-' 0.066
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K097
[Wastewaters] . . .'"
2.6
s
Regulated .constituent
Hexachlorocydopentadiene ."
Chtordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.057
0.0033
0.0012
0.016
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K098
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
2.6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K098
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene .; ~ -
Maximum
for any 24-
hour
composite
sample,
total
composition
proposed rule for Third Third wastes,
the Agency proposed a transfer of r
concentration-based standards from
K037 nonwastewaters (based on the
performance of incineration in the First
Third final rule) to other forms of K036
noriwastewaters, such as K036 spill
residues. The basis of this transfer is the
similarity of these two wastes, and the
fact that Disulfoton, the regulated
constituent in K036, is a regulated
constituent in K037 as well.
The Agency promulgated
concentration-based treatment
standards for K037 wastewaters based
on incinerator scrubber water
concentration levels in the First Third
final rule. In the November 22,1989
proposed rule for Third Third wastes,
the Agency proposed to revise this
standard to be consistent with the other
organophosphorus pesticide
wastewaters, for which concentration-
based standards based on biological
treatment were promulgated in tie
Second Third final rule on June 23.1989.
The Agency stated that the
performance achievable by incineration
and the performance of biological
treatment represent BOAT for
nonwastewater and wastewater forms,
respectively, of. the organophosphorus
pesticides. Because the Agency received
no comments on this proposal, the
Agency is today promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for K036 nonwastewaters and
concentration-based treatment
standards for K037 wastewaters as
proposed. Therefore, the Agency is able
to promulgate concentration-based
treatment standards for: Disulfoton in
K036 nonwastewaters, and Disulfoton
and toluene in K037. nonwastewaters.
Standards applicable to ,
nonwastewaters are based on the
performance achieved by rotary kiln
, incineration and the concentration of
.organophosphorus pesticide measured
in the ash residuals. Standards
applicable to wastewaters are.based on
the performance achieved by biological
treatment and the concentration of. ;
organophosphorus pesticide measured
in the resultant effluent wastewaters.
Where the treatment standards are .
.expressed as concentration-based
-------
Fedetal Register / Vot 55. No. 106 / Riday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
standards, other treatment technologies
1 -that can achieve these concentration-
based treatmentstandards are not ,-
predudedIromuse'bythiBTule.The~
s regulated constituents and treatment
standards for these wastes are
" presented in the tables at the end of this-
section. == . "" .
. The Agency points out that the
promulgated concentration-based .
treatment standards for K037
wastewaters are based on the analysis
of composite samples rather than grab
samples. This sampling procedure is
specified for compliance monitoring
because the performance data on which
these standards are based consisted of
analysis of composite effluent samples.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K036
INomwstowaterel
CRovteed from no land disposal}
Regutatsd constituent
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/ko)
0.1
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K037
IWastewatersl
CRcvteed based on biotraabnent data]
Regulated constituent
Dfouttoton - " "
Maximum
for any
single
composite
ample,
tots
composition
(mg/I)
0.025
0.080
o. K042, K085, and K105 Wastes.
K04SHeavy ends or distillation residues
from the distillation of ,
teUachlorobenzene in the production of
K085Distillation of fractionation column
bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzenes. "
K105Separated aqueous stream from the
reactor product washing step in the
production of chlorobenzenes.
The Agency Is today promulgating
final treatment standards for the
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of K042, K085 and K105. The treatment
standards' for nonwastewaters are
based on performance data from an EPA
incineration test burn that was
conducted hi June;1989. (The reader is ,
referred to the November 22,1989
proposed rule for additional information
on this test burn {54 FR4B3901).] The
"wastewater treatment standards have
been modified from the proposed rule
and are being promulgated today based
ima transfer of performance data from
wastewater treatment.
In section m.A.l.(h)(6) of the proposed
rule for Third Third wastes (54 FR 48390
{November 22,1989J). the Agency
specifically proposed two alternative
sets of concentration-based standards
for the majority of the U and P
wastewaters for which concentration-
based standards could be established.
One set of standards was based on the
concentration of constituents of concern
as measured in incinerator scrubber
water while the alternate set of
standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters from various data sources.
These alternative standards were
presented in section ULA.7. of the
proposed Third Third rule (54 FR 48467)
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source leachate, but were
specifically identified as alternative
standards for U and P wastewaters.
As stated hi the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390), when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. Commenters to the proposed
rules for the First Third. Second Third
and Third Third Wastes almost
unanimously agreed that EPA should
promulgate wastewater standards based
on the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber water constituent
levels. After reviewing all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commenters, and is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards based on wastewater
treatment data rather than scrubber
water for K042, K085 and K105
wastewaters. More detailed, information
on the technical development of the
constituent specific treatment standards
for wastewaters can be found in the
background document entitled, BDAT
Background Document for Wastewaters
containing BDAT list Constituents.
The Agency received several
comments on the proposed standards for
the PCB constituents in K085 waste.
These standards were listed for seven of
the common mixtures, of PCBs known
originally by the trade name of Aroclor
(i.e., the proposed standards were listed
for Arodpr 1016,1221,1232,1242,1248.
1254, and 1260). One commenter stated
that an unjustified treatment level for'.
PCBs had been set and that the Agency
did not give a rationale for the level
selected. The commenter further urged
the Agency to set a treatment standard
at 50 ppm which is the regulated level
under both TSCA and the RCRA
California list provision. The Agency
disagrees with the commenter. Under
HSWA, EPA has been'given authority to
establish treatment standards at levels
that minimize threats to human health
and the environment See S. Rept. No.
284,98th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17, stating
that California list levelswhich
include a 50 ppm PCB levelare only
minimum starting points for establishing
treatment standards. (See also 55 FR
6640, Feb. 26,1990 explaining mat
current uncertainties as to waste
toxidty and mobility warrant retention
of the BDAT approach.)
EPA noted in the November 22,1989
proposal (54 FR 48398). that untreated
K085 wastes contain a wide range of
PCB concentrations, however if K085
wastes exceed 50 ppm PCBs, they must
be incinerated hi a TSCA permitted
facility (several of the commercial
faculties that are permitted for RCRA
wastes are also permitted for PCB-
contaminated wastes under TSCA) as
well as meeting the concentration-based
treatment standards being promulgated
today. EPA believes that this approach
is consistent with the statutory mandate.
Another commenter stated that the
proposed PCB concentration-based
standard for K085 was inappropriately
low because the presence of
hexachlorobenzene or
pentachlorobenzene at their K085
treatment standard concentration levels
interferes with proper performance of
SW-846 Method 8080's Electron Capture
Detection instrumentation, and therefore
PCB levels hi K085 cannot be rputinely
quantified at the BDAT standard level.
EPA believes, as stated in the preamble
to the proposed rule (54 FR 48398) that
incineration virtually destroys
hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorobenzene, as well as PCBs, so
. then- ash and scrubber water levels will
be too low to cause interference. As
stated in the section of this Preamble
discussing how the Agency used
detection limits to'set standards. EPA
deliberately set numerical treatment ;
"standards above detection limits by
using multiple variability factors:
Consequently numerical treatment
standards for incineration based'
numbers represent the lowest numbers
an analytical instrumentation system
can reliably report rather than the
-------
^Federal Register /; Vol. ;55; !NcK A06 /Friday. June 1,1990 /Rifles and Regulations
22593
.concentration of the constituent actually
present in the ash: EPA reiterates that
treatability variances are available on a
case-by-case basis for generators who
cannot meet these standards. In . . .
addition, if the waste Ms been -
incinerated and analytical methods
utilized in good faith, and the standard
still proves to be below the detection
-limit EPA will consider this to ....
constitute compliance with the
treatment standard (see preamble .
-section nLA.l.g). -,'"
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K042
[Nonwastewaters] ' -
Regulated constituent
1,2.4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene -~
o-Dichtorobenzene ».».-..««..«.».. ..
p-Dichlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene ».-. .»»...
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzane :
Maximum
.for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K042
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
1,2,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene.
o-Dichlorobenzene.
p-Dichlorobenzene.
Pentachlorobenzene ...
1,2,4-Tric'hlorobenzene
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.055
0.088
0.090
0.055
0.055
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K085
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene .....................
Chlorobenzene -..-.
o-Dichlorobenzene ..-
m-Dichlorobenzene ;.-.-
p-Dichlorobenzene'......:
l;2,4-Trichlorobenzene .
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobehzene '..
Pentachlorobenzene.:.
Hexachlorobenzene ..
Arodor'1016 1
Aroclor 1221 . .....
Arodor 1232..!
Arodor 1242....... .............
Aroclor 1248
Arpclor 1254...._.... ......_.
Aroclor 1260 ~.~
Maximum
-for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K085
..,'..' Wastewatersi
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
.4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
Regulated constituent
Benzene :..»...:«.».«»..»....»»»«»..«.»«»»
Cntorobsnzwie., ; ................
o-Dichlorobenzene .«»«..«.«»...»»«.»«..».
fn-Dichlorobenzene .~ .
p-DiChlOrObenZ6n8 ......«.»»»...».»«...»J...
1 .2,4-Tro5htorobenzene ~ .-. '.
1,2,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene . .
Perrtachlorobenzene ~.-...-,*.~..,~,.~^~~.
Hexachloro benzene .._...... ..
Arodor 101 6 .
Aroclor 1221.......... ....__.-. ........
Arodor 1 232............... ........-...
Aroclor 1242..- .......__..
Arodor 1248 .
Aroclor 1 254............ __.........._ _.
Arodor 1 260
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.14
0.057
0.088
0.036
0.090
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013
0.014
0.014
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene............. . ......_..
Chlorobenzene ...«.«»... «»«... _».......
o-Dichlorobenzene ...... .._....
p-Dichlorobenzene .......».
2,4,5-Tefcachlorophenol .
2,4,6-Tetrachtorophenol :
2-Chlorophenol ...-..- ...-»« -.«.
Phenol-.............. .... ........
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
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene«.»«...M».«.»*».»».»*.«..»...... ...
p-Dichlorobenzene .-..._ .......
. 2,4,5-Trichtorophenol ..-.-.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .
2-Chlorophenol »*.. ..»...»».»...... ...
Phnol.............«.««..» ...«..«.-... '.-......
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.14
0.057
0.088
0.090
0.18
0.035
0.044
0.039
p. K044, K045, K046, and K047
K044Wastewater treatment sludges from '
the manufacturing and processing of
explosives. . -..-
K045Spent carbon from the treatment of .
wastewater containing explosives.
K04SWastewater treatment sludges from
the manufacturing, formulation, and .
loading of lead-based initiating
compounds. .
K04.7Pink/red water TNT operators.
Today's rule revokes the "No Land
Disposal Based on Reactivity" treatment
standard for K044, K045, and K047
wastes and promulgates as proposed a
treatment standard of "Deactivation".
The Agency is also promulgating a
nonwastewater treatment standard for
lead in the K046 Reactive Subcategory,
as proposed (also see 54 FR 26607-608,
June 23,1989), based on the transfer of'
performance data from the stabilization
of K046 nonreactive wastes. This
.treatment standard 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.
The Agency received several
comments indicating that the BDAT for
the K046 Reactive Subcategory should
be deactivation followed by
stabilization as opposed to just
stabilization. The Agency agrees with
the commenters and is therefore revising
BDAT as deactivation followed by
stabilization. In addition, many
commenters had questions on the
definition of deactivation. To clarify this
point, the Agency is defining
deactivitation for K044, K045, K046 and
K04.7 wastes to be the process of
removing the characteristic of reactivity,
by technologies such as incineration or
chemical oxidation. See 40 CFR part 268
appendix VI for a list of technologies
that used alone or in combination can
achieve this standard.
For all K046 wastewaters, the
treatment standard is based on the
performance of alkaline precipitation,
settling, and filtration. The Agency is
transferring the performance of this
treatment system from K062 wastes. The
K062 wastewaters are just as difficult to
treat as the K046 wastewaters, based on
the concentration of lead in K062 (up to
212 ppm) which is the same or higher
than that which has been found in K046
wastewaters (up to 200 ppm). . ..
BDAT TREATMENT FOR K044, K045, K047
[Nonwastewaters and Wastewaters]
[Revised from no land disposal]
Deactivation (Deact) as a method of treatment*
See CFR 268.42 Table I for a description of this
method of treatment
-------
22594 ^Federal Register / Voi 55. "No. 306 / Friday. June l."1990 / Rules and Regulations
» BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
REACTIVE AND NONREACTIVE SUBCATE-
GORTES ' _'_;,.. , ^ ," _ ",,',"",
- ",, - WtotwwiaraJ ,.,-'-,.-";.--.- -
- < . , :
- ' . . . *, ««'*'." r
Begulotod conrftuont
Inri
Maximum ;
ferany
ingle
C8ampte!8
total
composition
0.037
BDATTREATMEWT STANDARDS FOR K046
REACTIVE SUBCATEGORY
INonwastewatefsl
Regulated constituent
Lead u *- -
Maximum
for any
single
composite
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.18
q. K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052
KCWeDissolved air floatation (DAF) float
from the petroleum refining industry.
KWOSlop oil emulsion solids from the
petroleum refining industry.
K050Heat Exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining
Industry.
KOS1AH separator sludge from the
petroleum refining industry.
K052Tank bottoms (leaded) from the
petroleum refining industry.
Wastes identified as K048, K049, K050.
K051, and K052 are generated by
facilities in the petroleum refining
industry. Detailed technical descriptions
of the specific processes generating
these wastes can be found in the
background document for the listing' of
these waste codes.
In today's rule. EPA is promulgating
revised treatment standards for the
organic and metal constituents in K048-
K052 nonwastewaters and for cyanide in
K04B-K052 wastewaters.The specific
regulated constituents and treatment
standards for these wastes are listed in
the tables at the end of this section.
Treatment standards for organic and
metal constituents in K048-K052
wastewaters and cyanide in K048-K052
nonwastewaters were promulgated on
August 8,1988 (53 FR 31159) and are not
amended by this rulemaking.
The Agency has also decided to
reschedule these wastes to the third-
third and thus create a new prohibition
effective date for them. The legal
authority to take this action comes from
w*»i.»j *'*'* continuing authority to .
reschedule wastes from one third of the
schedule to another." Chemical Waste
. Management v. EPA. 889 F. 2d 1526 n.2
[D.C Cir. 1989) (noting rescheduling of
the prohibition for multispurce leachate
that had already taken effect).
Notwithstanding this authority, the
Agency is not undertaking this
rescheduling casually. The determining
factor in EPA's view, is that even though
the wastes were prohibited in the first
third rule (and granted a two-year
national capacity variance), petroleum
industry members were in legitimate
doubt as to what the ultimate treatment
standards would be and, to some extent,
what the technological basis for the
standards would be.
In particular, the original'standards
promulgated by EPA were based on
treatment of some of the less
contaminated petroleum refining wastes.
Subsequent efforts to reexamine and
possibly amend the promulgated
standards were delayed in part because
of conflicting claims from the treatment
industry regarding the equivalency of
performance of three-stage and five-
stage solvent extraction technology. The
petroleum refining industry itself
participated in research efforts
regarding treatment tests on some of the
more contaminated petroleum refining
wastes and generated some useful data
which was used hi revising the
promulgated standards.
The result of this involved process is
that it could have been reasonably
unclear to a petroleum refinery whether
treatment standards could be achieved
using solvent extraction technology one
type of BOAT technology. Such a facility
could have legitimately delayed its
investment decision about what
treatment technology to use to comply
with the land disposal prohibitions.
Given this situation, the Agency
believes it is acting both reasonably and
legally in exercising its authority to
reschedule the wastes to the Third
Third.
The Agency has also determined that
there is inadequate treatment capacity
for generated K048-K052 wastes. (See
section HI.B. below where the Agency is
granting a national capacity variance for
K048-K052 wastes). The revised
standards for organic and metal
constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters and for cyanide in
K048-K052 wastewaters and the
previously promulgated standards for
organic and metal constituents in K048-
K052 wastewaters and cyanide in K048-
K052 nonwastewaters will become
effective on November B, 1990 at the
completion of a six month national
capacity variance being issued for K048-
K052 as part of the Third Third rule.
The treatment standard for cyanide in
wastewater forms of K048-4C052 is
promulgated asproposed. Treatment
standards for organic and metal
constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters have been revised as
described below.
During the public comment period, the
Agency received additional treatment
performance data for treatment of
organic and metal constituents in KD48-
K052 nonwastewaters. Treatment
performance data were received from
four commenters, BP America, Exxon,
Amoco, and API. for stabilization of
metal constituents in K048-K052 :
nonwastewaters from five refineries.
These data were obtained from
stabilization treatment tests of solvent
extraction raffinate, incinerator ash, and
incinerator combustion gas scrubber
water solids using a variety of binders.
The Agency received additional
'treatment performance data for CF
Systems' solvent extraction system from
four commenters: CF Systems, Exxon,
Shell, and API. These data were
obtained from solvent extraction
treatment tests of organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters from ten
refineries. Treatment performance data
for RCC's B.E.S.T. solvent extraction
system were also submitted from two
commenters for treatment of organic
constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters from three refineries.
Treatment performance data for '
multicycle solvent extraction were
submitted by one.commenter for
treatment of organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters from three
refineries. Also, treatment performance
data for BP America's filtration/solvent
extraction/stabilization process were
submitted by one commenter for
treatment of organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters from one
refinery. The Agency also has limited
data submitted by Thermal Dynamics,
Inc. for treatment of organic constituents
in K048-K052 nonwastewaters using
high temperature thermal distillation
from one refinery. The basis for the
amended treatment standards is
summarized below.
(1) BOAT Treatment Standards for
Metal Constituents. Today's rule
amends the promulgated K048-K052
rulemaking (53 FR 31159) to delete the
treatment standards for arsenic and
selenium in nonwastewater forms of
K048-K052. Today's rule also revises the
treatment standard for nickel in
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052.
The majority of the stabilization data
submitted by industry could.not be
-------
federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 1*1 / Friday.lime 1.1990 /Rules and Refeulations 22S95
considered in developing this -, - . .
promulgated rulemaking for the .
"following reasons: (1) Data were not
-provideSfor a majority of the regulated.
- constituents;^) untreated waete data
were not provided,- and, therefore, no -
determination of substantial treatment
could be made; (3) detection limits were
not provided for undetected samples; -
and/or (4) treatment was not
demonstrated for a majority of the
regulated metal constituents.
Treatment performance data that
were considered in developing
promulgated treatment standards for
- metal constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters are discussed in detail
in the amendment to the BOAT
background document for these wastes
located in the RCRA docket Statistical
comparison showed that data sets for
stabilization of solvent extraction
raffinate submitted by Exxon and BP
America demonstrated better treatment
for chromium than the data generated
by EPA, as well as that submitted by
Amoco for stabilization of incinerator
ash. In addition, data submitted by
industry indicated significantly higher
levels of nickel in the untreated waste
than in the waste stabilized by the
Agency.
Several commenters stated that the
data generated by EPA showed only
marginal evidence of treatment by
stabilization, and that an error was
made in calculating the treatment
standard for nickel hi K048-K052
nonwastewaters. The Agency
acknowledges the error made in the
treatment standard calculation for
nickel, and agrees with the commenters
that marginal evidence of stabilization
treatment is shown hi the EPA
generated data regarding arsenic and
selenium. In addition, none of the
industry data submitted show
substantial treatment for these two
constituents. Therefore, the Agency is
deleting treatment standards for arsenic
and selenium in K048-K052
nonwastewaters. Further, to ensure that
the Agency is accounting for the
maximum variability in metals
concentrations in K048-K052 wastes, the
Agency is using the data sets submitted
by Exxon and BP America to revise the
treatment standard for nickel. Finally,
the treatment standard for chromium
remains as promulgated in the First
Third Rulemaking because-'the data
submitted by Exxon and BP America, as
well as by Amoco, indicate that the
treatment standard is achievable for the
complete range of K048-K052 wastes
tested using stabilization treatment.
(2) BOAT Treatment Standards for
Organic Constituents. Today's rule
revises the treatment standards for all
sixteen regulated organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. In revising
these standards, the Agency considered
the treatment performance data -
submitted by industry for the following
technologies: CF Systems' three-pass
solvent extraction, BP America's
multicycle solvent extraction, RCC's
solvent extraction, and TDI's high
temperature thermal distillation.
The majority of the aforementioned
data could not be considered in
developing this promulgated rulemaking
for the following reasons: (1) Data were
not provided for a majority of the
regulated organic constituents; (2)
untreated waste data were not provided
and, therefore, no determination of
substantial treatment could be made; (3]
a majority of the regulated organic
constituents were not detected hi the
untreated waste; (4) detection limits for
the treated waste were several orders of
magnitude higher than those achieved in
other treated waste data sets, indicating
non-optimized laboratory procedures;
(5) treatment was not demonstrated for
a majority of the regulated organic
constituents; and/or, (6) adequate QA/
QC data were not provided.
The remaining data sets met the
Agency's screening criteria and were
used with Agency-generated data from
Amoco's fluidized bed incineration and
CF Systems' five-pass solvent extraction
treatment tests to calculate promulgated
treatment standards for organic
constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewaters. These treatment
performance data are discussed in detail
hi the amendment to the BOAT
background document for these wastes
located in the RCRA docket
Several commenters stated that the
data used by EPA to develop the
treatment standards do not reflect the
wide variability in refinery wastes, and
suggested that the Agency use data
submitted by the petroleum refining
industry to develop a larger database for
calculation of treatment standards.
However, one commenter stated that the
Agency's current use of a variability
factor in treatment standard
calculations is sufficient, and additional
factors to account for waste feed
variability would bias the data.
The Agency has addressed the
commenters' concerns regarding waste
variability hi calculating the revised
treatment standards for K048-K052
promulgated in today's rule. The data
sets that met the Agency's screening
criteria were reviewed to determine the
most difficult to treat waste (typically
containing the highest concentration
value) for each regulated constituent.
The corresponding treated waste -
concentration was then multiplied by a
variability factor of 2,8 (this variability
factor is used by the Agency when
attempting to account for variability:
with only one date point (see the BDAT
Methodology Background Document
located in the RCRA docket)) to
determine the treatment standard for
each constituent A more detailed
discussion of the calculation of revised
treatment standards for the K04&-K052
nonwastewater organics may be found
in the amendment to the BDAT
background document for these wastes
located in the RCRA docket
Several commenters stated that
currently available solvent extraction
processes, including the propane
extraction system (CF Systems') tested
by the Agency, cannot meet the
proposed BDAT standards. One
commenter stated that the propane
extraction system tested by the Agency
to develop the proposed treatment
standards for organic constituents hi
K048-K052 nonwastewaters cannot be
considered BDAT because it is a pilot-
scale unit and, therefore, is not
"demonstrated."
The Agency reminds the commenters
that BDAT is technology-specific, not
process-specific. BDAT for K048-K052
nonwastewater organics is solvent
extraction and incineration, both of
which are demonstrated treatment
technologies for K04&-K052 wastes, and
data considered by the Agency from
both technologies have been used to
develop the promulgated treatment
standards, thereby ensuring that the
treatment standards would not preclude
the use of either technology.
The Agency also points out that
although the treatment standards were
specifically calculated using data from
CF Systems' solvent extraction unit,
data submitted by RCC shows that their
amine extraction technology would be
able to meet the treatment standards for
all regulated constituents except bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate. (High treated
waste concentrations reported by RCC
for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were
apparently a result of laboratory
contamination.) However, the RCC data
were bench-scale and could not be
considered further since pilot- and full-
scale data were available to the Agency.
BP America's solvent extraction data,
which were used to promulgate
treatment standards for K048-K052
nonwastewater organics in the first third
rule, indicate that this technology can
meet all but four of the revised
treatment standards, those for
ethylbenzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, as well as the new standards
-------
1. 55,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 166 /Friday. June % 1990 / .Rules and Regulations 22597
threats to human nealth and the ',:->
environment ^re^minimized. This is not
..a reasonable way to construe the land ..
disposal restriction provisions. , .
'. In addition, the reading urged by API
would amount, .as a practical matter, to
an end run around the no migration test
in sections 3004 (d), (e), and (g). The
result advocated by API would result in
partially treated wastes being disposed
jof in units that had not satisfied the no
migration standard.'This again is at
odds with the natural reading of the
statutory scheme .which indicates only
two alternatives for disposing of
prohibited wastes: disposal in a no
migration unit or disposal after
satisfying the section 3004(m) standard.
Again, this appears to EPA to be the
very result that Congress legislated
against.1
The approach API urges is also at
odds with the BOAT approach the
Agency has adopted to establish the
section 3004(m) treatment standards. It
would also be at odds with the approach
EPA recently outlined that would cap
BOAT treatment levels if those levels
were ever below de minimis
concentration levels of hazardous
constituents established by EPA as a
threshold for determining when threats
from land disposal are minimized and
wastes are no longer hazardous. See 55
FR 6640 (Feb. 26,1990). The Agency thus
believes it far more reasonable to go
forward with its existing interpretation
which does not undermine its approach
to establishing treatment standards.
(This approach was recently upheld as
consistent with the statute in Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. -
2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989].)
In short, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to read the statute to require
that all pretreatment of prohibited
wastes occur, before they are land
disposed. Further, the Agency has
determined in today's rule the extent of
* In fact, the scheme being advocated appears to
resemble the original House version of the land
diaposal restriction provisions, which authorized the
Agency to evaluate different forms of land disposal
under different standards in determining which
wastes were prohibited, and did not contain a no-
migration test or a mandatory pretreatment
provision. See section S(c) of H.R. 2867, as reported
at H.R. Rep. No. 198, 98th Cong, 1st Seas. 4-5 (1983).
This scheme was not enacted, but rather was
replaced by the present statute.
EPA also finds APTs position to be unreasonable
because it ignores section 3005fj)(ll) which
specifically authorizes land disposal in surface
impoundments of wastes not meeting the section
3004(m) pretreatment standards provided that
certain conditions are met. EPA believes that this
provision indicates .that when Congress, intended to
allow the land disposal of wastes not yet satisfying
the section 3004(m) standards into land disposal
units not meeting the nomigration test. It said so
explicitly. There is no such provision applicable to
disposal Jn land treatment units. . : .. ,
treatment that-satisfies the section. . .-..
>3004(m) standard for. the K048-052
wastes. Thus,, this level of treatment is
required before the wastes ran be land
disposed (unless disposal is into.a no- ..-
migration unit). -'-.'" ; .
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K048, K049, K050, K051 AND KQ52
' IWastewaters] .
Reguteted constituent
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total) ...... . ... «.«
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
' total
composition
, (mg/l)
0.028
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR K048
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene ..
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene............................. ...............
Dt-n-nirtylphthalate
Ethylbenzone...... ...........
Naphthalene ..
Phenanthrene .-..~-.....
Phenol
Pyrene .............. ~
Xylenes (total) -
Regulated constituent
Nickel
Maximum for
any single
composition
(mg/kg)
14
12
7.3
15
14
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
Maximum for
any single
TCLP (mg/l)
1 7
0.20
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FORK049
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Anthracene __ .
Benzene... .....
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Ohrysen^Vii .in ii.i.i n.-Ti '--. m---
Ethylbenzene.. ........
Naphthalene i..... .......
Phsnanthrww
Phenol ; ,-,-,-,-,-
Pyr0^0,, ,,--;, ---i, -, I---,-, ,-,-i,-i,- --, *-n
Toluene .....«........
Xylenes (total) .._......_.
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
28
14
12 .-
73
15
14
- 42
34
14 "
-82
Chromium (total).
Nickel- ;
*todmum16r
£SSS&.
TCLP(mg/l)
1.7
020
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FORK050
tNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent.
Benzo(a)pyrene ...~. .
Phenol
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total) ......... ...
Nickel
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition'
(mg/kg)
12
3.6
Maximum for
TCLP thalate
Chrysene - .
Di-n-butylphflialate,,,,,, , _._ .
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene _ ..
Phenol .. ;.
Pyrene_._ . _
Tolusrw . ...
Xyienes (total)
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total) '. .,.,..,.,,, .......
MiO-knl - -, :
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
28
14
20
12
73
15
3.6
14
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
Maximum for
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
1.7
0.20
-------
' 22598 * -Federal'Register'/ -Vol.35. No/106 /'Friday.-June rt. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
t " :
- >«flEVJSED-BDAT-tHEATMENT STANDARDS
;.....-. . .FOB K052;.--; :-..--.....'.':
i *t -" - ** = " '»'-',,
\ , ? " -^ . f WAr«rt«f*iwatflirftl -'"- .
tNomwstowatersl;
Rooutetadlconstitiwrt --, '.
* ! - "° '"- ' ' \ *
f^GfWOl.. _ J, ,,
Nnprrthntona . .
Phon^nthf&nQ -----
Phenol,, , ,..,., ,...,..
Xylonw (tot*!) u H..I..I. i - --
Rogutated constituent
Nickel,
Maximum "for
any single
grab 'sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg) .
14,
12
62
62
14
42
, , ,34
3.6
' 14
22
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
1.7
020
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
numerical treatment standard-for the , ,
. cyanide cpnstituentin K060 ''-.'-'.
wastewaters based on the performance ,
of.biological treatment followed by ,
settling and clarification. ,* '
The Agency received no comments on
the applicability of the technical-transfer
of the performance of the technologies
for these wastes. Therefore, .the Agency
is promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards for this waste as
proposed. ,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
[Revised from, no land disposal] .
[WastewatersJ . .
r,K060
KOBOAmmonia still lime sludge from coking
operations.
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards for organic and cyanide ,
constituents as proposed 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 Category
Coke Making Subcategory. In addition,
the Agency is promulgating
nonwastewater treatment standards for
organic and cyanide constituents as
proposed based on a transfer of the
performance of incineration for K087
wastes, which are generated from the
same industry as K060 wastes {coking
Industry) and have similar or higher
concentrations of KOOO.
In the November 22,1989, proposed
ruin, the Agency transferred the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
P007 through F009 wastewaters to the
cyanide constituent of K060
wastewaters. The Agency believed that
this was a technically feasible transfer
because the F007 through F009
wastewaters were more difficult to treat
as a result of the higher concentration of
cyanides. Since that time, the Agency
has reevaluated the performance of
biological treatment for KOOO
wastewaters and believes that for this
waste biological treatment can achieve
similar treatment levels fpr'low-
concentration cyanides similar to those
achieved by alkaline chlorination.
" .
Regulated constituent
BenzcXa) pyrene
Naphthalene
Phonol
Cyanides (Total). . ._.m._..._-
Maxlmumfor
any 24-hour
composite ,
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.17
0.035
0.028
0.042
1.9
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
[Revised from no land disposal]
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Benzo(a) pyrene
Cyanides (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
0.071
3.6
3.4
3.4
1.2
s. K061
K061Emission control dust/sludge from the
primary production of steel in electric
furnaces. .
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards for cadmium, chromium, and
nickel in K061 wastes as proposed. The
treatment standards are based on the
performance of chemical reduction,
followed by precipitation with sulfides
and lime, and sludge dewatering as was
set for K062 wastes. For lead, the
Agency is promulgating wastewater -
treatment standards based on data
received from the foundry industry. The
treatment standard is based on the
performance of precipitation with
magnesium hydroxide and-filtration: for
wastewaters generated from a cupola
furnace. The Agency believes that the .
performance of this treatment system
can achieve the promulgated .treatment '
standards for the other metals
(cadmium, chromium, and nickel) . < '.
because of the metal hydroxide-;s .
solubilities..- . .. ' --^-i - :
Many cdmmeriters also suggested that
the Agency develop treatment standards
for this waste based on a transfer of
treatment data from the Effluent
Guidelines Point Source Category of the
Iron and Steel Manufactures.The
Agency disagrees with the commenters
and does not believe that Effluent
Guidelines data represents a K061
wastewater. The data show low level of
metals in the waste'and there is no
corresponding influent and effluent
concentration levels for the metals. EPA
therefore excluded this data in the
development of the treatment standards.
Many commenters suggested that the
transfer of the performance of treatment
for K062 was not an appropriate transfer
due to the chemical and physical
differences between the two wastes, i.e.,
pH of wastewaters, influent lead
concentrations, and settling differences
between hydroxides (K062) and oxides
(K061). The Agency disagrees with the
commenters and believes that chemical
and physical differences between the
two wastes does not prevent treatment
to the same concentration level. The
Agency believes that changes to the
treatment system such as the addition of
other precipitating agents to alter the pH
can aid in the performance of the
treatment system thereby achieving the
treatment standards.
In addition, the Agency received data
from generators of K061 wastewaters.
These data indicated that K061
wastewaters contained higher
concentration of lead than are typically
found in K062 wastewaters. Therefore,
the Agency evaluated all of the
available wastewater data from
comment submissions and from the
Effluent Guidelines database. Data
submitted by the foundry industry
indicated.that lead concentrations can
be substantially reduced by
precipitation and filtration, The Agency
believes that these treatment data better
represent the typical concentration of
: lead found in K061. Therefore, the
Agency is using these data to develop a
numerical treatment standard for lead.
The calculation of the treatment
standard can be found hi the Final
Addendum Background document for
K061 wastewaters. . . . ,
EPA promulgated treatment standards
for nonwastewater forms of K061 as part
of the First Third final regulation on
August 8,1988. Two subcategories for
nonwastewater forms of K001 were :
defined: the low zinc subcategory (less
-------
Federal Register /:Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations ,22599
than 15%) and the high zinc subcategory
(greater tiian 159B). The treatment ' '- ;
standard for the low ziric subcategory -"
was based^n 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).-Due to.a shortage in high .,;..'
temperature metals recovery capacity, -
the effective date of this treatment ,
standard was delayed until August,
1990. An interim numerical standard
based on performance of stabilization
technology is in force until that time. .
In the proposed rule, the Agency
requested comments on the extension of
the existing, interim treatment standard
for another year. The Agency received
comments indicating that industry is in
the process of building recovery
processes, thus alleviating the Agency's
concern at proposal that an additional
extension of the interim stabilization
standard would reward dilatory conduct
in developing optimal treatment The
Agency believes it appropriate to extend
the interim standard as an alternative to
high temperature recovery for one
additional year.
The Agency also proposed to amend
the existing treatment standard for high
zinc K061 wastes to be resmelting in a
high temperature metal recovery
furnace. EPA has decided not to amend
the existing standard. The standard
itself is presently under review by a
panel of the District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals (API v. EPA. No. 88-.
1606) and the Agency is concerned that
the change in the treatment standard it
proposed could confuse the matters at .
issue in that case without resolving
them. The Agency therefore has decided '
not to change the description of the
existing treatment standards for these
wastes. .
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K061
tWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium..*..... .... . ......
Chromium ......».......i.........»....l..mn.*......i...
Lead *
Nickel .,
' "
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/l
1.61
0.32
0 51
... . 0:44
,tK086
K086Solvent washes and sludges, caustic
washes and sludges, or water washes
' and sludges from the cleaning tif tubs ' '
.. and equipment'used in the formulation of
ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and
' .stabilizers -containing chromium and
lead. ''.... ..-..- ,
Today's rule revokes most of the
treatment standards promulgated in the
First Third final rule (53 FR 31168,
August 17,1988) for K086 (solvents-wash
subcategory). Today's rule, however,
keeps the previously promulgated
treatment standards for metals
regulated in K086.
In the proposed Third Third rule, EPA
explained its determination not to
subcategorize K086 (beyond
subcategorization for wastewaters and .
nonwastewaters). This determination
was based on the available
characterization data of K086 and on the
available treatment performance data
for wastes believed as difficult to treat
as K086. Commenters concurred and
supported EPA's determination for
regulating two forms of K086. The
Agency is thus adopting this proposed
approach in the final rule of K086
wastes.
The Agency proposed to revise most
of the existing treatment standards for
organic constituents regulated hi the
K086 solvent wash subcategory waste.
(The existing treatment standards were
promulgated in the First Third final rule
(see 53 FR 31220, August 17,1988)). Also,
the Agency proposed to expand the list
of regulated constituents in K086 to
include acetohenone, di-n-
butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate,
diethylphthalate, dimethylphthalate, di-
n-octylphthalate, and cyanide (total).
This list of additional organics is
adopted in today's rule. As noted in the
Third Third propos'ed rule and the
proposed BOAT Background Document
Addendum for K086, the proposed
revisions to the K086 treatment
standards are consistent with the U and
P treatment standards development
protocol unless otherwise noticed. All
the proposed treatment standards for
K086 wastes were based on
incineration.
Commenters fully supported the
proposed revisions to the treatment
standards for K086. They point out that
the proposed standards for most of the
constituents are more representative of
K088 wastes. However, commenters also
urged the Agency to develop the ' - -
treatment standards for organics in KC88
wastewaters based, on performance data
from wastewater treatment-technologies
rather than oh incineration scrubber
waters. . . . , . .- ".
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390), when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment .
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. -.
Commenters on the proposed First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third
rules almost unanimously supported that
EPA should promulgate wastewater
standards based on the performance of
specific wastewater treatment rather
than incinerator scrubber water
constituent levels. After reviewing all
available data and comments, the
Agency agrees with this comment, and
is promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber water for all wastes that were
proposed hi the rule for Third Third
Wastes. While the Agency did not
specifically identify the standards based
on wastewater treatment data as
alternatives for F and K wastewaters,
the Agency believes that this is a logical
outgrowth of the notice and comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying the wastewater treatment
standards for K086.
The treatment standards promulgated
today for organics in wastewater forms
of K086, are based on performance data
generated from a combination of two or
more of the following BDAT
technologies: biological treatment,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
liquid extraction, and other. (See section
III.A.6. of today's preamble for a
discussion of these performance data.)
These treatment standards are
expressed as concentration-based
standards; however technologies
capable of reaching the standard are not
excluded from being used
Comments were received indicating
detection limit discrepancies in
nonwastewater forms that contain
cyclohexanone and methanol. Based on
the available data, EPA believes that
cyclohexanone and methanol may not
be amenable to quantification and a
concentration based treatment
standards may not be a viable
regulatory option. (See section III.A.5.6.)
Cyclohexanone and methancl are two
of several organic constituents that were
proposed for regulation in K086 wastes.
Due to complications in analysis for
these two constituents in'
nonwastewater treatment residues, EPA
is withdrawing cyclohexanone and
-------
22600
Federal Register./.rVoL 55. No. 106 /Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
methanol from thelist of regulated .'
constituents" for KD86 nonwastewaters.
EPA Identified other organic
'constituents In KD85 that are as difficult '
to treat as cyclohaxanone and methanol
and thus believe that by regulating, these
other organic constituents,
cyclohexanone and methanol should
also be treated. However, EPA is still,
promulgating revised treatment
standards for cyclohexanone and
methanol in wastewater forms of K086.
'Available data for cyclohexanone and
methanol containing wastewater do not
indicate any analytical problems similar
to those in nonwastewaters containing
cyclohexanone and methanol.
Therefore, EPA determined it is not
necessary to specify 'a. method of
treatment or an indicator or surrogate
constituent for these two constituents in
nonwastewater forms of K086.
EPA is reaffirming the treatment
standards for chromium (total) and lead
for all forms of K068 wastes, as
explained below. Today's rule abolishes
K086 waste subcategories (beyond
wastewaters and nonwastewaters) and
revokes almost all of the treatment
standards promulgated on August 17,
1988 (53 FR 31167). However, EPA is
retaining the wastewater and
nonwastewater chromium and lead
treatment standards that were
established in the First Third final rule
and making them applicable to all forms
of K086. These standards are based on
the wastewater treatment residues
resulting from the hexavalent chromium
reduction to trivalent chromium
followed by chemical precipitation and
filtration of a wastewater believed
similar to K08G wastewaters.
The treatment standards for cyanide
(total) are based on residues from the
alkaline chlorination of wastewaters
containing cyanide. Detailed
Information for the development of the
treatment standards for all these
regulated constituents can be found in
the Final Addendum BOAT Background
Documents for K088.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K086
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cyctohexanona. -I.-... -
1,2-DtcWoroborccane. .
M
composition
Regulated constituent
Bis(2-ethylhexy!)pnthatate
ButytbonzylpfFtnatete __»..«....«..». -.
Dimethyl phthalate.....-.-.- ...mr-
Di rhbutyl phthalate , , .-,-,-
Dtav-octyt phthalate ««... .««..-....
Ethyl acetate -._..-.- ... .-.-..
Mothanol .-...-
Mcthyions chloride -...«.- .......r-
Naphtnalene
Nitrobenzene _
1 1 1 .frichloroothanfl .-. - «--
Trichloroethylane
Xylenes (Total)
0.32
OUB7
Maximum for
_anv
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.28
0.017
0£0
0.047
0.057
0.017
0.34
0.057
5.6
0.089
0.059
O.O38
0.080
0.054
0.054
0.32
Standard for methanol is based on analysis of
composite sampte using SW-846 Method 8000.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KCW6
CNomvastewatereJ
Constituent
Acetophenone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtnalate '
n-Butyl alcohol-..
Butylbenzylphthalate -... -.-^-
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene :
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalatB.. .. ..«..--
Di-n-butyf phtha'atB _.. -
Di n octyl phthalatfl
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene . .-
Methyl isobutyl ketone _~
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Toluflnft L '
1 1 l-TricWoroethane ...
Xylenes (Total)
Cyanide (Total) :
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
160
, 9.7
28
2.6
7.9
6.2
28
28
28
28
33
6.O
33
36
33
3.1
14
28
5.6
5j6
28
1.5
Maximum for
anysmgte
grab sample,.
TCLP (mg/l)
0.094
0.37
,5. Development of Treatment Standards
for U and P Wastewaters and
Nonwaatewaters Excluding Metal Salts
and OrganometallicB
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of U and P wastes
(as defined in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f))
that are identical to treatment standards
for multi-source leachate identified as
F039 (see section HLA&. for additional
discussion of treatment standards for
multi-source leachate). Thus, this
section of the preamble presents a
discussion of the development of these
standards. Treatment standards for
other U and P wastes that are listed
specifically as metal salts or organo-
metallics are discussed in previous
sections of today's rule. (Note:
Treatment standards for additional U
and P wastes have already been
promulgated in 53 FR 31174 (August 17,
1988) and 54 FR 26594 (June 23,1989)).
This section of the preamble also
includes a discussion of the promulgated
treatment standards for U and P wastes
that have been identified as potentially
reactive, exist primarily as gases, or are
cyanogens. The specific U and P waste
codes covered by the following
discussion are listed at the end of this
section in the table of standards.
In the proposed rule, EPA 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. 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., pesticides and
Pharmaceuticals) was also important in
establishing these groups. Emphasizing
the use of these chemicals allowed the
Agency to identify issues specific to
these groups of chemicals, to target
potential sources of data, and to solicit
comments and data from specific
industries and public interest groups.
While the Agency presented the
proposed treatment standards for U and
P wastes according to these treatability
groups, the promulgated treatment
standards are presented in this section
according to the physical form (i.e.,
wastewaters and nonwastewaters) and
whether the treatment standards are
concentration-based or technology-
based. More information on the
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Hides and Regulations
22601
development of specific treatment
standards for these wastes can be found
in the background document far U and P
wastes. While the background . ;:, - -
documents for these wastes in the ,
proposed rule were presented according
to treatabih'ty groups, only one
background document (in five volumes).
for these wastes exists for the final rule
and is presented similar to the following
discussion.
a. Concentration-based Standards for
Specific Organics .... ..
Hie regulated constituents for the U
and P wastes for which the Agency is
promulgating concentration-based
standards generally are those specific
constituents for which the U and P
waste is listed (as specified in 40 CFR
261.33 (e) and (£)) However, for several
U and P wastes additional constituents
have been selected for regulation for
various reasons. More detail on the
selection of regulated constituents can
be found in the proposed background
documents. The regulated constituents
for these wastes and the promulgated
treatment standards are presented in the
tables at the end of each section. See
also treatment standards for F039 in
section LU.A.6. of today's rule.
(1) Wastewaters. As explained in
preamble section IILA.1, the Agency is
adopting in this notice the definition of
wastewaters that was used to
promulgate treatment standards in the
First and Second Third final rulesthat
is, wastewaters are those wastes
containing less-than 1% TOC and less
than 1% TSS. See also the general
discussion of the wastewater definition
in section IQ.A.l. of today's rule. More
detailed information on the wastes
covered by this section can be found in
the Final BDAT Background Document
for U and P Wastes and Multi-Source
Leachates (F039), Volume A:
Wastewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For Which There Are
Concentration-based Treatment
Standards.
In the November 22,1989 proposed
rule for Third Third wastes, the Agency
proposed two alternative sets of
concentration-based standards for most
of these wastewaters. One set of
standards was based on the
concentration of these constituents in
incinerator scrubber water. These
scrubber water numbers were proposed
because the Agency was not certain that
the alternate standards would be
available in time for proposal. The
alternate set of standards was based on
a transfer of performance data from
various sources including: (1) The Office
of Water's Industrial Technology
Division (TTD) and National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
data' (specifically from the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) database); (2) the
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory (HWERL) database; (3) the
Office of Solid Waste's BDAT data
[from previous land disposal restrictions
rules); and (4) additional wastewater
treatment data'from literature articles
on wet air oxidation (WAO) and PACT.
These alternative wastewater treatment
standards were presented in section
D3.A.7. of the proposed Third Third rule
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source leachate. When
the Agency has appropriate wastewater
treatment data from well-designed and
well-operated wastewater treatment
units, it prefers to use these data rather
than 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 in
incinerator scrubber waters.) Also,
commenters unanimously requested mat
the U or P wastewater standards be
based on the performance of biological
treatment rather than incinerator
scrubber water constituent levels. For
these reasons, the Agency has chosen to
finalize the treatment standards based
on the proposed alternate standards
with some revisions. None of today's
final wastewater standards in this
section are based on scrubber water
concentrations.
As stated in the November 22,1989
proposed rule, the Agency also
conducted wastewater treatment tests
for selected U and P chemicals using
wet air oxidation, powdered activated
carbon treatment (PACT), and carbon
adsorption. In addition to these data, the
Agency received performance data on
the treatment of multi-source leachate
wastewaters just prior to proposal. The
results of these tests were not available
in time to analyze for the proposal, but
were placed in the administrative
docket to die proposed rule and noticed
for comment
Most of the aforementioned data
supported the achievability of EPA's
preferred proposed treatment standards
(the alternate set of standards). The
Agency reviewed all of these data
during the comment period to determine
whether they, could be considered best '
demonstrated available technology. In
reviewing these data, the Agency also
considered the influent concentration of
the treated constituent, whether the
treated stream was representative of
that U and P wastewater, and how
achievable the detection limit is in
similar or other matrices based on other
data received. The Agency has revised
some-of the proposed wastewater
standards in this final rule based on
data received just prior to proposal.
Commenters requested that the U and
P wastewater standards be based on the
performance of biological treatment
rather than wet air oxidation followed
by PACT. Where biological treatment
data were not available, the Agency
promulgated standards as proposed
based on Office of Water data, or in
some cases, used wastewater data
based on the performance of wet air
oxidation followed by PACT or
wastewater data generated by treaters
. of leachate.
Proposed standards were revised for a
number of reasons: (1) Based on a
review of recently received multi-source
leachate wastewater data, (2) based on
a review of the recently completed wet
ah- oxidation/PACT study and (3) based
on a review of the existing data used to
generate the proposed standards and
comments received on the proposed
standards. More detail on these
revisions can be found on a constituent
basis in the background document for
these wastewaters. Where proposed
standards were inconsistently large
because of poor data availability, the
Agency reviewed alternate sources of
data to develop standards that are more
consistent with similar constituents but
still considered achievable by treatment.
The following discussion explains in
more detail the rationale for these
revisions to the proposed standards. The
constituents for which standards were
changed from the proposed standards as
presented in section ffl. A.7. of the Third
Third proposed rule as treatment -
standards for wastewater forms of
multi-source leachate are listed in a
table at the end of this section. This
table includes multi-source leachate
organic constituents as well as U and P
organic wastewaters.
Constituents for which multi-source
leachate data were used to develop
standards are given the reference code
(1), Revisions Based on Multi-Source
Leachate Data, in the table at the end of
this section. For the majority of
constituents, the multi-source leachate
data supported the achievability of the
proposed standards. Some of the mnlti-
source leachate data were not used,
however, because they did not show
substantial treatment. Where multi-
source leachate data showed a proposed
standard could not be met, and
demonstrated substantial treatment
using a technology that could be
considered BDAT. those data were used
-------
' Feaeral'Regster / Vol. 55, NoViOB/ Friday, June l. 1990 / ;Rules and Regulations
Ina .ead. Also,' where a constituent had ,
an exceedingly large standard because
of lack of good data, multi-source, -
Icachate data were used to develop a
more appropriate standard whenever
possible.
Constituents for which WAO/PACT
data were used to develop standards are
given the reference code (2), Revisions
Based on WAO/PACT Data, in the table
at the end of this section. More
information on these data can be found
in the Onsite Engineering Report of Wet
Air Oxidation and PACT System
Treatability Study at Zimpro/Passavant,
March 1990. The Agency found that
WAO followed by PACT performed
better than WAO alone. Influent
concentrations were designed to be high
enough to represent U and P
wastewaters. These data demonstrated
that a number of constituents could be
substantially treated by wet air
oxidation followed by PACT. Where
these data showed substantial
treatment, they were used to develop
standards for constituents for which the
Agency does not have good biological
treatment data or multi-source leachate
data demonstrating substantial
treatment.
Constituents for which the Agency
reexamined the data that were used for
proposal are given the reference code
(3), Revisions Based on Review of
Existing Data, in the table at the end of
this section. The data sources and
transfer choices used for the proposed
standards were reevaluated. These
constituents include those for which
changes were made as a result of
comments on the proposed standards.
The standards in this category were
changed for a variety of reasons. The
standards for 1,4-Dioxane and ethylene
oxide, which were inconsistently larger
than other constituents in their
treatability group, were revised based
on a transfer of treatment data from
ethyl ether. The standards for
methacrylonitrile and propanenitrile
(ethyl cyanidej, which were
inconsistently larger than other
constituents In their treatability group,
were revised based on a transfer of
treatment data for acrylonitrile. The
standard for l,l,2-Trichloro-l,&2-
trifluoroethane was revised based on a
transfer of treatment'data from
hexachloroethane. The remaining
constituents in this category have
revised standards due to a change in the
methodology for calculating variability
factors and accuracy correction factors
when HWERL or NPDES data were used
to develop treatment standards. More
information on these revisions can be
found in the background document for
these wastewaters. ; ' " ,
None of today's promulgated U and P .
wastewater standards are based on
incinerator scrubber water. However, it .
should be noted that when the Agency
promulgates concentration-based
standards.'the regulated community may
use any method of treatment to achieve
these standards, so long as it does not
constitute land disposal or '
impermissible dilution.
Many of .the new-wastewate'r data
include analysis of composite samples
rather than grab samples. Thus, the
Agency has developed many of the .
concentration-based treatment
standards based on an analysis of
composite samples rather than grab
samples. Where data from analysis of
composite samples were used, the
Agency so indicates in the appropriate
table of treatment standards at § 268.43.
More information on the Agenpy's use of
grab and composite standards can be
found in the preamble section Hl.A.1.
The Chemical Manufacturing
Association (CMA) calculated
wastewater treatment standards for
many constituents based ondata
contained in the OCPSF database using
a modified BOAT Methodology, and
submitted these suggested limits to the
Agency for review. EPA did not use the
CMA standards, but did consider the
OCPSF data base, the analyses
conducted by EPA's Industrial
Technology Division, and the BDAT
methodology. EPA's analysis differs
from CMA's and sometimes produced
higher and lower limits. For example,
the standard suggested by CMA for
chloroform in wastewaters is lower (i.e.,
more stringent) than that promulgated
by the Agency specifically for
chloroform hi K009 and K010
wastewaters. In developing the BDAT
standards, the Agency examined data
beyond that contained in the OCPSF
data base. Thus, our selection of BDAT
sometimes involved the analysis of data
beyond that included in CMA's
suggested limits.
Finally, EPA is promulgating
treatment methods as standards for
several wastewater forms of U and P
wastes for which the Agency had
' proposed concentration-based
standards. After examining certain
information received following the
proposed rule, EPA adjusted treatment
standards for many nonwastewater
forms of U and P wastes and realized
that several types of analytical problems
associated with nonwastewaters
applied to wastewaters as well. Section
III.A.5.a.(2), immediately following,
discusses these problems at length.
Consequently EPA is promulgating
treatment methods as standards for
wastewater forms of the following U
and P wastes: P082, N-
nitrosodimethylamine; U017, benzal
chloride; U073,3,3'-dichlorobenzidine;
U074, cis-l,4-dichloro-2-butene; U091
3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine.
CONCENTRATION-BASED BDAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P
WASTEWATERS
Waste
code
U002.........
U003 ........
U004. ........
U005
U009..
U012
U018
U01 9..~»»
U022..
U024
U025
U027
1)029
U030
U031
U036
U037. ..
U038...;
U039
U043...
U044
U045
0047
U048
(J050
U051 .........
U051
(J051
U052
U052.
U057..-..
U060
U060
11061
U061.
U061
U061
. U063
U066
U067
U068
U070
U071
U072......
U075
U076
U077
U078.
U079.....
U080
U081
U082-...
U083..._
U084
U084
Regulated organic
constituents
Acetone .....«....«*««».
Acetonitrite. . .._ .
cetophenone .
-Acetylaminofluorene...
cryfonitrite
tniNne..«»»»«««M...'.~.».«~..
enz(a)anthracene
Benzene «»«««.«.«.««»«.««
enzo(a)pyrene
bis-(2-Chloroethoxy)
methane.
bis-(2-Chteroethyt) ether...
bts-(2-Chtorolsopropyl)
ether.
Bromomethane -.
4-Bromophenyl phenyt
ether.
n-Butyl alcohol .
Jhtordane ..................
ftlorobenzene _~_
Chlorobenzilate
vOilorom-creso)
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane (methyl
chloride).
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
ihrysene ......»«..«..»»»»
'entachlorophenoLi
Pnenanthrene ....
Pyrene .~ ~~.~.
)^resol....»...».»."».w*..'
Dresol (m- and p-
isomers).
Cyclohexanone .....
o,p'-DDD .
p,p'-DDD .
o,p'-DDE , .
p,p'-DDE...... ~...~
0.p'-DDT ,
p,p'-DDT
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene..
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane.
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibrorriomethane
o-Dichtorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dich!orobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane .
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichtoroethylene
trans-1 .2-Dtehloroethene
Methytene chloride ...--
2,4-Diohlor6phenol.-..'i
2,6-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene .
trans-1 ,3-
' CKchloropropene.
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.28
0.17
0.010
0.059
0.24
0.81
0.059
0.14
0.061
0.036
0.033
0.055
0.11
0.055
5.6
0.0033
0.057
0.10
0.018
' 0.27
, 0.046
0.19
0.055
0.044
' 0.059
0.089
0.059
0.067
0.11
0.77
0.36
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
: 0.0039
0.0039
0.055
0.11
0.023
0.11
0.083
- 0.036
0.090
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.089
" 0.044
0.044
0.85
0.036
0.036
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. idfe / Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
22603
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
WASTEWATERS^Continued
Waste
code
U093
UIOlJ
U105
U106-.
U108
U111
U112
U115
U117
U118
U120
U121
U127
U1?»
U129
U129
U129
U129
U130
U131
t'137, .....
U138
U140
U142
U152
Hiss, ;, ,
U157
U158
U159
U161
U162
U165
U168
U169
U170
U172
U174
U179 _
iHBn,.,. ,
U181
U183
U185
U187
U188~._
U192
U196
U203
U207
U208___
U210
(J211
U225
U226
U227...
U228
U239
U240
U247.3
P004-^
P020
PQ22
'" Regulated organic " .
,;,:-. constituents ' -
P- _-. " T,
DtnH^utyiamlnoazoben-
.wne. ...'
2.4-Dimethy»phenot ....
9,4-ninrtmtol(«>rK> .
1,4-Dioxane .. .
DHVpropylnitrosoamine ...
Ethyl nr»»nt«
Fthylnnn Q*Mn,,,...,
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Fkioranthene
Tricrdorornonofluororneth-
ane. . ,.
Hexachlorobenzene..
Hexachlorobutadiene._._
hflta-BHfl "'""
flamma-Rur:
Hexachlorocyctopenta-
diene.
HexacMoroethane
lndeno(1^3.-c,d)pyrene.
todomethane --,,.,,,,., ,,L
Isobutyl alcohol
Kepone
Methacrytonttrite
Mnthapyrilana ,
3-Methylchloanthrene
4,4-Methytene-bis-{2-
cMoroaniline).
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Naphthalene . .........
2-NaphthyIamine
4-Nitrophenol ..
NtNrtroso-di-n-butyiamine ..
N-Nitrosodfettiytamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine... :.
N-Nrtrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine _.
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene ...
Pronamicte
Pyrirtirm
Safrole
Tetrachkxobenzene.
1.1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane..
1.1A2-Tetrachtoroethane,.
Tetrachloroethene
Carbon tetracMoride
Toluene. _. ...
Trixomomethane
(bromoform).
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichtoroethane
Trichkxoethene
Xytenete)
2,4- ~ .... ...
Dichtorophenoxyacetic.
acid. ..... .
Hexachloropropene :.....
MethoxycMor. .
AMrin-
2-sec-ButyM,6-
dtnitrophenol. ' "
Carbon o1surfide_..M._.,..
^Tota!
composition
(mg/l)
0.13
0.036
032
0.55
0.12
0.40
0.34
O.12
0.12
0.14
0.068
OXI20
0.055
0.055
0.00014
OXW014
0.023
0.0017
0.057
0.055
0.0055
0.19
5*
0.081
0.0011
0.24
0.081
0.0055
0.50
O.28
0.14
0.14
0.059
0.52
0.068
0.12
. 0.40
0.40
0.013
0.013
032
0X155
0X155
0.081
0.039
O093
0.014
0.081
0.055 '
0.057
0,057
0.056
0.057
0.080
0.63
0.054
0.054
0.054 .
0.32 . .
0.72,
! 0.035
0.25
0.021
aoee
0.014 -
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P
WASTEWATERS Continued .
Waste
code
P024
P037
P047
P048 _
P050
P050
P050
P051
P051
P059
P059
P060
PO77 .......
P082
P101
P123
Regulated organic .
.constituents
p-Chloroaniline _'.....
Dieldrin <.._mm
4,6-DifHtrocre30l._
PnrirxuiHpn II
Endrin .'., ...,..,-...
Endrin aldehyde...
Heptachlor epoxide --
Isodrin. _.... .
p-Nitroaniline ..................
N-Mtrosodimettrytamine
Ethyl cyanide .... - -
Total
compoaiSon
0.017
0.28
0.12
0.023
. 0.029
0X129
0.0028
0.025
0.0012
0.016
0.021
0.028
0.40
0^4
0.0095
These standards are a mixture of grab and com-
posite samples. Each standard is identified as either
grab or composite in the tables found at §268.43.
BASIS OF REVISIONS TO U. P AND F039
WASTEWATER STANDARDS
Regulated organic constituents
Acetone _
Acetonrtrife
Acroiein.._
Acetophem
4-Aminobip
Aramrte
Benzo(b)f)u
Benzo(g,h.$
Bromodichl
Bromometh
4-Bromoprx
n-Butyl alcx
Butyl benzy
2-sec-Butyt-
Carbon tetr
Carbon disi
p-Chtoroani
CMorobenz
Chlorobenz
2-Chtoro-i;
Chlorodibro
bis-(2-Chlor
bis-(2-CMor
2-Chloroeth
bis-(2-Chlor
p-Chloro-m
2-Chk>ronai
2-Chlorophc
3-CWoropro
O-Cresbi_.
Cresol (m-
Cyclohexan
1,2-Dibrorm
1,2-Orbforrx
Dibromome
Dibenzo(a,r
tris-{2,3-Drb
m-Dichlorot
o-Dichtorob
p-Dichlorob
3,3'-Dichlori
cis-1,4-Dfe)i
trans-1,4-Di
DicMorodifk
2,4-Dichlorc
2,6-Dichlorc
1,2-Dtehtorc
fnfk -,.,,,...,., _ ,, , ,
hnnyl ,.,,,,,,, '
iffMrillmna r,,,,.,,,,,,^
petytene..~____._.......__._.
nromethanA- ,,,,,,,,.
flinfi MJ
any! phenyl ether
1 phthalate _.
4,6-dinitrophenol
arhlnritfa,,, .,_.,.. ,.... ,^
iffide^.. _.
ine^.. ....
tata
^.hylnif Aryi ,,,.,,.,,,,1,J.
momethane
oothoxy) methane
oethyt) ether
.cresol ,,,---,, ,,,,,,! ..,,.
3hthalene.H.M«.M ,,.-.,,,.,,,
3nOl T-IIT --mill 111 J.11--.1-.-
pene _,._.,rr,,r ,,,,,,.,,..
and p- isomers) ._
j-3-chtoropropano _....
>ethano
thane ..........>mw .,,,
(anthracene.... .__...
romopropyl) phosphate
x»«n:wv»
enzenff .V. ..*..,
enT^nn. : ,
loro-2-butene..... . ..
^phAn^l .-... ^
jphenol ,,,--,.,.',, ,..,..1....
>propane.n...n. ... ..«.,..
Reference
for revision
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
:2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
: 3
3
3
" 3
3
3
3
BASIS OF REVISIONS TO U, P AND F039
WASTEWATER STANDARDS- <3ontinued
Regutated organic constituents
cis-1,3-Dichloropfopene... ...
trans-1,3-Dichloroprapaiw.. ,..,
3,3'-Dhnethoxybenzidine.» ...._._
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
1,4-Dinitnihan7»na ,
:>,4-r>ini»r/>JofrK> ul ^
2,6Ji>initrntoliiATV>
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine... _...._._. _..
1,2-Diphenyt hydrazine , .
DiphenytnHro^^nnin^
1,4-nkwane.- ....:.,
Disulfoton.................. ._.
Ethyl acetate_.ZIZZZZ.7_"."Z
Ethyl cyanide... ......
Ethyl ether . _
Ethyl methacrylate .........
Ethyteoe oxkte ._.._.._....__.. _.
FamphiB-,,,.,,,,, ,, . ,.,., -..j. .
Hexachlorohemano , ,
Hexflchlnrohiitariiarm
Hexachloroethane .._........_._...
Hexachloropropene ....... .
Isohutyl alcehol. .
Isnsnfrnla .,
Kepone ... .
Mothnnol , i
Mflthnpyrilnnn ., ,,
3-Mmhyl^hloanthrene . ..
4.4-Methylene-bis-(2-chloroaniline)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl mothaWylnto
Methyl methanesulfonate
2-Naphthylamine«..w..M .
p-NitroanHine ..... . .
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine _.
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosoptppridine .
N-NitrosopyrroUdine.. _ _
Pentachlorobenzene ._
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans L _
Pentachloronitrobenzene
PentacMomphonQl ,...... , ,,
Phanacfliin.. ,-,-,.....
Phenol ...m.»w».MM.»w..m«M...M. ..
Phorate
Pronamide .
Pyririinn
Safrole. .
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachloro benzene
Tetrachtorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroetriane
1.1^^,-Tetrachtofoethane
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ;
Tribromomethane (bromoform)
1 ^,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol .
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .
1 ,2,3-Trichloroprbpane_._...__.__._.
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloro-1 ^2-trifluoroethane ___
Reference
for revision
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
Note: This table includes constituents regulated
under multi-source feachate that may not be U or P
waste codes, or may be U- or P Wastes which are
not being promulgated in today's rule
-------
52804
Federal Register /Vol. 55- No. ^106 / Friday. June 1.1990 / Rules and Regulations
R«f«rwK09 for tt» basis of the revised standards ;
are.aa follows: :'' ;' . _;_._^.
1-T-R«YttJoo9 are based on analysis of treatment
data pravtoww submitted for motto-source teachate
2Revisions ar» basod on anaNsfe of treatment
data from EPA'a WAO/PACT study for exacted IT
*:£!fleviaJons are based on re-analysis of existing
trwtment data and comments .. ...
'(2]Nonwastewaters.'EPAi8
promulgating nonwastewater ':
concentration-based standards for the
majority of U and P wastes as proposed.
All promulgated concentration-based
standards reflect the performance of
well-designed and welkoperated
Incineration systems and were
developed primarily using the results of
fourteen incinerator test burns (not to be
confused with test burns carried out as
part of fhe RCRA permitting process)
which EPA undertook for the
development of treatment standards for
specific F and K wastes plus selected U
and P wastes. The Agency.reexamined
these data together with other data and
comments submitted during the
comment period. Based on this re-
analysis, the Agency changed the
proposed treatment standards for
approximately seventy-five constituents.
These changes are summarized in the
tables at the end of this section.
These changes took the form of either
different numerical values for
concentration-based standards or
promulgating incineration as a method
of treatment for wastes for which EPA
had proposed concentration-based
standards. Where the values of the
numerical standard changed, some
promulgated standards are lower and
some are higher than the proposed
standards. In no case, did EPA
promulgate a concentration-based
standard for a waste code for which a
method of treatment was proposed.
In the course of developing the
proposed standards, the Agency had
examined the logistics of generating
incineration data, considering relative
availability, expense, and ease for
nonwastewater forms of all of these
organic U and P waste codes. EPA
decided to select a limited number of U
and P waste code compounds
(representing the various classifications
inherent to the structure of these
chemicals) for additional testing in two
test burns prior to the proposed rule.
These new data were used in
conjunction with the data from the
previous.twelve test burns to develop
the proposed treatment standards for
the remaining untested wastes. The
compounds that were tested were
selected to represent the treatability',of
each group 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 aliphatic rings,:
isomer and homologue series, and
degree of chlorination. .
The two burns were designed such ,,
that the physical forms, concentrations,
and soil content of the feed would
represent the range of U and P wastes as
EPA anticipates they will be generated.
The treatability test consisted of two 6-
hour burns consisting of 11 liquids and 7
solids. Clean fill (i.e., dirt) was added to
produce ash representing that resulting
from incineration of a waste spilled on
soil. Four sample sets of ash and
scrubber water were analyzed for BDAT
list constituents. (More information on
the test burn can be found in the Onsite
Engineering Report Treatment
Technology Performance and Operation
for John Zink Company, October, 1989).
'Through these incineration tests, EPA
demonstrated that incineration is BDAT
for a wide variety of U and P organic
compoundshalogenated, non-
halogenated, volatiles, semi vola tiles,
and pesticides. EPA's evidence for this
is that these compounds are present at
significant levels in untreated wastes
and then appear at or near detection
levels in the ash residues from these
tests. Thus, data from these incineration
tests assumed a critical role in
developing concentration-based and
technology-based treatment standards
for nonwastewaters.
Detection limits represent the lowest
values of a contaminant that an
analytical measurement procedure can
reliably measure in a particular matrix
(e.g., incinerator ash). Detection limits
are especially significant in developing
concentration-based standards based on
incinerator performance because a well-
designed and well-operated incineration
system appears to reduce the
concentrations of virtually all of the
investigated organic compounds to
detection limits. EPA treats the
detection limit as the quantitative
expression of the post-treatment
concentration and therefore calculates
concentration-based standards by
assuming that the detection limit
represents the lowest level to which
incineration can lower a contaminant's
concentration. ' " .
Several sources of data received after
the proposed rule was published led
EPA to make the changes between the
proposed and final rules discussed in
the rest of this section. One source was
commenters' data, especially the
"Interlaboratory Ash Study" discussed
in the following section". Another source
was an in-house study by EPA's Office
of Research and Development pointing
out recently discovered major problems
in quantifying analytes for which EPA
had proposed concentration-based .
standards. Additionally, EPA .
reevaluated its own calculations and <
modified several sets of standards to
ensure a. consistent methodology.
Comments about the proposed '
concentration-based standards fell into
two groups: comments,about treatment
standards for individual waste codes
and one substantial comment from a
group of waste treatment industry
representatives dealing primarily with
the issue of detection limits in : .
incinerator ash. This comment provided
EPA with a significant amount of ash
characterization data. Although some
aspects of this data were flawed. EPA
considered this study carefully when
evaluating the standards before
promulgation; the Response to
Comments Background Document
presents EPA's critique of this study's
strengths and weaknesses. Subsection
(1) of the following discussion of
comments presents a detailed
discussion of how EPA evaluated this
commenter's ash data. Subsection (2)
describes all of the changes between the
proposed and final standards, and
subsection (3) discusses the other
significant comments received on the
proposed concentration-based
standards and analytical issues.
(a) Use of the Interlaboratory Ash
Study. One commenter, representing the
waste treatment industry, submitted a
study undertaken by several
laboratories associated with commercial
incineration facilities to verify whether
industry labs can reliably quantify the
regulated constituents at the level of
both the proposed and previously
promulgated concentration-based
standards in incinerator ash. The study's
secondary purpose was to identity those
regulated constituents for which
concentration-based standards may be
altogether inappropriate (i.e., inferring
that standards expressed as methods
are more appropriate). The commenter
analyzed many RCRA-regulated
constituents, virtually all the organics on
the BDAT list, hi samples of incinerator
ash at levels near the concentration-
based standards. These data included >
six detection limits reported by each of
six laboratories representing the
average of seven replicate detection
limit determinations made on a single
sample of ash from a commercial
' incineration facility,;- -. _-.'.
These data also included six sets of
seven spike recoveries reported by the
six laboratories42 recoveries in all for
each analyte. (Recoveries represent the
-------
.Federal Register / ypl, 55.,>No...l06 ./..Friday..June 1. 1990;/ Rides and .Regulations ; ,=22605
.fraction of a known quantity of the .,
.
sample -and then measured (i.e., ? .'. "'. 11 '".
recoveredj:in subsequent arialysis:]"'' ''"'
*EPA .evaluated the commeriter's ,;';=
' detection liriiit arid recovery data for
first comparing these detection levels to
those obtained by EPA during its ""V
various test burns; For most of these, the
commenter's detection levels fell-within
an order of magnitude of EPA's ; =-
detection levels. 'As a result, EPA did
not raise concentration-based standards
for those analytes where the ";.
' commenter's detection limits fell very
close to those EPA achieved.
Consequently, EPA made several sets
of changes between the proposed and
final standards following analysis of this
commenter's data. These changes '
primarily occurred -when EPA
reevaluated cases where the commenter
reported higher detection limits than
EPA used to calculate standards.
Although EPA had generally used the
highest of the set of up to fourteen
incinerator ash concentrations as the
basis of the Third Third proposed
standards for many compounds, some
exceptions were made in the case of
apparent outliers and where EPA
believed a particular raw waste matrix
best represented the waste in question.
Most of the changes in the numerical
values between proposal and
promulgation arose from an EPA
revaluation of the use of recovery .
factors in calculating concentration- '
based standards. EPA had calculated
the proposed concentration-based .
standards for halogenated aliphatics,
aromatics and polynuclear aromatics
using an average recovery factor of
several compounds. However, . . :
concentration-based standards for the
rest of these wastes were calculated ; .
using a recovery factor from a single ',
compound, not the average of several-
compounds. To ensure consistency
among all concentration-based .
standards, EPA chose to recalculate .
standards for halogenated aliphatics,
aromatics and polynuclear aromatics
using a single compound recovery .
factor. The following compounds were
affected:
T. Halogenated aliphatics: U044,
chloroform; U076, 1,1-dichloroethane; .
U077, 1,2-dichloroethane; U078, 1,1-
dichloroethylene; U079, trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene; U080, methylene
chloride; U083, 1,2-dichlpropropane;
U084, cis-i,3-dichloropropene; U084,
trans-l,3-dichloropropene; U131,
'
tetrachloroethanef U209, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane; U210i ' ;
tetrachloroelhylene; U211, carbon
teteachloride; U226,14,1-* -
itrichlprbefliine; JJ227,1,1&: - ; A -:,'.."."
-trichloroe thane; and1)243, .":" ;^ ^
hexachloropropene. The proposed
standard for U228, trichloroethylene had
been calculated using single-compound .
recoveries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated. . .". " -\ .;_''.
~Z. Aromatics: UZ39,total xylenes. The
proposed standards for U019, benzene
and U220, toluene; U239, had been
calculated using single-compound
recoveries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated. , '.',''"'
3. Polynuclear aromatics: U005,2-
acetylaminofluorene; U018,
benzo(a)anthracene; U022,
benzo(a)pyrene; U050, chrysene; U063,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; U120,
fluoranthene; U137, indeno(l,2,3-
c,d)pyrene; U157,2-
methylchlorolanthrene; U165,
naphthalene; U051, naphthalene,
pentachlorophenol, phenanthrene,
pyrene and total xylenes. The proposed
standard for U051, toluene had been
calculated using single-compound
recoveries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated.
A second set of changes to numerical
values resulted from EPA's decision not
to base concentration-based-standards
for U and P nonwastewaters on data
from three of the fourteen test burns and
to recalculate the concentration-based
standards with data from the other test
burns involving matrices more similar to
U and P matrices. These bums
incinerated K011, K013 and K014,
acrylonitrile-cyanide wastes; K024,
phthalic anhydride wastes and K037
disulfoton (an organophosphate
pesticide) wastes. EPA's reason for
excluding these burns from the database
for U and P nonwastewater is that each
of these waste matrices has a relatively
unique composition hi terms of including
very few chemical compounds. By
contrast, the test burns EPA chose for
the promulgated standards, namely
those incinerating creosote wastes
(K001), ethylene dichloride wastes
(K019), and veterinary pharmaceutical
wastes (K102), all involved matrices .
which are both difficult to .treat and
difficult to analyze. The Background
Document for Organic U and P wastes
and Multisource Leachate, -Volume C,
discusses the difference among these
waste matrices in more detail.
Nonwastewater standards affected by
this decision are: .
1. Halogenated pesticides and ' . '.
chlorobenzenes: P060, Isodrin; and U142,
Kepone. ' : ; ; _ , .4. ...
2. Miscellaneous halogenate'd . .
organics: U045, chlbromethane; :U158,
4,4'-methylenebis (2-chloroaniline) and
U075, dichlorodifluoromethane. .
. 3. Oxygenated organics: U159, methyl
ethyl ketone; U002, acetone! U108,1,4- '
";dipxane;,Ull2, ethyl acetate; and U117,.
;ethylether. . .-',." . . -.:
4. Organonitrogens: U009,:.';, '..'"..... ::
acrylonitrile; U172, N-nitroso-di-n-^
butylamine; U179, N-nitrosopiperidme;
U180, N-nitropyrrolidme; U181,5-nitro-o-
toluidine. . , -
5. Pharmaceutical wastes: U155,
methapyriline. . .
EPA is promulgating a higher
concentration-based standard for U043,
vinyl chloride because the commenter's
reported detection limits lie well above
;the detection limits which EPA used to
develop concentration-based standards.
The promulgated standard for vinyl
chloride reflects the choice of a different
and higher detection limit from the
ethylene chloride (K019) waste matrix.
EPA reevaluated its choice of
recovery values for P047,4,6-dinitro o-
cresol; P048,2,4-dinitrophenol; U004,
acetophenone; and U170,4-nitrophenol
to ensure consistency with the
methodology. Therefore the numerical
values have changed between proposal
and promulgation for these four
compounds.
(b) Changes from Concentration-
Based Standards to Methods of
Treatment as Standards. The rest of the
changes consisted of promulgating
standards expressed as methods of
treatment for U and P wastes for which
the Agency had proposed concentration-
based standards. For P003, acrolein;
U003, acetonitrile; U073, 3.3'-
dichlorobenzidine; U038,
chlorobenzilate; U168, 2-naphthylamine;
U093, p-dunethylaminoazobenzene; and
U057, cyclohexanone, the data
submitted by a commenter representing
the hazardous waste treatment industry
reported such-drastic detection limit
discrepancies or extreme recoveries that
EPA believes these analytes belong in
the category of those not amenable to
quantification. EPA notes that the
proposed wastewater standard for P003,
acrolein, had been a concentration-
based standard while the
nonwastewater standard was a method
of treatment: promulgated standards for
both forms of POOS, acrolein, are
methods of treatment.
For 2-chloro-l,3 butadiene, a
constituent of F039 leachate not .
regulated as a U or P waste, the
commenter reported zero recoveries for
several sets of replicates and extremely
variable recoveries for another. Based
on EPA's own experience in quantifying
2-chIoro-l,3 butadiene, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment method for.2-
chloro-1,3 butadiene rather than a . .
-------
" 22806 ' <-Tea«ral Register /Vol. 35. No. 106 /^Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
- concentration-basedstandard as ;
proposed. ''-""-, * '
ForUOlT", benzal chloride, the Agency -
solicited comments on1 data-with
adequate QA/QC verifying that
incineration reduces benzal chloride to
detection levels. One.commenter -
suggested that the Agency regulate
benzyl alcohol and benzaldehyde,
hydrolysis products of benzal chloride,
as benzal chloride surrogates. The
commenter stated that EPA used
surrogates in regulating phthalates in the.
Second Third rule. However, the Agency
believes that this situation is different
because there is no way to correlate and
codify how well the concentrations of
benzyl alcohol and benzylaldehyde in a
waste matrix reflect the concentration of
benzal chloride, especially in a waste
already containing substituted
benzenes. Although the commenter did
provide EPA with certain limited
analytical data demonstrating
quantification of benzal chloride with
SW-848 method 8015 in a waste stream
from a remediation project, the
commenter did not characterize the
matrix or the treatment process well
enough for EPA to set numerical
treatment standards for U017. Therefore,
since EPA received no specific
information demonstrating successful
measurement of benzal chloride, EPA is
promulgating incineration as a
technology-based standard for benzal
chloride as U017.
It should be noted that EPA is
promulgating, as proposed, the
concentration-based standard for benzal
chloride as a constituent of K015
nonwastewaters. EPA believes fcenzal
chloride can be quantified in K015
nonwastewaters more easily than in
U017 nonwastewaters for the following
reasons: EPA's data show that K015
untreated nonwastewaters contain so
much benzal chloride (at least 9095) that
instability in water does not hinder
benzal chloride identification and also
that incineration has successfully
treated K015 nonwastewaters. However,
the composition of any U and P wastes
Is, by the definition of these wastes,
extremely variable, and the benzal
chloride composition may very well fall
below the level of reliable
quantification.
EPA also changed several standards
in response to information in a recently
released EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) study. EPA/600/S4-
89/010, "USEPA Method Study 36: SW-
848 Methods 8270/3510 GC/MS Method
for Semivolatile Organics: Capillary
Column Technique; Separatory Funnel
Liquid-Liquid Extraction". This study
evaluates the analytical methods most
commonly used to quantify semivolatile
analytes, a category of-organifr chemical
including more than half of the*r
compounds regulated in this rule.
Although this study was carried out hi
support of the RCRA ground water
^Tnonitoring-regulations and consequently
looked only at aqueous matrices rather
than at the incinerator ash matrices
used to develop these nonwastewater
concentration-based standards, the
study documents such serious analytical
problems with several Third Thirds
analytes that EPA has chosen to
promulgate incineration as a treatment
standard rather than the proposed
concentration-based standards. These
analytes are: U197, p-benzoquinone;
U132, hexachlorophene; U166,1,4-
naphtkoquinone; U167,1-naphthylamine;
P082, N-iu'trosodimethylamine; U184,
pentachloroethane; and U201, resorcinol
plus the leachate components aramite,
benzenethioL phthalic anhydride,
dibenzo(a.e)pyrene, tris (2,3-
dibromophosphate) and
dibenzo(a4}pyrene.
This study determined how reliably
these analytes can be quantified in
aqueous matrices by examining the
recoveries obtained and the precision
achieved over the course of multiple
analyses by several laboratories.
Statistical analysis indicated that the
recovery data for the analytes listed
above were so unrealistically high or
low that EPA has declined to
recommend the use of SW-846 methods
3510/8270 for quantifying these analytes
in ground-water monitoring at RCRA-
pennitted facilities.
In promulgating the Third Third final
rule, EPA chose to incorporate this
recommendation about the severity of
the problems associated with SW-846
methods 3510/8270 and therefore move
these analytes into the category of those
compounds to be regulated with
technology-based standards. The reason
for this decision is that the study
documents significant problems with
GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry) which is the technique
used almost exclusively to quantify
organic compounds in all environmental
samples and is the basis not only of
SW-846 8270, but for most other SW-846
methods for organic analytes) which are
common to most methods used to
quantify these compounds.
EPA makes one exception, however,.
in the case of P020 (Dinoseb), to its
decision to promulgate methods as
standards for those analytes
recommended for deletion from methods
3510 phis 8270 in this ORD study. Since
EPA has specific analytical data on the
incineration of Dinoseb and since the
data was of sufficient QA/QC. EPA is
promulgating the concentration-based
Dinoseb standards as proposed.
In reviewing its own data, EPA also
determined mat inadequate
documentation exists demonstrating the
successful quantification of U074, cis-
and trans-l,4-dichloro-2-butene.
Considering this together with the
problems in quantifying these
compounds as a pair because their
widely different boiling points
complicate their behavior in the GC/MS
apparatus, EPA is promulgating
incineration as a method rather than the
proposed concentration-based standard.
These decisions affect leachate
standards as follows:
1. All nonwastewater leachate
numbers will change as the
concentration-based-standard for that U
or P waste constituent changes.
2. Compounds identified in the study
as problem analytes by Method 36 will
be dropped from the list of wastewater
and nonwastewater leachate
components, with the exception of P082,
N-nitrosodimethylamine, for which the
Agency has data indicating that it can
be successfully quantified in
wastewaters. Consequently EPA is
promulgating a concentration-based-
standard for P082 wastewaters while
promulgating methods of treatment as
standards for P082 nonwastewaters.
3. Compounds, namely benzal chloride
and l,4-dichloro-2-butene, for which
EPA decided to promulgate methods as
standards rather than concentration-
based-standards as proposed will be
dropped from the list of leachate
components.
4. Compounds dropped because the
commenter's incinerator ash study
identified problems with quantifying
them in ash due to questionable
detection limits and recovery values will
be dropped from the list of leachate
nonwastewater components but will
remain on the list of leachate
wastewater components because the
analytical problems identified by the
, commenter's study apply only to the
incinerator ash matrix and not to
aqueous matrices from other treatment
processes.
(c) Changes and Treatability Groups.
EPA received several other comments
about the proposed concentration-
based-standards for nonwastewaters.
The proposed rule described how EPA
developed each concentration-based-
standard for each waste in a treatability
group. Each Jreatabiliry group.section
discussed how the chemistry of waste
codes compared to a compound
incinerated in one of EPA's fourteen test
burns. In addition, .the proposal solicited
-------
.Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. "JOB / :Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations . 22607~
. comments on issues specific to 'that. .
treatability-group as a whole (i.e.,
comments on SO, controls for the
Organosulfur Wastes), or pertinent to
individual members of that treatability '
group (i.a, information on possible
methods for benzal chloride analysis in
the MisceDaneous Halogenated Organic
Wastes section).
'Treatability-group oriented'
information describing how each
concentration-based-standard for each
U and P waste is presented in the
Ba ckground Document for Organic U
and P wastes and Multisource Leachate,.
Volume C. The following discussion
addresses waste-specific comments, but
the previous discussion contains this
preamble's primary explanation of those
promulgated standards which differ
from the proposed standards.
Furthermore, those F and K wastes
which were grouped with similar U and
P wastes are discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, in the section identified by
the F and K wastes.
The following paragraphs review
those treatability-group oriented issues
which generated significant comments,
especially those for which EPA
explicitly solicited comments in the
proposed rule. These paragraphs
summarize the comments and EPA's
response in order to provide the
regulated community with a coherent
picture of the issues evaluated in
developing the promulgated standards
rather than to be an exhaustive
summary of each decision made for
each U and P waste regulated in this
group. Such comprehensive summaries
appear in the Background Document for
Organic U and P wastes and
Multisource Leachate, Volumes B and C;
these present hi detail how EPA
developed the proposed standards and
then modified them for promulgation in
response to information subsequently.
(A) Brominated Organics. In the
proposed rule, EPA solicited comment
on several process design and air
emissions control issues unique to
bromine incineration. Issues of
particular interest were operating
conditions needed to ensure adequate
bromine oxidation and the need for air
pollution control devices. EPA
particularly wanted information
indicating whether treatment standards
promulgated in this rule should mandate
a maximum bromine concentration in
the feed to the incinerator and the use of
air emissions control devices. The
Agency also solicited comment on the
appropriateness of biodegradation as
BDAT for P017, bromoacetcne.
EPA received no substantive
comments on the proposed bromine
standards. Specifically, commenters did
not provide the.process design or
emissions control information EPA '
solicited in light of bromine's unique
. corrosive properties.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating the
nonwastewater standards as proposed
in the absence of specific comments.
EPA continues to believe that
combustion of these wastes could pose
risks from air emissions at particular
facilities. The Agency, however, is
unable to resolve these concerns at this
time. Since any problem is likely to be
site-specific, EPA.believes, given our
current limitations, that the best way to
evaluate and control potential problem's
with objectionable air emissions from
burning brommated wastes is a permit-
by-permit approach through the use of
the omnibus permit authority in section
3005(c){3).
(B) Aromatics and Other
Hydrocarbons. The only comments
received dealt with fuel substitution as
an alternate treatment method for those
wastes hi this group which are not
amenable to quantification.
(C) Oxygenated Organics. In the
proposed rule, the Agency solicited
comments on three sets of issues
involving analytical methods: (1)
Difficulties the regulated community
may have experienced analyzing U031,
n-butanol; U112, ethyl acetate; and U117,
ethyl ether using methods the Agency
only recently authorized; (Z] analytical
data characterizing attempts to quantify
P003, acrolein, since the Agency
questioned the acrolein data generated
in the fourteen EPA test burns; and (3)
data characterizing attempts to quantify
methanol in waste matrices, particularly
with SW-846 methods. (See 54 FR 48413,
November 22,1989.)
The Agency received no substantive
inf ormation in response to these
requests. Although one commenter
submitted analytical data showing that
the commenter's system had treated
U154, in the commenter's waste stream
to low levels, this data could not support
a numerical standard for methanol
because the commenter's data did not
describe the treatment system or the
influent waste stream in enough detail
to assure the Agency that this system
could successfully treat the wide variety
of U154 wastes the regulated community
must manage. More importantly, the
commenter's data did not address the
analytical difficulties encountered in
quantifying methanol.
Another commenter challenged the
Agency's decision to set a treatment
method as a standard for U154 rather
than to transfer the Solvents Rule
methanol number, promulgated in
November 1986, to U154. EPA believes
that the analytical difficulties associated
with quantifying methanol in U and P -
matrices are significantly more severe.
than those associated with quantifying
methanol in a TCLP extract, as is the
basis of the F001-F005 Solvents Hide
methanol standards. Therefore, EPA
chose incineration and oxidation as -
methods for methanol hi U and P wastes
to ensure methanol destruction.
Parenthetically, EPA notes that 53 FR
31164 (August 17,1988) explains how
EPA developed the Solvents Rule F001-
F005 standards.
(D) Organo-Nitrogen Compounds. In
designating incineration as Best
Demonstrated Available Technology for
organonitrogen wastes, EPA considered
defining "BDAT incineration" for
organonitrogens as including process
controls to minimize No, emissions.
The proposed rule solicited comment
on several air-emission-related technical
problems end regulatory issues
anticipated to complicate the
incineration of organonitrogen wastes
(see 54 FR 48417, November 22,1989).
The issues all arise from the corrosive
behavior of oxidized nitrogen
compounds. EPA specifically solicited
comments on three aspects of
incinerating organonitrogen wastes: (1)
Information on incinerator feed stream
concentrations of nitrogen demonstrated
to have been successfully incinerated;
(2) information on incinerator design
and operationespecially air pollution
control devicesbelieved to meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act under
Sections 108,110 and 111 and under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration ,
program's New Source Review, and (3)
comments on whether to invoke the
omnibus permitting requirements of
RCRA (final sentence of section 3005)
for units burning these wastes, or
alternatively, to prohibit burning these
wastes in combustion units without .
appropriate air pollution controls.
Several commenters urged the Agency
to leave responsibility for air quality at
hazardous waste treatment facilities to
the RCRA permitting process under 40
CFR parts 264 and 270 and consequently
not to include air emission controls in
ths land disposal restriction regulations
as part of the definition of the treatment
system. EPA received limited data
characterizing NOX generation at several
RCRA-permiiting test burns incinerating
several organonitrogen wastes plus a
narrative description of emissions
control systems at one of these
incinerators. These data showed low
NOj-ernissions. However, this
information was not detailed enough in
terms of specifying process design and
operation parameter values for the
Agency to use in defining BDAT as
-------
.Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 /.Friday. June 1; 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Incineration plus specified emissions ,
controls for all facilities disposing p£r. ; -
\organdnltrogenwastes'. ... .-.:;
The RCRA permitting procedure .
requires Regional or State approval of ';.
the entire incinerator system, including
process feed as well as air emission; ; :v
control units. Additionally, NOx ',. ' 1 ."'
emissions are specifically limited under
the Clean Air fat statipnary^ource
permit requirements. Since both these.
permits are issued on an individual ,-,
facility basis, allowing individualized
process controls, and since EPA lacks -
adequate data to dictate realistic NO* '
control system design, EPA agrees with
the commentera and chooses not to
mandate air emission controls'for
organonitrogen incineration systems. A
permit-by-permit determination under
the RCRA omnibus authority may be the
most appropriate mechanism for
providing air emission controls for
facilities burning these wastes. (These
points by and large apply to proper
controls on burning brominated and
sulfur-rich wastes as well, and were
discussed earlier in this section.) EPA
intends to provide guidance to permit
writers with respect to facilities burning
these wastes.
(E) Organosulfur Wastes. The Agency
is promulgating treatment methods as
standards for all eighteen organosulfur
waste codes as proposed: incineration
for organosulfur nonwastewaters, and
incineration alone or wet air/chemical
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for organosulfuf
wastewaters.
Just as for NOX emission with the
Organonitrogens category. EPA ,
considered defining "BOAT ' '
incineration" for organosulfur as
including process controls to minimize
SOX emissions. The proposed rule
solicited comment on several potential
technical problems and regulatory ,
issues anticipated to complicate the
incineration of organosulfur wastes [see
54 FR 48417, November 22,1989). The
issues all arise from the corrosive
behavior of oxidized sulfur compounds,
some of which are regulated under the
Clean Air Act as well as the noxious
odors of many of these organic sulfur
compounds. EPA specifically solicited ;,
comments on three aspects of ".'..-
incinerating organosulfur wastes: (1)
Information on incinerator'feed stream;.
concentrations of sulfupdemonstrated to
have been successfully incinerated; (2) ;
information on incinerator design and.
operationespecially air pollution
control devicesbelieved to .meet the - -
requirements of ihe Clean Air Act under
Section 108,110 and 111 and under the .'>:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program's New Source Review, and (3)
comments on whether .to invoke the '
omnibus permitting requirements of
RCRA (final sentence of section 3005)
for units burning these wastes, or
alternatively, to prohibit burning these
wastes in combustion units without
appropriate air pollution controls.
As was the case with questions raised
in the proposed rule about incineration
of organonitrogen wastes and NOX
emisssions, several commenters urged
the Agency to leave responsibility for.
air quality at hazardous waste treatment
facilities to the RCRA permitting process
under 40 CFR parts 264 and 270 and
consequently not to include air emission
controls in the land disposal restriction
regulations as part of the definition of
the treatment system. EPA received no
data whatsoever characterizing SOX
emissions or emission control systems.
The RCRA permitting procedure
required Regional or State approval of
the entire incinerator system, including
process feed as well as air emission
" control units. Additionally SOX
emissions are specifically limited by
Clean Air Act stationary source permit
requirements. Since both these permits
are issued on an individual facility
basis, allowing individualized process
controls, and since EPA lacks adequate
data to dictate realistic SOX control-
system design in this reule.EPA agrees
with these commenters and chooses not
to mandate air emission controls for
organosulfur incineration systems. At
this time, EPA believes that permitby-
permit determinations under the RCRA
. omnibus authority are most appropriate
fornnits that may burn these wastes.
EPA intends'to provide guidance'to
permit writers with respect to facilities
burning these wastes.. ':
EPA proposes treatment technologies
as standards for all eighteen of the
- organosulfur-wastes, partly because .of
. the difficulties-in analyzing these . .
wastes. One commenter submitted ,a'
package of data characterizing both
chemical oxidation treatment, namely
chlorine-dioxide, as well as an , ;,
analytical method for organosulfur .
wastes: However, EPA cannot develop
numerical treatment standards based on
. this data because the method does not
quantify the individual U and P
organosulfur compounds nor does it
differentiate regulated from unregulated
organosulfur compounds; the .
commenter's analytical method gives a
"total organic sulfur" number which
EPA cannot use to develop standards
because it gives no indication how much
comes from U and P organosulfur
wastes in a mixture and how much of
this "total organic sulfur" number comes
from nontoxic and unregulated
organosulfur compounds in the waste
stream. Furthermore, the commenter's
suggested method, chemical oxidation.
is already the treatment method
mandated as a standard for
organosulfur wastewaters.
(F) Miscellaneous Organic
Halogenated Wastes. As it did for
Organonitrogen Wastes and
Organosulfur Wastes, EPA requested
comments on the need for controlling
sulfur dioxide emissions in the course of
incinerating P026, P118, U020 and U062.
As discussed in the section on !
organosulfur wastes, EPA received no
substantive comments on emission
controls used in incinerating
organosulfur compounds. Although EPA
is not building specifying emission
control systems into its definition of
BDAT for these wastes, EPA intends
that the issues of air emissions will be
dealt with on a permit-by-permit basis
through the section 3005(c)(3) omnibus
permits authority.
CHANGES IN CONCENTRATION-BASED STANDARDS FOR U, P, AND F039 NONWASTEWATERS
Code
pft47 ....
PCM8
P060
U002_~
UOG4 .__...
U005-,
U009
U018
U022__»~
U043
Constituent
' . ; * . ', . ........................ *«
Acolophenone - : -~~ V""" r ""
Benz (a) anthracene -- J '. ^~U... . « .
Bonzo (a) pyrene ~ - ....
Revised
(mg/kg)
160
160
0.066
160
9.7
140
84
8.2
B.2 '
33-
Proposed
(mg/kg)
. 140
140
0.010
. . 0.14
9.6
13
0.28
3.6
3.6
0.035
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday* June 1,1990 / Rules and ^Regulations 22609
CHANGES m CONCENTRATION-BASED STANDARDS FOR U, P, AND F039 NONWASTEWATERSContinued -
Code'.
U045_Z~^
'OOSOJ.- --.
U051 .
U051 :_..
U051 _...
U051
U051 v«. ..
U075
U076_
U077
U078
U079_
U080
U083
U084_
U108
U120._
U131
U137
U142._
U155
U157
UI58
U159
U165_ ..
U170
U172 _
U179
U180 ... .
U181
U208_
U209
U210
U211
U22S
0227
U239
U243...
F039
F039»
F039 __
F039 .
F039
F039_
F039
F039 . .
FCI39 _
F039
F039
F039
F039
F039
F039 _
F039'
F039
F039
F039..
F039
.v*-^^.^*, ::j : c*^ :--_; ; ; --:.;; ; ;
Chlorometharie ^~" r~"
Naphthalene .. ",
Pentachlorophenol .
Phenanthrerte. .._.._»..
Pyrene . «»'«.. * ' " ' «»»»
Xytenes (total).. :._Lu.i ;-^
Dtoenz (a,h) anthracene
Dichtofodifluoramethane .,...,
1 ,1 -Dichkxce thane .........
1,2-DichJoroethane ...... ,.
1,1-DtchloroethylBrte.. -
trans-1 ,2-Dtchtoroetnytene
Methylene chloride
1 ,2-Dichtoropropane. ._....
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene.-.
tans-1 i-BicfjloRJptvp&te «..-.
Ethyl acetate »..._»....
Ethyl ether..
Fluoranthene. ........... »» ..».«.
Hexachloroetnane__
Indeno (1,2.3-c.d)pyrene
Kepone
Methapyriline _
a-Methytcholanthrene
4.
-------
22610
m^^ - -
CHANGES FROM .CONCENTRATION-BASED :
' STANDARDS - TO .TECHNOLOGY-BASED
"\ STANDARDS"; FOR U AND- P. NON-.
. WA8TEWATERS Continued.! ....-. -~.
* :^A *" ', Constituent .'.- .
Cydohoxtnonb
p-DrncmyUmln.
Hex*ehloroph«<
1,4-Nsprithoquli
14tephthylamln
2-NBphthylamin
N-NKrosodimetl
p«ntschloroettu
RdiflOfrinol
.....
oazobonzeno.- « .
wlafDinfl... '-
Revised for .
'codes:
U057
U073
U093
U132
U166
U167
U168
U082
U184
U201
ConstHuonls for which concentrattoi^based
standards have been dropped for F039
nonwastowaters
Armlnta
2-CWoro-1.3-bi
1.4-DichJorc-2-l
p-8«nzoquinon
Benz*l chtortd*
CWorobertslaU
CydohoxanoTK
CHXKUO («.e) i
Dftcnzo (a.!) p
3.3'45iChlOfOb
p-Oimathytafnli
Hoxachtorophc
1.4-NsphUxjqt
1-Naphthytaml
2-N*phthytaml
N-Nitrosodime
Pentachtoroetl
PhtnaKc anhyc
4-Amlnobiphe
DiphonylamlrK
Diphenylnitros
MothAno")
Cyanides (am
Thatfitim
TrM2,3-azob©nzenQ .~
irt^i » .,, -~
......._..-...
kids .^..-..^
"
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS
Waste
coda
U002
U004__..
U005
U009
U012,
1)018
UOt9-~ ~
U022
U024 ,
U025- .
U027__
U029.~
Regulated organic'
constituents
Acetone _....-.. .
Ac8tophonone.....~
2-Acetyiarrtnofluorene ~
Aniline .','.,.. ..~-
Bonr(a) anthracene .........
Bonzono«« ...^....^
Benzo(a)pyrone..: ,~?
Ks-{2-Cnloroethoxy)
methane.
bis-{2-Chloroethyl)
other.
bta-(2-Chtoro!sopropy!)
ethor.
Bromome thane'. :
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
160
9.7
140
84
14 '
. , B.2
36
8.2
72
7.2
7J2
:. 15
.CONCENTRATION-BASED ;BDAT : TREAT-
. kMENf. STANDARDS FOR UJWD>P NONT
; WASTEWATERS Continued
,-.."' »
Waste
' code.
U030 _'_;
U03lll~~
(J036.U ~.
U039
U043._~~~.
U044.
I1O47
U048 ...
.13051
U051 .-
U051
U051
U051
U051
U051
U052
U052
U060
U060
U061 ....I,
U061
U061 ............
U061 ........
U061 _~_.
U061
U063
U066
U067 »».»».
U068
U070
U071 ...........
U072
U075
U076
U077
U07B
U079 .
UOS1 ...........
(J082
U083
U084 i
U084 .
U101
U105
U106..,
U108
U111
U112..-^_
U117
U118
U120
U121
U127
U128 .:,..
U129
U129
0129..
Regulated organic
constituents
4-Bromophenyl phenyl
ether/
n-Butyi alcohol '
Chlordane, alpha and
beta. " , '. ,
p-Ghloro-m-cresol
Vinyl chloride... "
Chlorofonn. .............. .....
Chloromethane (methyl
chloride).
2-Chtoronaphthalene ..
2-Chlorophenol ....
Lead (measured in mg/
1 in TCLP extract).
Napthalene .
Pentachtoropheno!
P he nanthrene...... ...... .
Pyrene... _......- ... ..
Toluene
Xylenes
o-Cresol
Cresol (m- and p-
isomers).
o.p'-DDD ._.... ....
D o'-DDD ..»... ..- .
o,p'-DDD . ....«...
p.p'-DDD
p.p'-DDE
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene..
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane.
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dichtorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluorometh-
ane.
1 ,1 -Dichloroethane .......
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-
Dichloroethene.
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane .
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans^-1,3-
Dichloropropene.
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
_ Ethyl acetate. --
. Ethyl ether.. . .
_. Ethyl .methacrylate...
.. Fluorantnene
_ Trichlorpmonofluoro-
methane.
. Hexachlorobenzene...
. Hexachlorobutadiene.
..Ulpha-BHC '..
.J beta-BHC '. .-
J delta-BHC.1 .
Total
composition r
. (mg/kg)
.15
' 2.6 '
0.13
5.7
14
. 33 '
' - -5.6
33
sie
57
6.2
0.51
3.1
7.4
3.1
62
28
28
5.6
3.2
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
8.2
15
i «
6.2
SI
I 7-2
7.2
7.2
33 .
33
33
14
14
18
18
18
: ..-. 14' .
_]. 140
28
.. 170
J ,14 '
.]- :33.
J -160
. 160
... 8.2
33
37.
28
0.066
J- ' 0.066
..1 0.066
J - : 0.066
. U130_-u^... Hexachlorocyclopenta- . v 4.8
. : .. I .diene. . - . I
' U131 1 Hexachloroethane.. J 28
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
. WENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NoN*
WASTEWATERS Continued ~ .
Waste
code ,
,
U137 '..
1)138. ,~
U140.L.-..
U141 1...
U142........~.
U152... .........
U155
U1 57 .....
U158
U159
U161 i
U162 ............
U165
U169
U170
U172 ..
U174
U179....
U180 _.
U181
U185
U187
U188
U192
'U196
U203.... _..
U207
U208
U209
U210
U211
U220
U225
U226
(J227
U228 ....
U240
U243
0247 ..:......
P004
P020
P024
P037 ........
P047........
P048
P050 .......
P050._
P050
P051
P051 .......
P059 .......
P059
P060.
P077 ..
P101 _
P123..U.,
.Regulated organic
. constituents .
lndeno(1A3.- .
c,d)pyrene.
lodomethane --
Isobutyl alcohol.....^....
Isosafrole....... .._,
Kepone _..............-...
Methacrylonitrile .
Methapyrilene._......._....~.
3-Methylchloanthrene
4,4rMethylene-bis-<2-
chloroaniline).
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyt ketone ..
Methyl methacrylate........
Naphthalene
4-Nitrophenol .1
N-Nitroso-di-n-
butylamine.
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine_..'.
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachloronitroben-
zene.
Phenacetin
Phenol.
Pronamide
Pyridine
Safrote
1^,4,5-
TetrachlofObenzene.
1,1.1^-
Tetrachloroethane.
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane.
Tetrachloroethene ....:..._
Carbon tetrachloride .
Toluene..'.
Tribromomethane'
(bromolorm).
. 1,1.1-Trichloroethane
. 1,1.2-Trichloroethane
. Trichloroethene...; .....
. 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyace-
ticacid.
. Hexachloropropene ..
Methoxychlor .'. ....:
Aldrin...- "........
2-seo-Butyl-4,6-
dinitrophenbl.
p-Chloroaniline ..
Dieidrin
Endosulfan 1......
Endosulfan II'. ...
Endosulfan sulfate -
Endrin
Endrih aldehyde.:...,..-..
Heptachlor ~.
Heptachlor epoxide>.._.
Isodnn i
p-Nitroaniline...:.
Ethyl cyanide :.
Toxaphene
. Total
composition
(mg/kg) .
8.2
' ,' 65
170 , '
.2.6
0.13
, .84 . ..
;i.s :
15
35
. 36
33
160
3.1
14
29
17
28
35
35
28
37
4.8
16
6.2
1.5
16
22
19
42
42
5.6
5.6
28
15
5.6
5,6
5.6
28
10
28
0.18
0.066
2.5
16.
0.13
160 .
' 160
; 0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.066
0.066-
; , D.066
28
360'
' :1.3
'' '' ' '. ' ' . ' .''*.,.
-------
Federal Register / "Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 199O / Rules and Regulations 22611
b. Technology-based Standards' for ..
SpecificOrganics '. -\:- - ./'/'"
As explained in section III.A.l.(h)(2)
of the proposed rule (54 FR 48387), the
Agency has determined that for many U
and P wastes, as well as for some F and
K wastes, several complications arise in
. terms of how reliably the primary
hazardous constituents can be
quantified. These complications formed
the basis of the Agency's decision to
promulgate technology-based BOAT "
treatment standards (i.e., a method (or
. methods) of treatment) rather than .
concentration-based 'constituent specific
standards for these wastes.
The proposed rule set methods of
treatment as standards for a significant
fraction of Third Third U and P wastes.
In the course of evaluating information
received since "the publication of the
proposed rule, information coming both
from comments about the proposed rule
and from internal EPA studies and
reviews, EPA is promulgating methods
of treatment as the final treatment
standard for U and P wastes for which
EPA has proposed concentration-based
standards. The reasons for this set of
changes are discussed in section
nLA.5.(a). Since the standards had
originally been proposed as
concentration-based standards, the
section on nonwastewaters with
concentration-based-standards is the
appropriate place to discuss these.
In developing treatment standards for
the proposed rule, EPA found that for
any particular hazardous constituent,
there are four categories of
quantification complications: (1) There
are no methods, such as one in SW-846,
that are currently verified for the
quantification of the constituent of
interest in treatment residuals; (2)
calibration reagents (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 is unstable in water and
immediately hydrolyses into a different
entity (i.e., it reacts with water); and (4)
the U or P waste is not specifically listed
as a single chemical entity (e.g. P030 is
listed as "soluble cyanide salts, not
otherwise specified"). Chemical specific
complications were presented in the
appropriate section of the proposed rule
preamble that discussed the specific
treatability group where the U or P
chemical has been classified.
The information EPA received after
the proposed rule did not invalidate this
scheme for classifying analytical
problems, but it did add compounds into
the categories of "problem analytes"
listed above which EPA had previously
considered amenable to quantification.
The main reason is'that incinerator ash
is a more problematic matrix for
quantification of organic analytes than '
EPA had realized; elemental carbon and
.silicon in ash absorb organic
constituents and bind them onto the ash
particle so that their true concentration
cannot be determined-by instrumental
analyses.; . ;
The Agency is promulgating 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
hi the destruction of organics due to the
high temperatures, efficient mixing, and
consistent residence times available
from a well-designed and well-operated
incinerator. However, in the case of
wastewater treatment technologies,
there are more chemical specific factors
to consider 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 effect the efficiency of treatment
such as: total organic carbon, oil and
greases, total dissolved solids, total
suspended solids, pH, and alkalinity/
ecidity.
(1) Nonwastewaters. The Agency is
promulgating the proposed technology-
based standards, namely, incineration
as a method of treatment, for the organic
U and P wastes determined to be
unquantifiable as proposed.
Additionally, for those unquantifiable U
and P wastes containing only carbon,
hydrogen or oxygen, EPA is
promulgating fuel substitution as an
alternative to incineration. In the
previous section of .the preamble, the
Agency identified additional U and P
wastes for which the proposed
concentration-based standards have
been changed to technology-based
standards (i.e., incineration). The
technology has not changed, but the
number of wastes to be regulated with
incineration, or fuel substitution where
appropriate as a method has increased.
The Agency received numerous
comments requesting that the methods
proposed as the treatment standard
include fuel substitution as a method of
treatment. Commenters noted that many
organic U and P wastes in the "not
amenable to quantification category",
such as cumene, have significant energy
recovery value and are thus blended for
fuel substitution. One commenter further
stated that without this change in the
standard, these wastes would require
incineration at a much greater expense.
The commenter urged the Agency to .'
allow fuel substitution for several
particularly flammable waste streams
which had been mixed with other .
wastes and comprised less than ten "
percent of the resulting mixture. The ten
percent cutoff was intended to prevent
the generation of acid combustion'
products. . ''
The Agency agrees to allow fuel
substitution as a treatment method for,
wastes not amenable to quantification
which contain only carbon, hydrogen or
oxygen in their molecular structure. In
terms of the treatability groups *
identified in the proposed rule, this
means fuel substitution is promulgated
.here as an alternative method for these
groups: all "Aromatics and Other
Hydrocarbons", all "Polynuclear
Aromatics", all "Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclics" and
those "Pharmaceutical" and "Phenolic"
compounds which do not contain
molecular constituents other than
carbon, hydrogen or oxygen.
The Agency notes that this final rule
sets fuel substitution as an alternative
method for a larger set of wastes than
did the proposed rule; fuel substitution
was proposed as an alternative to
incineration for "Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclics" alone.
Additionally, several wastes in these
treatability groups have been added to
the category of wastes not amenable to
quantification since the proposed rule
and thus fuel substitution and
incineration is being promulgated as a
standard for these wastes for which the
Agency had proposed concentration-.
based standards. These wastes are:
U057, cyclohexanone; U166,1,4-
naphthoquinone; U197, p-faenzoquinone;
and U201, resorcinol.
In other words, EPA bans fuel
substitution as an alternative to
incineration for all unquantifiable U and
P wastes which contain halogens, sulfur
or nitrogen. Eliminating these wastes
removes the potential for unregulated
SOX, NO* or halogen emissions from
boilers or other thermal combustion
facilities not yet regulated as types of
treatment units under 40 CFR 264. EPA
believes that wastes without halogens,
sulfur or nitrogen can be treated by fuel
substitution as well as by incineration
because the aromatic and aliphatic
(both saturated and unsaturated)
components of these wastes are
typically .used as fuel because of their
high heating value; and the oxygenated
and phenolic components are already
partially oxidized.
To summarize the promulgated rule
for rionwastewater forms of U and P
wastes no amenable to quantification:
-------
EPA is promulgating "Jncineratitm
' (INCIN)as the Method of Treatment'.'Ior
those organic UBnaPwastes containing
nitrogen, phosphorous, aulfur, chlorine,
bromine or fluorine to their molecular -
Blructureand*Incineration{INCIN)OT ,
Fuel Substitution (FSUBS) as aMelhod
of Treatment" for those organic U and P
wastes containing only carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen in then- molecular
atrncture. See 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1 for ,
a derailed description of the technology
, standard referred to by the five letter
technology code iifthe parentheses.
Incineration a» a method of treatment tor
noowastowator forms ofc
P002 1-Acatyl 2-thiouKW
P007-Musdmol (S-Amfnoethyl 3-boxazolol)
pooe 4-AmloopyrMne
POJ4 Sonzaoo thtol (TWophenol)
POIS-Bis-chloromouTyl ether
P017 Bromotcotone
P018 Brucint
P022 Carbon dtsutfide
P023 CMoroaoottJdohyde
P027 3-C»ik>roorooioni1rH«
P028 Benzyl chloride
P034-2-cyctohexyM.6-dinHfophenol
P042 Epinophrioe
P045 Thtofanox
P047 «.6-dinltrocresol salts
P04B 2,4-Oithioblurot
P05* Azkidme
P057 2-FXioroacetamide
POSe-Ftuoroacetic add, sodium tatt
P06+ Isocyanic wad. ethyl ester
P066 Mothomyl
P067 2-WolhytoWdina
P070 AJdtoarb
P072 i-Naphthyt-2-tKowea (Bantu)
P075 Nicotine and salts
P062 N-NUrosodimottiytemina
P084 N^ifroaomathytvinytamlne
P093 N-Phenytthiourea
P095 Phosgene
Pioe Strychnine and salts
Pile- TNosomfcaibazlde
P11B TrteNoromethanetWol
U003 Acetonitrito
U006 Acotyt Chloride
U007 Aoyiamldo
UOio MHomydn C
U014 Auramin*
U01S Azasorine
U0t7 Bonzal crOorida
U020 BenzenesuHonyl ChloftJe
U021 Bora*S(HS
002&-Chtorooaphazlna
U033-Carbooy! fioorids
U034 TrlchtoroaceWdohyds
Incineration as a method O> treatmentfor
txtnwastBwater (orrns ofc
UD49 4-chtofo-o-toluidine hydrochloride
.U059 Daunomycin . ,
U062 Diallate
U073 3.3'Dicrilorobenadine
U074 (cfeH ,4«d*>ro-2-butene
U091 3,3-Oimethoxyt>8nzidtne
U092 Dimethylamine
UOQS-rp-Methylaminoazobenzene
U095 3.3'-Dimethylbenridtne
U097 Wmethylcartjomyl chtorkte
U110 Oi(wopylan*ie
U114 Ohytene bis-dffliiooartjamic acid
U116 Ethytene thiourea
U119 Ethyl methane sulfonate
U132 Hexachlorophone
U143 Laskxarpine
U148 Maleto Hydrazkte
UU9 Makmonitrite
U150 Melphalan
U153 Methanethiol
U1 56 Methyl chlorocarbonate
U163 N-Methyl N-nitro N-nitroguanidine
U164 Wethylthiouraci
U167 1-NaphUiylamine
U168 2-Naphthylamine
U1 71 2-Nitropr opane
U173 N-Nitroso-di-n-ethanolamine
U176 N-Nitroso-N-ettiylurea
U178 N-Mrtroso-N-metnylurethane
U1 84 Pentachloroethane
U193 1.3-Propane sultone
U194 n-Propylatnme
U200 Fteserpine
U202 Saccharin and salts
U206 Streptozotocin
U21 8 Tntoacetamide
U21& TWourea
U222 o-Toluidine hydrochtoride
U234 Bym-Trinitrobenzene
U236 Trypan Blue
U237 Uradl mustard
U238 Ethyl carbamate
U240 salts and esters of 2,4-D
U244 Thiram
U038 CWorobenzBate
U041-»vCWo«>-a3-epc«ypropar«
U046-Ct*xomothyl methyl ether
Incineration or tuel substitution as methods ol
treatment tor nonwastewater forms o<:
pool Warfarin (>0.3%)
POOS Acrolein
POOS Ally! alcohol
P08S Endothalt
P102 Propargyl alcohol
U001 Acetaldehyde _ .. _
U008 Acrylic acid
U016 Benz (c) acridine
U053 Crotonatdehyde
U055 Cumene Osopropyl benzene)
U056 Cydohexane
U057 Qrdohexanone
U064 1.2.7,8-Oioenzopyrene
IK>85 1,23,4-Otepoxytjutene
U089 Dtethyl Stilbestrol . .
U090 Oihydrosafrole
0094 7.12-Oimethyl benz (a) anttuacene
U113-^Ethy) acryiate
U122 Formaldehyde
U123 Formic add
Incineration or fuel substitution as methods of
treatment for nonwastewater forms ofc.
U124Furan
U125Furfural
U126Glyddaldehyde
U147Mateic anhydride
U154Methano!
U1661,4-Naphthoquinone
U182Paraldehyde
U1861,3-Pentadiene
U197p-Benzoqutnooe
U201Resordnol
U213-^etrahydrofuran
U248Warfarin «0.3%)
(2) Wastewaters. EPA has typically
proposed two alternative methods of
treatment as the treatment standard for
these U and P wastewater testability
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 promulgated as one of the
alternative treatment standards for
wastewater forms of these organic U
and P wastes.
However, other oxidation-based
treatment technologies are more
appropriate than incineration for _
aqueous waste streams and EPA is
promulgating several treatment systems
based on oxidation followed by carbon
absorption as methods for these
wastewaters. 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 ah1
oxidation is typically performed on
wastewaters that contain relatively high
concentrations of organics (i.e., those
that are at or near the 1% TOG cut-off
for wastewaters). For wastewaters that
contain significantly lower
concentrations of organics, chemical
oxidation typically provides the
necessary destruction of organics to .
levels that can then be adsorbed onto
activatedcarbon (as a mandatory
-------
Federal Register '/Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22613
polishing step). Electrolytic oxidation is
also included under chemical oxidation
because the process actually performs a
form of chemical oxidation induced by :
electricity and because the Agency has
data indicating its effectiveness in
destroying cyanides and other organic
species with complex bonds. .
Since these technologies are known to
provide effective treatment .for __ -
constituents that can be analyzed, the
Agency is therefore promulgating .
oxidation methods followed by carbon
adsorption as alternative treatment
technologies for most of the organic U
and P constituents that requires
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
those 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 in future rulemakings
to ensure complete destruction and to
determine which technology performs
best for these U and P constituents in
wastewaters.
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 promulgated
because the compounds are relatively
unstable in water. This instabUity
implies that they should easily be
destroyed with any chemical oxidant
(and most probably at ambient
temperature and air pressure).
Commenters requested that EPA
allow biological treatment for all U and
P wastewaters not regulated by
numerical standards. EPA rejects the
use of biological treatment for any of the
U and P wastes which cannot be
analytically quantified. Because influent
concentrations of these compounds
cannot be measured, the treatment-unit
operators cannot control the levels of
these compounds reaching the working
organisms in the biological treatment
unit, or document that the wastes are
effectively biodegraded. The risk of
sending immeasurable quantities of
these wastes to a biological treatment
unit includes the possibility of shock
loads that would disable the plant's
working organisms, and allowing these
wastes to exit untreated in the effluent
until the biological treatment system
could be restored to working order.
Even the presence of an activated
. carbon unit downstream from the
biological treatment unit, an option EPA
had proposed, might not prevent high
concentrations of the shock load ..
components from passing through the - .
entire treatment system with essentially
jib treatment A shock load high enough
in organic, components could push the
activated carbon unit to breakthrough,
sending the shock load components
untreated to land disposal.
Consequently, EPA is precluding the
use of biological treatment as a sole
mechanism to achieve compliance with
BOAT. Biotreatment that is performed in
units prior to the use of a BOAT
.technology or in otherwise exempted
units is not precluded from use by these
regulations. - :
Commenters suggested that EPA drop
the requirement that activated carbon
follow chemical/wet air oxidation or .
biological treatment. EPA believes that
the promulgated treatment standard
option of oxidation, electrolytic,
chemical or wet-air, followed by
activated carbon is superior to the
commenters' suggestions because
oxidation is more rugged than
biotreatment: less easily disabled by a
refractory influent stream and more
easily restored to working order than a
biological treatment unit. As discussed
in the proposed rule, wet-air oxidation is
most appropriate for those wastewaters
near the wastewater cutoff level (i.e. 1%
TOC), while chemical oxidation
effectively treats those wastes with
lower percentages of TOC. EPA's
decision to require activated carbon
following the oxidation step ensures a
backup system to compensate for the
uncertainty about final effluent
concentrations of these U and P wastes
inherent in any process treating
unquantifiable wastes. Most
importantly, however, since spent
activated carbon from treating these
wastewaters becomes a nonwastewater
form of these wastes (54 FR 48384), and
thus must be incinerated according to
the promulgated nonwastewater
standard, requiring activated carbon
treatment ensures that both wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of these
wastes go to incineration, a method
demonstrated to successfully treat a
wide variety of organic wastes.
EPA's response to commenters stating
that requiring both oxidation and carbon
absorption for these U and P
wastewaters puts an arbitrary and
heavy burden on those generators who
had been using biological treatment
alone or other simple methods of pre-
disposal treatment is that the volume of
these wastes generated is small enough
that arranging for the promulgated
treatment process does not pose an
undue burden. Furthermore, some of
these wastes are sufficiently refractory
that the oxidation-carbon adsorption
sequence is necessary to ensure
. consistent and complete treatment
In the proposed rule, EPA also ' :
solicited data demonstrating the - ^
feasibility of regulating TOC or COD
(chemical oxygen demand) as a
surrogate for these U and P
wastewaters: By setting a concentration-
based limit on the TOC of COD level of
a waste to be land-disposed, EPA would
necessarily limit the concentration of a »
organic toxic materials in that waste.
Commenters objected to this proposed
practice as unrealistic. No information
was submitted demonstrating that TOC
or COD could be reliable surrogates for
these unquantifiable organic
compounds. Consequently, EPA is not
promulgating the use of TOC or COD as
surrogates.
One commenter objected to the
method-based standard requiring
activated carbon following biological
treatment; the commenter reported that
his plant routinely sent pharmaceutical
wastes to the facility's in-plant
industrial waste treatment plant and
stated that the activated-carbon
requirement was superfluous. EPA has
removed the biological-treatment option
for wastewater forms of wastes not
amenable to quantification and explains
this decision, including the requirement
that the spent activated carbon be
incinerated, in the section m.a.5.a.(3).
For wastewater forms of organic U
and P wastes not amenable to
quantification: EPA is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN) as the Method of
Treatment" or, alternatively, "Chemical
oxidation (CHOXD) or wet-air oxidation
(WETOX) followed by carbon
adsorption (CARBN)." See 40 CFR 268.42
Table 1 for a detailed description of the
technology standard referred to by the
five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
(Wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation), followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as methods of
treatment for wastewater forms of:
P001Warfarin (>0.3%)
P0021-Acetyl 2-thtourea
P003Acrotein
POOSAlly! alcohol
P007Muscimol (5-Aminoethyl 3-isoxazolol)
POOS4-Aminopyridine
P014Benzene thiol (Thiophenol)
P016Bis-chkxomethyl ether
P017Bromoacetone
P018Bruoine
-------
22G14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(Wet lit oAWtoo or.chemlcal oxktefon), followed by
' -- carbon adsorption; or Incineration as methods of
.treatment tor wastawater forms of: _
P023-Chtoroac8ta!dehyde
P02S--88nzyl chloride
PCKH 2-cydohoxyM,6-e
P047 4,&diftitrocrasoi salts
P049-£.4-Dtthloblun»t
P054-AzlcWo»
P057 2-FXxxoocxrtamide
P05»-nuorac«tlc add, sodium salt
P064 Itocyante add. ethyl ester
P066 Methomyl
FOOT S-MaBiytazWdina
POe&-M«tnyRactorf««
P070 Akficarb
P072 1-NaphthyVS-thIoursa (Bantu)
P075-Nicotif>o and salts
PC84-4W«rosornoliiyMnylamtne
POeS-EndothaM
POOJ-N'Phtnyttniourea
PQ95 Phosjjeoe
P102 Propargyl alcohol
PtOS Strychnine and salts
Ptt6 Thfosemlcarbazlde
PUB TrlcJAxomotJuHXrthiol
UOOt AcotaJdohyda
UOQS-Acstyl Chlortda '
U007 Aoylanxfo
UOOe Acrylic add
U010 Mltomydn C
U011 AmHrote
U014 Auramina
U015 Azaserine
U01 6 Bora(c)acrklm8
U017 Benzal chtorida
U020 Banzenetullonyt chloride
U021 Benzidlne
U026 CWoronaphazioe
U033 Carbonyt fluoride
U034 TrfchtoroacetaWohyda
U035 Chtorambuca
U041 n-Chtoro-aS-flpoxypropane
U042 2-Chtoroethyl vinyl ether
U0«6-Chloromethyl methyl ether
U049-4<3>k>rr>o4okfcfinehy*odiJoride
U053-Crotonakiohyda
U055 Cumone (isopropyl benzene)
U056-Cydohoxano
U059 Dtunomydn
U062-OiaHat»
U064 1 ,2,7.8-Oaxmzopyrona
U074 1.4-Oicnkxo-2-buteoe
U065 1^3.+Oi«poxybutan«
U06S-Dtothyt sGbostrol
U090-Diny
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations .22615
nLA.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,.....
. -sverified analytical methods do not ''.
currently exist for the quantification of
these hydrolysis products in treatment
.residues.^: :-. -.-.... : .. --./-> .-.-
Another analytical problem is created
-because P081 wastes are only
quantifiable by HPLC methods (Note:
EPA rejects HPLC methods for waste
treatment residual matrices for reasons
discussed in section ELA.l.h,(2.)(a.).) In
addition, there are no verified SW-846
analytical methods for measuring P009
and U133 hi treatment residues.
These analytical problems preclude
setting concentration-based treatment
standards; consequently, the Agency
proposed "Thermal Destruction" (e.g.,
incineration) as a required method of
treatment for the nonwastewater forms
of these U and P wastes (54 FR 48427).
The Agency, however, reconsidered the
treatment technologies applicable for
treatment of wastes in this treatability
group as a result of information in the
comments.
EPA continues to believe that
incineration is an applicable technology
because data indicate that most of of
these wastes are currently incinerated
by commercial, as well as military
facilities. Additionally, since most these
wastes have high Btu values, EPA also
believes that these wastes (e.g.,
hydrazine is used in rocket fuel] are
excellent candidates for fuel
substitution. Nevertheless, the Agency
has also determined that these wastes
can be chemically deactivated using
chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction technologies.
Based on all the available
information, the Agency is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN), Fuel Substitution
(FSUBS), Chemical Oxidation (CHOXD),
or Chemical Reduction (CHRED) as
Methods of Treatment" for P009, P068,
P081, P105, P112, U023, U086, U096,
U098, U099, U103, D109, U133 and U160
nonwastewaters. See § 268.42 Table 1 in
today's rule for a detailed description of
the technology standard referred to by
the five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
The Agency proposed "Incineration or
Carbon Adsorption" as required
methods of treatment for the
wastewater forms of this treatability
group. During the comment period,-EPA
received information about the
treatment capabilities of other
technologies and reevaluated the
technologies applicable for treatment of
wastewaters in this treatability group.
EPA still believes that incineration is '
applicable because it will destroy the
constituents present in the wastewaters.
Carbon adsorption is also applicable
because wastewater forms of these
wastes can easily be adsorbed due to
the branched arid ionic nature of their
structures. (It should be noted that after
adsorption, (and before disposal) the
contaminated carbon must be treated in
compliance with the treatment standard
for nonwastewaters.) However, data has
also been provided that indicate that
some of these wasfewaters (i.e., P088)
can be .treated by ozone/ultraviolet light
oxidation; hence, the Agency believes .
that chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction to be applicable technologies
for destruction of the constituents in
these waste streams. EPA also has
information indicating that
biodegradation is capable of destroying
the compounds in wastewater forms of
this treatability group.
The Agency believes all the above
"mentioned applicable technologies are
demonstrated and available hence,
"best". Therefore, EPA is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN), Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD), Chemical
Reduction (CHRED), Carbon Adsorption
(CARBN), or Biodegradation (BIODG) as
Methods of Treatment" for P009, P068,
P081, P105, P112, U023, U086, U096,
U098, U099, U103, U109, U133 and U160
wastewaters. See section 268.42 Table 1
in today's rule for a detailed description
of the technology standard referred to
by the five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
Although there is an SW-846 method
for U109, the Agency is not establishing
a numerical standard for this waste
since it is very similar to P068, U086,
U098, U099, and U131 (all are hydrazine
compounds) and it is the Agency's belief
that the promulgated methods will
provide effective treatment for this
waste.
The Agency is unaware of any
alternative treatment or recycling
technologies that have been examined
specifically for these U and P wastes
and solicited data and comments on
such technologies but received no
response on this issue. In any case, the
treatment standard does not preclude
recycling (provided the recycling is not a
use constituting disposal; see § 261.33,
first sentence).'
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P009,
F068, P081.P105.P112, U023, U086,
U096, U09S.U099.U103, U109, U133,
ANDU160 .'.,...
[Nonwastewaters]. }
Incineration (INCIN), fuel substitution (FSUBS), '
chemical oxidation (CHOXD), or chemical reduction
(CHRED) as methods of treatment *
*See §268.42 Table 1 in today's rule for a de-
tailed description of the technology standard referred
to by the five letter technology code in the parenthe-
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR POQ9,
P068.-P081, P105, P112, U023, U086,
U096, U098, U099, U103, U109, U133,
ANDU160
[Wastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN), chemical oxidation (CHOXD),
chemical reduction (CHRED), carbon adsorption
(CARBN), or biodegradation (BIODG) as methods of
treatment *
See §263.42 Table 1 in today's rule for a de-
tailed description of the technology standard referred
to by the five toner technology code in the parenthe-
ses.
(2) Incinerable Inorganics.
P006Aluminum phosphide
P096Phosphine
P122Zinc phosphide (>10%)
U135Hydrogen sulfide
U189Phosphorus sulfide
U249Zinc phosphide (<10%)
These wastes were grouped together
because they consist of compounds
containing only inorganics such as
sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorous, and
metals. Additionally, these compounds
are either extremely toxic gases or can
generate toxic gases under aqueous
conditions. Treatment technologies.for
these wastes should include equipment
to prevent releases of the toxic gases
into the environment
The Agency does not believe that
numerical treatment standards 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. For example, one of the
specific problems encountered in
analysis of P006 wastes is that they
brea\k down quickly in water
(hydrolyze), making the analysis of
wastewater forms of these wastes very
difficult. In cases when there is no
analytical method for a particular waste,
EPA tries to find an appropriate
measurable surrogate or indicator
-------
422616 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / -Friday. June 1. .1990 / Rules ..and Regulations
' compound; however, no constituent has
been Identified in these wastes that;
' could be used as a surrogate or indicator
Compound for nbnwastewaters. See
c section nLA.li.(2} for a detailed >
discussion of analytical problems.
Data available at the time of proposal
indicatedtthat these wastes were being
Incinerated by some commercial .
treatment facilities. Therefore, the ,
Agency proposed a treatment standard
of "Thermal Destruction" for the
nonwastewater forms of these wastes.
EPA has reevaluated the applicable
technologies for wastes in this :
treatabllity group as a result of
Information submitted hi the comments.
One commenter specifically requested
that chemical oxidation be a method of
treatment for phosphine gas (P096) and
hydrogen sulfide gas (U135). This
commenter said that both gases are
flammable and toxic to inhalation and
can be treated by controlled reaction
with aqueous solutions of potassium
permanganate. The commenter stated
that this treatment allows the margin of
safety that venting into an incinerator
does not since both gases, when heated.
emit highly toxic oxides, either sulfur or
POX. The Agency agrees with the
commenter that chemical oxidation and
chemical reduction technologies are
applicable for treatment of wastes in
this treatability group.
The Agency continues to believe that
incineration can be used to effectively
and safely treat these wastes. However.
because most of these wastes will
contain high concentrations of sulfur
and phosphorous when discarded as off-
spec products, they will require as part
of the treatment 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-
nilrogens and organo-sulfur U and P
wastes in section m.A.3.g.). EPA does
not believe that fuel substitution is
applicable for wastes in this treatability
group because of the hazards associated
with the toxic gases that can be
generated.
Based on the information presented
above, the Agency is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN]. Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD), or Chemical
Reduction (CHRED) as Methods of
Treatment" for P006. P069, P122. U135.
U189, and U249 nonwastewaters. See
section 268.42 Table 1 in today's rule for
a detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code hi the parentheses.- '
For wastewater forms of P006, P096,
P122. U135. U189. and U249. the Agency
proposed a standard of "Chemical
OxidationPollowed by Precipitation as -
Insoluble-Salts". EPA has reconsidered
the "insoluble salts" requirement and
> believes that because most of these P
and U.wastes are generated in small
quantities it places a large, burden on
treatment facilities treating these wastes
by incineration or chemical treatment to
require use of chemicals that will
precipitate a small portion of their total
waste volume to insoluble salts when
other chemicals may be more desirable
for their specific treatment needs. EPA
also believes that the individual facility
discharge limits will control releases
.into the environment of any soluble
compounds generated as a result of
treating these compounds. . .
EPA has also reconsidered the
technologies proposed as BDAT as a
result of information submitted in the
comments. One commenter submitted
information indicating that incineration
is the best treatment for these
wastewaters. The Agency does nol
believe that treatment using
technologies that usually require
aeration steps such as biodegradation
technologies are applicable because of
the toxicity of the gases that could be
formed during treatment. Additionally.
carbon adsorption is not considered
applicable technology for inorganic
compounds that do not have branched
molecular structures. The Agency
believes that thermal and chemical
destruction technologies such as
incineration, chemical oxidation and
chemical reduction provide safer and
more effective treatment than either
biodegradation or carbon adsorption.
The Agency is promulgating a
standard of "Incineration (INCIN).
Chemical Oxidation (CHOXD), or
Chemical Reduction (CHRED) as
Methods of Treatment" for P006, P096.
P122, U135, U189.U249 wastewaters.
See § 268.42 Table 1 hi today's rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter-
technology code in the parentheses.
The Agency is currently unaware of
any alternative treatment or recycling
technologies that have been examined
specifically for these wastes and
solicited data and comments on these,
but received no response on this issue.
The final 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).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P006,
P096, P122, U135, U189. AND U249
CNonwastewaters and wastewatersj
Incineration (INCIN), chemical oxidation (CHOXD); or
chemical reduction (CHRED) as amethod of
; , ,. treatment* .;
See section 268.42 Table 1 in today's rule for a
detailed description of the technology standard re-
ferred to by trie five letter technology code in the
parentheses. ' , , .
(3) 'Fluorine Compounds. '' ' "
POS6Fluorine
U134Hydrofluoric 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 proposed 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 also proposed recovery as an
alternative specified method. The
Agency requested comments and data
on these options.
EPA has reconsidered the "insoluble
salts" requirement and believes that
generally P056 and U134 wastes are
generated hi such small quantities that it
places a large burden on treatment
facilities treating these wastes by
chemical treatment to require use of
chemicals that will precipitate a small
portion of their total waste volume to
insoluble salts when other chemicals
may be more desirable for their specific
treatment needs. EPA also believes that
the individual facility discharge limits
for fluoride will control releases into the
.environment of any soluble compounds
generated as a result of treating these
compounds. Therefore, the Agency is
not finalizing the insoluble salt
requirement.
EPA is promulgating "Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR) as a Method of Treatment" for
P056 nonwastewaters and
"Neutralization (NEUTR) or Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR) as Methods of Treatment" for
U134 nonwastewaters since this waste _
can exist as an acidic solution or a gas.
See § 268.42 Table 1 in today's rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1.1990 / Tfotes and Regulations
22617
technology code in the parentheses. EPA
believes "adsorption" instead of - -.
"solubilization" better describes the
.- process of releasing a gas into a .liquid.
media and'that "neutralization" of the
-.resulting acidic waste allows the
regulated community greater flexibility
than^precipitation as calcium fluoride".
- The Agency made this decision as a
result of information indicating that
most facilities are currently treating
gaseous forms of P056 and U134 by
reacting the gases with alkaline solution
and that it is common practice to
neutrali2e waste hydrofluoric acid
(U134).
One commenter said these fluorine
compounds are mixed with other wastes
requiring incineration and that they can
be safely incinerated and that
incineration should be an allowed
technology. The Agency is not
precluding incineration as long as the
acid off-gases are scrubbed with
alkaline reagents to achieve the
treatment standard of "Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR)". In this case, the water will
act as the adsorbent and the alkaline
reagents will neutralize the acidity.
The Agency has collected data for the
wastewater forms of these wastes (see
BDAT Background Document for
Wastewalers Containing BDAT List
Constituents in the RCRA Docket).
Based on these data, the Agency
proposed a concentration-based
treatment standard of 35 mg/1 fluoride
for P056 and U134 wastewaters. This
standard is based on the treatment
performance of lime precipitation
followed by filtration. The Agency
received no comments concerning the
wastewater standard and is thus,
promulgating this standard as proposed.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P056
[Nonwastewaters]
Adsorpi!or- (ADGAS) followed by neutralization
(NkuTFu as a method of treatment *
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U134
[Nonwastewaters]
Neutralization (NEUTH) or adsorption (ADGAS)
followed by neutralization (NEUTR) as methods of
treatment"
8DAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P056
. . ANDU134
" , tWastawaters]" " -' ,
,..--.-. .......:-
. Regulated constituent
Fluoride ...»« . ~«_« « «-
'Maximum
angle orab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/0
35
" See § 268.42 Tabte 1 in today's rule for a de-
tailed description of the technology standard referred
to by the five letter technology-code in.the parenthe-
(4) Recoverable Metallic's.
P015Beryllium dust
P073-rNickel carbonyl
P087Osmium 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 wastes is.feasible and is currently
practiced.
The Agency proposed a standard of
"Recovery as a Method of Treatment"
for both nonwastewater and wastewater
forms of these wastes. At the time of
proposal, the Agency was not aware of
any treatment alternatives applicable to
these wastes and solicited comments
and information to help identify
alternative treatment.
Several commenters stated that it is
inappropriate to establish recovery as
the only acceptable treatment method
for nickel carbonyl (P073). One
commenter generates very small
quantities of P073 (typically less than
two pounds per year) and said that due
to the highly reactive nature of the
chemical, long-term storage in order to
.obtain quantities sufficient to justify
recovery either on-site or off-site would
present a significant safety hazard. This
commenter currently disposes of P073
by oxidation, either thermally in an
incinerator, or chemically in a
laboratory scale treatment facility
followed by stabilization and feels that
this is the only safe, economical and
environmentally sound treatment
method for small quantities of nickel
carbonyl.
The Agency agrees that it may not
always be practical to recover small
-quantities of .nickel and that oxidation of
wastewaters followed by stabilization
of nonwastewaters will provide an
effective treatment for nickel carbonyl
(P073). Since EPA has performance data
for -chemical treatment of nickel hi
wastewaters believed to be similar to
P073 wastewaters and stabilization data
for nickel in nonwastewaters believed to
be similar to P073 nonwastewaters, the
Agency has decided to develop
concentration-based standards for P073
nonwastewaters and wastewaters. EPA
is promulgating a concentration-based
standard of 0.32 mg/1 nickel for P073
nonwastewaters and a concentration-
based standard of 0.44 mg/1 nickel for
P073 wastewaters. This standard will
allow generators the flexibility to use.
any appropriate .method of treatment to
achieve the numerical standards.
Another commenter stated that it is
inappropriate to establish a treatment-
standard based only on recovery as a
method of treatment for beryllium dust
(P015) and osmium tetroxide (P087) and
suggested that EPA develop quantitative
or alternate technology standards.
However, the Agency received neither
performance data nor information
regarding alternate treatment methods
for these compounds during the
comment period and has no
performance data in the BDAT data
base to develop concentration-based
treatment standards. On the other hand,
the Agency did receive a comment from
a producer of beryllium and beryllium-
containing products which said that
although only very small quantities of
P015 are generated at any one time,
recovery is a viable and preferred
treatment method in light of the high
economic value of the recovered
beryllium. Additionally, the Agency is
aware that it is current practice to
recover osmium from P087 using bench-
scale technologies because of the high
economic value of the recovered
osmium. Consequently, the Agency
believes that recovery is BDAT for P015
and P087 nonwastewaters and
wastewaters and is promulgating
"Recovery (RMETL or RTHRM) as a
Method of Treatment" for all forms of
P015 and P087. As noted through the
preamble. Congress expressed a strong
preference in the land disposal ban
legislative history for recovery as
opposed to treatment followed by
disposal. See, e.g., rLR: Rep. No. 198 et
31. The standard for these wastes is
consistent with the'.Congressional
preference.
-------
.22B1B' .Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June'i, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
.-' V^-.'.j.^.r '-.AND,P087.r ^,,;:t..' .--SJT
Rocovwy (RMETLor RTHRM) as a method of
'treatment*
Soa J 208.42 Tabte 1 In today* rote for ade-
tsJJod description of ttie technology standard ref erred
to by the fivo latter technology code in the parenthe-
' ' '"
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P073
>; ,, , [Nonwastowaters] > -'.>
Regulated constituent
Nickel.
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, ,
TCLP,
Leachate
(mg/l)
0.32
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P073
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Niffcftf
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/D
0.44
d. Gases
P076Nitric oxide
P078Nitrogen dioxide
U115Ethylene oxide
These wastes are typically found as
gaseous materials when existing at high
concentrations. The Agency is
promulgating thermal or chemical
treatment as a method of treatment for
these wastes in contrast to the proposed
standard of recovery as a method of
treatment. The Agency acknowledges
that these wastes are unlikely to exist in
any forms amenable to land disposal but
is promulgating these standards in the
interest of completeness.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited information on whether these
wastes are actually being land disposed.
how such land disposal takes place,
whether anyone intends to land dispose
of these wastes in the future and any
treatability data that may lead to '
appropriate numerical land-disposal
standards for these wastes.
In soliciting comments on appropriate
land-disposal standards for wastes in -
the gaseous form, EPA wanted . :
information about the physical forms
other than empty containers thesegases
take when discarded. 40 CFR
261.7(a)(l)(i) and 40 CFR 261.7(a)(2) state
lhat 'fa-cpntainer that has held .:; ,,
hazardous waste.that is a compressed
gas is empty when the pressure in the ,
.container approaches atmospheric .
[pressure]" and "any hazardous waste
.remaining in an empty container *. * * is
not subject to regulation under * * *
part268." '.'.'-.
Since cylinders depressurized to
atmospheric pressure are explicitly.
defined as non-hazardous waste
(assuming the cylinder itself is not
hazardous when disposed], the two
physical forms hi which these three
wastes will most likely pose land-
disposal problems are damaged
cylinders unacceptable for recycling or
reuse and rinsewater used to clean such
cylinders. Commenters reported that
damaged cylinders pose significant risk
of explosion and thus are very
dangerous to store and handle;
furthermore most cylinder-handling
firms refuse to take damaged cylinders.
Therefore, commenters report they have
been expeditiously treating their
damaged cylinders on-site on their ovvn
initiative and these commenters strongly
urged EPA to set as the treatment
standard the chemical and thermal
treatment currently being used. EPA
agrees. Such activities will require
permits under subpart X (Miscellaneous
Units) of 40 CFR part 264.
One commenter submitted
information about an oxidation process
that had been used to treafwastewaters
high in ethylene oxide. Although the
commenter did not provide rigorous
enough documentation of his treatment
process design and operation and about
his analytical procedures for EPA to use
his data to calculate concentration-
based standards for ethylene oxide, his
data nevertheless support EPA's claim
that'oxidation processes are BDAT for
ethylene oxide wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
U115 (ethylene oxide) can be oxidized
to carbon dioxide and water so EPA can
specify' chemical or thermal oxidation
for U115 nonwastewaters and
incineration or chemical oxidation plus
carbon absorption or biological
treatment plus carbon absorption for
U115 wastewaters.
However, in choosing appropriate
treatment methods for the other two
gases, EPA confronts the fact that
oxidation is inappropriate for P076
(nitric oxide, NO) and P078 (nitrogen
dioxide, NOz) because the resulting
oxidation product is the undesirable
NQX equilibrium mixture. Consequently,
EPA-is promulgating as treatment
standards for P076 and P078 a method
suggested by one of the commenters:
venting into a reducing solution. EPA
leaves the means of venting to the
treatment facility and requires only that
the effluent, gas or washwater,
ultimately be sent through a reducing
solution to transform NO and NO2 to N*
and Oz. . ' '.
EPA is promulgating "Venting Into a
Reducing Medium as the Method of
Treatment (ADGAS)" for P076 and P078,
nonwastewaters and wastewaters;
"Thermal or Chemical Oxidation
(EttCIN, CHOXD) as a Method of
Treatment" for nonwastewater forms of
U115 and "Incineration (INCIN) of
Chemical (CHOXD) or Wet-Air
Oxidation (WETOX) Followed by
Carbon Adsorption (CARBN) as
Methods of Treatment" for U115
wastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P076
AND P078
[Wastewaters and Nonwastewaters]
Venting into a reducing medium (ADGAS) as a
method of treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U115
INonwastewaters]
Thermal or chemical oxidation (INCIN. CHOXD) as a
method of treatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U115
[Wastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN) or chemical (CHOXD) or wet air
oxidation (WETOX) followed by carbon absorption
(CARBN) as a method of treatment
e. U and P Cyanogens
P031Cyanogen
P033-^Cyanogen chloride ,
U246Cyanogen bromide
Today's rule promulgates "Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD) (such as alkaline
chlorination), Wet Air Oxidation
(WETOX), or Incineration (INCIN) as a
Method of Treatment" for amenable and
total cyanides for P031, P033, arid U246.
For these wastes, the Agency is
promulgating technology-based
standards rather than concentration-.
based standards because of the high
toxicity of these wastes. The Agency
received.no comments on the use of the
above methods of treatment for these
wastes.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22619
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P031.
r -.- -: '-: P033, U246 ; ,.:,.:.
INonwastewatsre and wastewatefs] -
Chemical oxidation (CHOXD), wet air oxidation'
(WETOX), or incineration (INC1N) as a matnod of
.treatment1 .
'See -S268.42. Table 1 in today's rule for a
, detailed .description of the technology standard re-
ferred by the five letter technology code in the'
parentheses. ' - ' : " ' "
6. Development of Treatment Standards
for Multi-Source Leachate
a. Background . , ^ - . .
In the preamble to the proposed rule
(54 FR 48461-48469). EPA summarized
its efforts to develop a regime for
managing, under the land disposal
restrictions program, leachate derived
from the disposal of hazardous wastes,
and treatment residues derived from
treating such leachate. Reiterating
briefly, EPA reconsidered the approach
it adopted in the First Third final rule for
such leachate (53 FR 31146-31150) due to
concerns about available treatment
capacity and (to a lesser extent)
treatability. As a result, on March 7,
1989, EPA changed certain rules
pertaining to the modification of permits
(54 FR 9596). This was foDowed on May
2,1989 by a final rule that rescheduled
the prohibition date for most multi-
source leachate to that of the Third
Third (54 FR 18836). Throughout these
changes, however, EPA adhered (and
continues to adhere) to the principle that
leachate derived from a listed hazardous
waste is a hazardous waste, no matter
when the listed waste was initially
disposed. If such listed waste is a listed
solvent, dioxin, or RCRA section 3004(g)
waste, the leachate is itself prohibited
from land disposal no later than May 8,
1990. These principles have been'upheld
by the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 869 F.2d 1526,1536,
1536-37 (B.C. Cir. 1989).
b. Final Approach for Regulating Multi-
Source Leachate .
In developing treatment standards for
multi-source leachate and residues from
treating such leachate (referred to
collectively as "multi-source leachate"
throughout this preamble), EPA solicited
comment on two options: whether to
apply to the multi-source leachate the
treatment standards for the wastes from..
which the leachate is derived, or
whether to designate such multi-source
leachate as a separate treatability group
with a separate treatment standard.- EPA
has decided to adopt the second
- approach, which had almost unanimous
support in the public comments. In
"today's final rule, therefore, the Agency
is establishing a separate treatability
group for multi-source leachate and is
-giving it the Hazardous Waste No. F039.
The Agency is also adopting one set of
wastewater and nonwastewater
.treatment standards consisting of
approximately 200 constituents. (As
; explained hi section (4) below, however,
the permit writer has the discretion to
narrow the number of constituents that
must be regularly analyzed and to
determine the frequency of testing.) The
following sections discuss in greater
detail the Agency's final approach for
.regulating multi-source leachate.
(1) Definition of Multi-source
Leachate. Leachate is defined hi 40 CFR
260.10 as any liquid, including any
suspended components hi the liquid,
that has percolated through or drained
from hazardous waste. Leachate that is
derived from the treatment, storage, or
disposal of listed hazardous wastes is
classified as a hazardous waste by
virtue of the "derived-from" rule hi 40
CFR 261.3(c)(2). Multi-source leachate is
leachate that is derived from the
treatment, storage or disposal of more
than one listed hazardous waste (54 FR
8264; February 27,1989).
The Agency solicited comment on
whether multi-source leachate should be
defined as being derived from more than
one treatability group instead of from
more than one listed hazardous waste.
A number of commenters favored the
idea of a definition based on more than
one treatability group, stating that if the
leachate was derived from only a few
similar wastes, it would be burdensome
to analyze for constituents that would
not be present in the originating listed
waste. Other commenters, however,
stated that such a definition would be
unnecessary and confusing to
implement. EPA agrees with those
commenters that a definition based
upon treatability groups would be .
difficult to implement in this final rule.
There is not sufficient time to develop
all potential treatability groups, nor to
provide public notice necessary to
implement the treatability group concept
within the time constraints of this final
rule. The Agency believes, moreover,
that compliance with the multi-source
leachate standards need not be overly .
burdensome due to the flexibility
allowed the permit writer (in the
facility's waste analysis plan) to
determine constituents to monitor and to
decide testing frequency (see section {4)
below). The Agency; therefore, is
defining multi-source leachate as .
leachate that is derived from more.than
one listed waste. . , "
There is one definitional clarification
to be made pertaining to leachate .
derived from more than one listed
dioxin-containing waste. The Agency
requested comments specifically on
whether to consider leachate derived
exclusively from F020-F023 and F026-
F028 dioxin-containing wastes to be
single-source leachate. The majority of
commenters supported such a
classification, therefore, the Agency is
adopting this classification in today's
rule.-These wastes are acute hazardous
dioxin wastes (with the exception of
F028) subject to special management
standards and (as practical matter)
special and appropriate public and
regulatory scrutiny. The leachate
derived from only these hazardous
wastes most often will have the same
attributes as the underlying wastes (see
54 FR 46482), and thus would require the
same scrutiny and should be subject to
the same management standards.
Therefore, leachate derived exclusively
from F020-F023 and F026-F028, and no
other listed hazardous wastes, is single-
source leachate that is classified as, and
must meet the treatment standards for,
the underlying waste codes, F020-F023
and F026-F028. Further discussion of
this classification is found in section d.
below.
(2) Single Waste Code for Multi-
source Leachate. EPA has decided to
establish a separate treatability group
for multi-source leachate, and to
designate such leachate by its own
waste code. Hazardous Waste No.
F039.3It should be noted, therefore, that
when today's rule is effective, a
generator does not have the option to
continue classifying their multi-source
leachate (under the waste code carry-
through) aB all the listed wastes from
which it is derived; multi-source
leachate must be classified as F039.
Although there were some
commenters who urged the Agancy to
retain the waste code carry-through
approach for multi-source leachate,' the
Agency is persuaded that if multi-source
leachate is to be considered a distinct
treatability group (a virtual consensus in
the comments], men multi-source
leachate should have a separate waste
code and separate treatment standards.
Not only does this appear to be the only
logical result of creating a separate
3 AB was explained in the proposed rule, this does
not mean that such waste is newly identified or
listed for purposes of RCRA hammers, or other .
RCRA purposes such QB eligibility for interim status.
Rather, the Agency is making a bookkeeping change
in the way it designates a type of waste that already
is listed and identified.' ... . ...; . ..-
-------
^2820 ' federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1; 1990 / Rules and Regulations
treatabillty group, but the rules will be,
easier to implement and enforce if there
is a single treatment standard formulti-
source leachate rather than the large
number of potential treatment standards'
(depending on the number of wastes
fromwhich theleachate is derived), the
result of using the alternative waste
code cany-through approach. In .
addition, it would be harder and more
confusing to evaluate situations where
multi-source leachate also exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic under
the waste code carry-through approach
(see 54 FR 48464). A further advantage
of establishing a separate waste code
and separate treatment standards is that
it assures treatment of all hazardous
constituents that may be present in the
multi-source leachate, a result less
certain under the waste code carry-
through approach. Thus, EPA sees the
treatment standards adopted today as
somewhat more protective than those
that would apply under a waste code
carry-through approach.
The Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard for multi-source
leachate that includes concentration-
based standards for virtually the entire
list of BDAT constituents. Because
multi-source leachate derives potentially
from any and all of the listed hazardous
waste, the treatment standard must
account for this possibility, and must
consequently include all of the potential
constituents that may be present (See
§ 26S.41(a) where the Agency adopted
the same approach for F001-F005 as
well as treatment standards
promulgated in this rule for K088
wastes.)
The Agency is not saying that all
multi-source leachate contains all of the
BDAT list constituents; obviously, some
leachates do not The Agency recognizes
that it is unnecessary and wasteful to
monitor constituents that are not
present Working out which constituents
to monitor is a site-specific
determination, however. The Agency is
today promulgating an implementation
scheme to account for such site-specific
determinations. This implementation
scheme is similar to that used'by EPA's
Effluent Guidelines program, which
requires an initial analysis that may
include all toxic organics, followed by
subsequent analyses for only those
pollutants which would reasonably be
expected to be present This
implementation scheme is discussed in .
greater detailin section (4) below.
(3) Separate Waste Code for Maltl- .
Source Leachate. As was already
mentioned, EPA is listing multi-source
leachats by a separate waste code,_ -
Hazardous Waste No. E039,
Commenters supported this decision on
the grounds that multi-source leachate is
a distinct type of waste different from
the underlying wastes from which it-is
derived. In addition, they asserted that
they will face fewer administrative
obstacles, particularly with respect to
permit modifications, if multi-source
leachate and its treatment residues have
a separate waste code. This raises
certain issues relating to state
authorization and CERCLA reportable .
quantities that are discussed below.
'EPA requested and received comment
on whether designating multi-source
leachate by a single waste code should
be considered a HSWA regulation
immediately effective in authorized
States. A number of commentere stated
that the rule should be considered to be
adopted pursuant to HSWA, and thus be
effective immediately in all states
(RCRA section 3006(g)). EPA agrees with
these comments, and has concluded that
the designation of multi-source leachate
is a HSWA regulation, in that it
effectuates the requirements of RCRA
section 3004(m) to set treatment
standards for prohibited wastes. As was
discussed at 54 FR 9606 (March 7,1989),
Class One through Three permit
modification procedures are appropriate
and will be used by EPA to implement
such HSWA requirements in authorized
and unauthorized States. Since EPA will
be modifying the RCRA permit in order
to implement these HSWA
requirements, a state may not need to
take any action to recognize the
effectiveness of the modification.
The Agency has determined that
listing multi-source leachate as a
separate waste code is indeed more
strict than applying the waste-code
carry through principal because: (1)
Designating multi-source leachate as a
separate waste code requires the
monitoring and treatment of more BDAT
constituents than would be required
under the waste-code carry through
approach to regulating multi-source
leachate: and, (2) standards for dioxins
and furans in multi-source leachate
wastewaters are more strict than those
that have applied under the waste-code
carry through approach.
All hazardous wastes listed pursuant
to RCRA section 3001, as well as any
solid waste that meets one or more of
the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined at 40 CFR 261.21-
261.24), are hazardous substances as
defined at Section 101(14) of me
Comprehensive Environmental.
, Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The
> CERGLA hazardous substances are
listed at 40 CFR 302.4 along with their
Reportable Quantities (RQs). CERCLA
section 103(a) requires that persons in
charge of vessels or facilities from
which a hazardous substance has been
released in a quantity that is equal to or
greater than its RQ immediately notify
the National Response Center at (800)
424-8802 or at (202) 426-2675. In
addition, section 304 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) requires the owner or
operator of a facility to report the
release of a CERCLA hazardous
substance or an extremely hazardous
substance to the appropriate State
Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) or Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) when the amount
released equals or exceeds the RQ for
the substance or one pound where no
RQ has been set
Under section 102(b) of CERCLA, all
hazardous wastes newly designated
under RCRA will have a statutorily
imposed RQ of one pound unless and
until adjusted by regulation under
CERCLA. In order to coordinate the
RCRA and CERCLA rule-makings with '
respect to new waste listings, the
Agency today is making final regulatory
amendments under CERCLA authority
in connection with the listing of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F039. The Agency
will designate EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F039 as a hazardous substance
under Section 102(b) of CERCLA and
establish the RQ for EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F039 at one pound.
The RQ for this waste stream is based
on the RQs of the hazardous
constituents of concern identified under
RCRA for the waste stream (50 FR
13456, April 4,1985). Thus, if a newly
listed hazardous waste has only one
constituent of concern, the waste will
have an RQ that is the same as the RQ
for the constituent. If. as in this case, the
hazardous waste has more than one
constituent of concern, the lowest RQ
assigned to any of the constituents will
be the RQ for the hazardous waste. RQs
are set at 1; 10; 100; 1000; and 5000
pounds. EPA Hazardous waste No. F039
contains several constituents that have
RQs of one pound {e.g., mercury,
dieldrin, vinyl chloride, etc.); therefore,
the RQ of this waste is also one pound.
The tist of hazardous constituents for
this waste may be found at 40 CFR -
268.43(a), Table CCW. The definition of
. multi-source leachate, F039, may be
found at 40 CFR 261.31.
-(4) Permit modifications and
implementation procedures. It would
appear that listing multi-source leachate
by a separate waste code necessitates
amending many RCRA permits that do
not already include a narrative
-------
X* -:-Federal Register /Vol. 55, No.-106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22621
description for multi-source leachate
and multi-source leachate treatment
residues. EPA has also concluded that
this designation as a single waste code -
- .may require some modification to
existing permits in order to treat, store,
or dispose of the new waste code, and
that such modifications are >
appropriately achieved through the
procedures in 40 CFR 270.42(g).4 These
procedures require the submission of a
.. Class 1 modification by the date on
which the waste becomes subject to the
new requirements (August 8,1990). The
regulations further specify a subsequent
submission of a Class'2 or 3 permit
modification request, if appropriate.
EPA believes that a Class 1 submission
is all that is required when a permit is
simply being changed by substituting the
F039 waste code for the multiple waste
codes that are carried through with the
leachate. (If a facility wants to make
additional operation changes or
introduce the leachate into units not
previously permitted to manage the
waste, then the appropriate modification
procedures would apply before the
activity can commence.)
As described more fully in section
III.G. of this preamble, it will take some
time for permit writers to incorporate
specific land disposal restriction
procedures into waste analysis plans
(WAPs) at all facilities. For facilities
that already have a permit, a permit
modification will be required to
incorporate new procedures in the WAP.
Some commenters suggested that any
changes to the WAP should be treated
as a Class 1 modification. Using the
existing permit modification regulations
in 40 CFR 270.42, one could question
whether it is most appropriate to apply
the Class 1 procedures (intended for
WAP changes to conform with Agency
guidance or regulations, as specified in
item B(2)(a) of appendix I), or whether
the Class 2 process should be used (see
item B(2)(b)). Presented with this
question, and responding to commenters
who desired an expeditious way to
address the appropriate F039 waste
analysis procedures, the Agency is
today establishing a new Class-1 permit
modification (with prior approval) for
this purpose. (See item B(l)(b) in
appendix I to 40 CFR 270.42.) EPA
believes that this classification strikes
the proper balance between a
streamlined mechanism for upgrading
' * EPA reiterates that the designation of the new
waste code for multi-source leachate does not mean
that such waste is newly identified or listed under
RCRA. Rather, because some permits may restrict
management to specified waste codes or types of
. wastes, it is appropriate 'to treat such modifications
: an if they were newly listed wastei as the waste '
: code has been newly,changed,,, .-.., ,: ~ :
the WAP for F039, while maintaining
Agency oversight and approval of the
proposal change. All persons on the
facility mailing list will also be provided
with notice that the facility has
requested a change to its WAP (see 40
CFR 270.42(8)).
A few commenters suggested that the
initial list of constitutents to be
analyzed should not be the entire BOAT
list, but rather, it should be a list of all
the constituents associated with all the
hazardous wastes that has been
disposed of in the land disposal unit
Commenters suggested this approach is
particularly appropriate for non-
commercial facilities that have stable
and well-defined waste streams that are
land disposed. Indeed, such an approach
is basically a case of a generator
developing waste characterization
information based on bis knowledge of
how the wastein this case, leachate
was generated. The Agency believes
this is a generally valid approach, and
may be considered on a site-specific
basis. As discussed in more detail in
preamble section III.G., however, in
most cases there is still a need for
corroborative testing.
The Agency believes that in order to
assure compliance with the land
disposal restrictions, the following
procedures should be followed by
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. First, obtain an initial analysis
of all regulated constituents in F039.
Based on the results of this analysis, and
any other information that should be
considered, develop a list of
constituents to be analyzed on a regular
frequency. This testing scheme should
be supplemented with perhaps less
frequent, broader, analyses to make sure
that changes in the composition of the
leachate are detected.
This approach is suggested pending an
opportunity for the Agency to prescribe
the appropriate constituents for analysis
and testing frequency for the facility. It
is therefore recommended that interim
status facilities incorporate such an
approach into the WAPs that they
maintain pursuant to 40 CFR 265.13.
For both permitted and interim status
facilities, the Agency retains its
authority (particularly where a revised
WAP has not been Agency-approved) to
determine that, based on an inspection
or other information, the testing
frequencies and/or protocols are
inadequate at a particular facility. In
such cases, EPA (or an authorized State)
may take a number of actions, including,
but not limited to, modifying a facility's
permit or pursuing .an enforcement
: action. . ' -/'" .
(5) Treatment standards for multi-
source leachate. The F039 treatment
standard being promulgated today is
based on the data used in the
development of the proposed standards,
BS will as on treatability data received
just prior to publication of the proposed
rule (see 54 FR &4S63, referencing these
data). Today's promulgated treatment
standard regulates the entire BDAT list
of constituents. More information on
how the standards for each constituent
were developed can be found in the
Final BDAT Background Document for
Organic U and P Wastes and Multi-
Source Leachates (F039), available in.
the RCRA docket.
As was discussed earlier hi section
(1), some commenters suggested that
multi-source leachate constituent
standards should be based on
treatability groups, so as not to trigger
analysis of the whole BDAT list if the
'leachate was derived from only a few
similar wastes. Other commenters
suggested that multi-source leachate
standards should be facility-specific.
The Agency believes there is some merit
to the concept of treatability groups for
multi-source leachate, and
acknowledges the need for site-specific
considerations in implementing the
treatment standard. However, the
Agency believes that one set of
wastewater and nonwastewater
standards based on the BDAT list,
implemented as stated above (with
determination of. constituents and
frequency of monitoring left to the
judgement of the permit writer) is a
reasonable and appropriate way to
regulate multi-source leachate.
Under the BDAT methodology for
determining treatment standards, when
the Agency does not have data for a
constituent, data may be transferred
from a structurally similar compound
that is harder to treat and likely to be
treated by the same technology. Such
transfers use as a starting point
constituents within the same treatability
group. Frequently within a particular
treatability group, constituents that can
not be adequately analyzed (and for
which methods of treatment are
established as the treatment standard)
are included in addition to those
constituents for which numerical
treatment standards are set. The
constituent from which data are
transferred to the other constituents in
the treatability group is the surrogate for
any constituents in that treatability
group that cannot be analyzed. It is
EPA's conclusion in the case of multi-
source leachate, however, that :
establishing numerical treatment
standards for each BDAT list . ' -
-------
22622
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
constituent obviates the need to specify
methods of treatment for any
constituent In other words, the
constituents on the BDAT list serve as
surrogates for those constituents that
may be present in the multi-source
leachate that cannot be adequately
analyzed. Several comments were
received that agreed with this decision.
Most of the multi-source leachate
nonwastewater treatment standards are
based on a direct transfer of U and P
nonwastewater treatment standards.
The remaining organic and metal
constituent treatment standards for
multi-source leachate are based on
treatment performance data transferred
from D, F, and K wastes. For the most
part, these treatment standards were
confirmed as being achievable by
performance data on the treatment of
multi-source leachate that were received
just prior to proposal (that were placed
in the record for the proposed rule).
These data were analyzed by EPA
during the comment period, and were
available for public 'comment and reply
comment The majority of these data
show no difficulty in achieving the
proposed multi-source leachate
nonwastewater standards, most of
which were based on incineration as
BOAT.
There were other data for a small
number of constituents, however, that
showed difficulty in meeting the
proposed standards. For example, the
Agency received data just prior to
proposal on the treatment of
nonwastewater forms of multi-source
leachate by sludge drying of a treatment
residue from biological treatment. Many
of these data supported the proposed
standards', however, detection limits
reported for some constituents in
nonwastewater leachate indicated that
treatment standards based on detection
limit data from an incinerator ash
matrix may not be routinely achievable.
Therefore, data from analysis of die
leachate matrix were used to calculate
today's revised nonwastewater
constituent treatment standards for
disulfoton, famphur, parathion, phorate
and methyl parathion.
Most of the wastewater constituent
treatment standards were transferred
from treatment data developed for
various other EPA regulatory programs,
and are based on data from numerous
sources. (These data apply to the
development of treatment standards for
other wastewaters besides multi-source
leachate. Further discussion of these
data is presented in preamble section
III.A.5.) Additional data were reviewed
during the comment period, including
data from a recently completed EPA
study of wastewater treatment by wet
air oxidation followed by PACT or
activated carbon, as well as additional
performance data from the treatment of
multi-source leachate wastewaters
which were received just prior to
publication of the proposed rule. (These
data were placed in the record for the
proposed rule for public comment.)
Commenters stated that wastewater
standards should not be based on wet
air oxidation followed by PACT nor on
scrubber water constituent
concentrations. The commenters
recommended that the Agency base the
wastewater constituent standards on
biological treatment performance data.
The Agency agrees with the commenters
that treatment standards normally
should be based on wastewater
treatment data rather than constituent
concentrations in incinerator scrubber
water. Therefore whenever the
biological treatment performance data
demonstrated substantial treatment and
met BOAT QA/QC requirements, they
were used to set today's revised
wastewater constituent treatment
standards.
Generally, data on wet air oxidation
followed by PACT supported the
proposed wastewater constituent
treatment standards. In addition, most
of the treatment data on multi-source
leachate wastewaters show no problems
achieving the proposed standards.
Whenever multi-source leachate
treatment data showed difficulty
meeting the proposed standard, while at
the same time showed substantial
treatment of a constituent by a
demonstrated, available technology,
these data were used in developing
today's revised numerical standards.
(Details on the development or transfer
of these wastewater standards per
constituent can be found in the Final
BDAT Background Document for
Organic U and P Wastes and Multi-
Source Leachates (F039), available in
the RCRA docket.)
c. Multi-Source Leachate That Exhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
EPA is not promulgating separate
standards for multi-source leachate that
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
wastes. By proposing standards for all
of the BDAT list constituents, all of the
constituents and properties that define
any particular characteristic will be
addressed. This is consistent with the
Agency's resolution of situations where
prohibited listed, wastes also exhibit a
characteristic: the specific treatment
. standard for the listed waste controls .
because it is more specific, and in the
case of the standard for multi-source
leachate, addresses the constituent that
causes the waste to exhibit the
characteristic. Should multi-source
leachate or its treatment residues
exhibit a characteristic at the point of
disposal, however, it must be treated to
meet the treatment standard for that
characteristic. Finally, if multi-source
leachate simply exhibits a characteristic
of hazardous waste without being
derived from a listed waste, it is subject
to the treatment standard for that
characteristic.
d. Multi-Source Leachate Containing
Dioxins and Furans
EPA proposed that the waste code
carry-through principle should not apply
to multi-source leachate derived, in part,
from the-disposal of listed dioxin-
containing wastes. Consequently, the
dioxin land disposal prohibition hi
RCRA section 3004{e) would not apply
to such multi-source leachate (albeit the
leachate remains within the ambit at
least, of the statutory hard hammer in
RCRA section 3004(g)), and application
of the management standards for acute
hazardous wastes would not apply to
multi-source leachate. Rather, EPA
proposed to establish treatment
standards for dioxins and furans as part
of the standards for multi-source
leachate (see 54 FR 48484-43465). This
proposed approach was based primarily
on analytical data demonstrating either
non-detectable or very low levels of
these constituents are present in the
leachate (using analytical methods
capable of analyzing orders of
magnitude below the standard limit of
detection of 1 ppb). Id.
All of the comments agreed with the
Agency that multi-source leachate
should not be classified under a listed
dioxin waste code or prohibition. EPA is
adopting this position in the final rule
for the reasons stated in the proposal In
addition, the Agency notes that by
classifying leachate that is derived from
the listed dioxin waste codes, and no
other hazardous waste, as single source
leachate, the Agency is retaining the
dioxin classification for the type of
leachate most likely to be sufficiently
contaminated with dioxins and furans to
warrant the special status and scrutiny
required for these wastes.
The final issue presented at proposal
was whether the treatment standards
for multi-source leachate should include
a treatment standard for dioxins and
furans, or whether a surrogate
constituent could indicate treatment of
these constitutents. The Agency
examined all available multi-source
leachate data and was unable to
develop an adequate, surrogate for
dioxin (the Agency's efforts are
-------
federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 199D /Rules and Regulations
22623
. documented fullyin the Response to
BDAT-JRelated Comments Background
Document). The Agency, therefore, is
' promulgating treatment standards for
liitjjujns'andfnransln both the
'wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of multi-source leachate.
i «. Status of Multi-source Leachate that is
. Mixed with Other Prohibited Wastes
EPA reiterates that if another
prohibited waste is mixed withjunlti-
source leachate, that waste must still
meet the treatment standard applicable
to that waste. Thus, once the treatment
standards for multi-source leachate
become effective, if the treatment
standard for any -constituent in the
prohibited waste is stricter than the
standard for that constituent in multi-
source leachate. then the entire mixture
would have to meet that stricter
standard (see $ 268.41(b)). {Conversely,
if the standard for multi-source leachate
is stricter than for the non-leachate
prohibited waste, the mixture would
have to meet the standard for multi-
source leachate.) Id. EPA is not
reopening this 1986 regulation for
review, but is restating that rule here in
order to make sure that the regulated
community realizes that §§ 268.41fbJ
and 268.43(b) apply.
A number of commenters stated that
they would like to combine leachate
from various parts of their plant in order
to facilitate treatment. As stated in the
preamble to the proposed rule {54 ER
48462], single-source leachate (i-e-
leachate derived-from only one waste
code such as might be expected from a
monofill) cannot be combined to create
multi-source leachate, and single-source
leachate from separate faculties cannot
be combined to create multi-source
leachate (this is analogous to the
principle that one ordinarily cannot
dilute to create a new treatability
group). The Agency agrees, however,
that it is permissible to combine various
multi-source leachate streams at one
facility hi order to facilitate treatment
(so long as the treatment does not
constitute land-disposal).
It should be noted that at least for the
short term, the status of mixtures of
multi-source leachate and First Third
prohibited wastes is controlled fay a stay
order entered by a panel of the District
of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
The order states that "as to anything
contaminated both by leachate and by
other first-third prohibited wastes, the .
other wastes must, to the extent
technically feasible, be treated to the
applicable treatment standards.
Prohibited wastes intentionally mixed
with teachate for the purpose of
avoiding applicable treatment standards
remain subject to all of the First Third
standards." Order-of April ,24.1989 in
Chemical Waste Managements. EPA,
No. 88-1581. -
As explained al34FR 26602 {June 23,
'1989}, EPA views any mixing of
prohibited First Third wastes with
leachate that occurs after the date of the
stay order to be intentional mixing for
the purpose of avoiding a "Fust Third
rule treatment standard. Certainly, tiny
such mixing that occurs nowover 18
months after adopting the First Third
rulecould be avoided and should not
insulate the First Third waste from
meeting the treatment standards. EPA in
fact intends to move jointly with the
petitioners in the case to lift this portion
of the .stay order. Until the order is
lifted, however, EPA reiterates that any
First Third prohibited -waste mixed with
multi-source leachate after the date of
the stay order remains subject to the
First Third treatment standards.
A final issue relating to mixtures is
the status of groundwater that is
contaminated with multi-source
leachate. As EPA stated at proposal.
such groundwater/multi-source leachate
mixture is a hazardous waste so long as
the multi-source leachate is contained in
the groundwater (54 FR 48462). (See
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
869 F. 2d at 1539-40, upholding the
contained-in principle as a reasonable
construction of the mixture and derived-
from rules.) Thus, so long as the multi-
source leachate is contained hi the
multi-source leachate/groundwater
mixture, the mixture ordinarily would be
prohibited from land disposal until
treated to meet the treatment standards .
applicable to multi-source leachate.
(During the period of a national capacity
variance, the multi-source leachate/
groundwater mixture would have to be
managed in surface impoundments that
satisfy the minimum technology
standards if the mixture is managed hi
an impoundment (see § 268.5(h)(2)).)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MuuTj-SouRCE LEACHATE
[Nonwastewaters]
i Maximum for
Regulated organic -constituents
Acetone
Acetcphenone_
2-AostylaminpfIuorene
Aldrin
AnHine
Anthracene..
grabsampte.
total
composition
irng/kg)
160
3.4
a?
MO
B-066
14
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATEContinued
[Nonwastewalecs]
^egufatod organic constituents
Arodor"lt>16_
Arodor1221_
Arodor 1248..
Arodor 1260..
alpha-BHC.
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene-.
Benzo (k) fluoranthene _
Benzo (g.ti, i) peryiene.
Benzo
-------
'""22624
, BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
' MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE-^Confinued
tNonwaslowators] .
; «. « - r, *
' " Rsflutatod oroanic constituents -
Dkv-butyl phttwlato a
1,4-Oinllrobacaena
4,S-Oioitroaatol
2,4-Oiofoophanol. .-..
? 4-DioftfritoltHin*
2.6-DWtrototu
Kopooa ____......-..__..-..
Mcthacrytoo!t»i(o..-...~» ~ -
MothitpyrHcnQ L^......... >
Mflthoxychtor
3-MaihytcholanlhronQ -
4,4'MathyUMW-8is-(2-chloroaniline)...-
Mcthylona cWorida
Methyl alhyl kotoo«...
Methyl Isobirtyl kelona
Methyl mothaoytata
Motnyl Parathton, .
Naphthalene ...,..-.. ~._
p-Nitroinilwa.., ....,
NltfobG07GfT9..««- - ..........TTT~r-
5-NitrcrO-loluidina __,
4-NilfOphonol»~~
N-NiUosodio ihylamlne .-.".-.«
N-Nitooso-dJ-fl-butytomine
N»««"«"»""
PenlacMotobonzona
PentochtorocBbonzo-fufans
P«ntachtofoc»xinio-p-dio)dfls
PanUchtoronitrobenzeno ......_
Phonacotin.,,.,... » ~ ~
Ptxxwnlhfono..
PhwwI.M ..!... .--»,.. .,,-,
Phofnta lu, Hi
PtopanonHrtla^ : -
PtonamWo . :
toumumfor
any single
grab sampte.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
28 .
2.3
160 '
160
140
28
28
14
170
62
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
33
6.0
160
28
160
15
62
4.0
33
0.066
0.066
37
28
4.8
0.001
0.001
28
28
82
65
170
0.066
2.6
0.13
84
1.5
0.18
15
35
33"
36
33
160
4.6
3.1
28
14
28
29
28
17
2.3
,2.3
35
35
4.6
37
.0.001
.0.001
4.8
7.4
16
. 3.1 .
6.2
4.6
360
1 1.5
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE Continued
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated organic constituents
Pyrene.- ,
Pyrifjjfjg , ...,
Silvex (2,4,5-TP) ;
2,4,5-T _. . :.
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzeno .....
Tetrachlorodibenzc-furans
Tetrachlof odibenzo-p-dtoxins
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethana...
Tetrachloroethylene .
Tduane . m^m..............
Toxaphene
I^^Trlchkjrabenzene
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichtoroethane
Trichlofoethylene
2,4.5-Trichtorophenol ....._._._.-. ....
2,4,6-Trichtorophenc4
15,3-Trichtoropropane
1.1i-Trichlorc-1 A2-trHluoraethane
Vinyt chloride .
Xytene(s)
Chromium (Total)
(_£gg .... ........
Nickel
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
8.2
16
22
.7.9
7.8
19 '
0.001
0.001
42
42
5.6
37
28 '
1.3
19
5.6
5.6
5.6
37
37
28
28
33
28
1.8
'023
1 5.0 (EP)
'52
'0.066
'5.2
'0.51
> 0.025
'0.32
5.7
» 0.072
1 Maximum for any single grab sample; TCLP
(mg/l).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
[Wastewaters]
Regulated organic and inorganic
constituents
Acetone -.-:
Acenaphthalene...... ............_...........
Acenaphthene
Aceton'rtrile «
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylonitrile '.
AIddn....« *
4-Aminobipheny)
Anthracene
Arodor 1016..:. -
Aroclor 1 221 ........._ ....
Aroclor 1 232. ..... . ....
Aroclor 1248..: '-
. Aroclor 1254 .-.
Aroclor 1 260 :.~.
alpha-BHC : , ,..-.
beta-BHC ;_. ,_".l '. -~...~
Maximum for
any 24 hr.
composite,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.28
.059
.059
.17
.010
.059
.24
- .021
.13
.81
.059
.013 .
.014
.013
.017
' .013 ':
. ' .014
, .00014
. .00014
.023 :
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE Continued
. IWastewaters]
Regulated organic and Inorganic
constituents
Benz (a) anthracene . .. ~.
3erco (a) pyrene _........__.......
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perytene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene-
3romodichhxomelhane
Bromomethane ................ _........... ..
4-Bromophenyi phenyl ether
n-Butyl alcohol ...
2-sec-Butyl-4,&
-------
federal Register f Vpl. 55. Sfo. ~JJ06 4 Briday. June 1, 1990 / Rnles vnd Regulations 22625
4HDAT TREATManr STANDARDS «M
l*mfl;TVSoyRCEl.EAGHA-TTE Continued
""' ;~ ;BWaslewatarB] .
Regulated . ---?
Methyl methansulfonate ..
Methyl Parathion . .............. ...n»
Naphthalene
p-Nrtroanilinn . , > --
5-Nitro-o-toluidine . ,
4-^itfpphenol....»..V. ..««-......«
N-Mitrosodiethytamine '-
N-ttfrtroBiMJi^n-btrtylaniine. ..__....._ _
N-NrtrosomethyiethylamlnB ,
N-Nitrosom6rpholine
N-NHrosopiperidtne -.
t**litrosopynolidine
Pomthirm
Pentachloroben7ene ».-..-.....
Pentachlorodibenzo-ftirans ..
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
PentacNoronitrabenzana ..
PentacMorophfflTcfl ......
Py^nnp i
Pyrirttno ...i...M»....
Safrble '
Silvw (2 1 5-TP) ,...'...:... ',.-
2A-W, ,,../....: ^ '
1axifnumjfbr
any24-hr.
composite,
"tolal
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroettiane .
Tetrachloroethene
2,3,4,6-Tetradflorophenol. :
Toxaphene ;
Tribromomethane cito
total
.coroposSfion
'{fig/I)
.055
.000063
.000063
J300063
.057
.057
.056
"030
,080
-O095
.63
.055
i054
.054
JQ54
.020
.16
.035
£5
.057
£7
33.
35
14
IS
5.O
1-2
.62
SO
.37
13
.28
.15
-55
.82
29
-042
1S>
7. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Soil and Debris
Soil and debris that are contaminated
with prohibited wastes are subject to
the land disposal restrictions and must
meet the treatment standard for the
contaminating waste prior to land
disposal. The Agency realizes, howevet.
that there are certain problems
associated with regulating hazardous
wastes in soil and debris matrices. 11
may be difficult to obtain a
representative sample of die waste in
order to determine the level of
contaminant concentrations in soil and
debris. Additionally, mere are a wide
variety of soil types, -and wastes that
may be classified as debris that may
range in size from day-sized particles to
large contaminated tanks and buildings.
Because of such problems, the Agency is
preparing a separate rale-making that
will establish treatability groups and
treatment standards for contaminated
soil and debris. IMS contaminated soil
and debris can be better organized into
treatabiliiy groups, however.
promulgated treatment standards apply.
(The Agency is establishing certain
debris subcalegories in this final rule.
See the liiscussion of treatment
standards far certain characteristic
metal wastes in section ELA-S-a.)
If the contaminated soil and debris
cannot be treated to meet the
promulgated treatment standards,
alternative treatment standards can be
established tinder a site-specific
variance bom the treatment standards
(see 53 FR 31221, August 17,1988) or a
fall-scale variance {40 CFR 268.44).
Categorizing such contaminated soil and
debris according to type, volume, form,
and contaminant concentration poses
several problems best resolved on a
site-specific basis. In order to be granted
a site-specific variance irom the
treatment standard, the petitioner must
demonstrate to the Agency that because
the physical (or chemical) properties of
the waste differs significantly from the
waste analyzed in developing the
treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated to specified levels or by the
specified methods (see 40 CFR 268.44).
At proposal EPA solicited comment
on the appropriate treatment standard
for scrap metal destined for land
disposal that is unavoidably
contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste (54 FR 48469). The problem
potentially arises because scrap metal
can itself contain the same metallic
constituents present hi a listed waste.
The Agency proposed that such scrap
metal would not have to meet the
treatment standard for the listed
hazardous waste if it was unavoidably
contaminated and the listed waste had
been removed by rinsing or other
demonstrated decontamination
techniques. The Agency also noted the
imprecision of these terms and the
difficulties in developing an
implementable approach. Id
Most commenters supported the
Agency's proposal, and some
commentes urged the Agency to extend
the same concept to other types of
debris mixtures. Commenters were Jiot
able, however, to find satisfactory
answers for the problems that EPA
. raised at proposal It also appears that
there are only isolated instances of
scrap metal destined for land disposal
being contaminated unavoidably with
listed prohibited hazardous wastes. EPA
consequently believes that the best way
to deal with this situation at the present
tone is on an individualized -basis
through the ,§ 268,44 trealability
variance rather than in a general rule. .
(The Agency believes that one approacn
for variance applicants to consider > .. .
-------
22626' Federal Register / .Vol. 55, No. 106 /Friday; June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
-would bo a demonstration that all of the
BDAT constitntents not common to both1
the scrap metal and the listed prohibited
. waste meet the treatment standards. In *
: = addition, Itmay be poasible to remove;
common constituents to-the level found .
in unadulterated scrap metal. In this
way, the applicant couhishow .;
compliance with as much of the ,, ..
. treatment standard for the listed waste
as is readily demonstrable.) As the ,.:
, Agency studies the whole issue of
treatment standards for debris further, it
may prove that such situations can be
dealt with by rule, rather than on a case-.
by-case basis. At present, however, EPA
believes that an individualized approach
Is preferable.
8. Radioactive Mixed Waste
Radioactive mixed wastes are those
wastes that satisfy the definition of
radioactive waste subject to the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) that also contain
waste that is either listed as a
hazardous waste in aubpart D of 40 CFR
part 281, or that exhibits any of the
hazardous waste characteristics
Identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part
201. On July 3,1988 (51FR 4504). EPA
determined that the hazardous portions
of mixed wastes are subject to the
RCRA regulations. This created a dual
regulatory framework for mixed waste
because the hazardous component is
regulated under RCRA, and the
radioactive component is regulated
under the AEA.
Statutorily and administratively,
management of the radioactive
component of mixed wastes differs from
that of the RCRA hazardous component
Although EPA may develop ambient
health and environmental standards for
the RCRA hazardous component, the
specific standards for radioactive
material management developed under
the AEA are administered by the
Department of Energy (DOE) for
government owned facilities, and by the
Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission (NRG)
for commercially owned facilities.
Since the hazardous portions of the
mixed waste are subject to RCRA, the
land disposal restrictions apply to such
waste. This means-that the RCRA
hazardous portion of all mixed waste
must meet the appropriate treatment
standards for all applicable waste codes
before land disposal.
There are a number of potential
problems presented by applying the land
disposal restrictions to mixed waste
relating to technical achievability of all
of the proposed standards, as well as to
whether treatment standards can be
achieved consistently with requirements
imposed pursuant to the AEA. These
problems may be resolved by
establishing specific treatment' '
standards for certain mixed waste, as :
the Agency has done in this final rule. In
addition, site-specific variances from the
treatment standard (40 CFR 268.44) may
be used to resolve such problems. If the
treatment technologies determined to
represent BDAT (and used to establish
the treatment standards) are
"inappropriate" due to the radioactive
hazard of a mixed waste (i.e., requiring
a different technology-design), a
demonstration may be made to this
effect in a petition to the Agency for a
site-specific variance from the .
promulgated treatment standard. If such
a variance is granted, alternative .
treatment standards would be
established (for the mixed waste at the
site) that must be met prior to land
disposal.
a. Characterization and Industries
Affected
Based on information provided by
generators of mixed wastes, the majority
of mixed wastes can be divided into
three categories based on the
radioactive component of the waste: (1)
Low-level wastes, (2) transuranic (TRU)
wastes, and (3) high-level wastes. Low-
level wastes include radioactive waste
that is not classified as spent fuel from
commercial nuclear power plants, or
defense high-level radioactive waste
from producing weapons. TRU wastes
are those wastes containing elements
with atomic numbers greater than 92,
the atomic number for uranium. These
wastes generally pose greater
radioactivity hazards than the low-level
wastes because they contain long-lived
alpha radiation emitters. High-level
radioactive wastes are denned as spent
Tuel from commercial nuclear power
plants, and defense.high-level
radioactive waste from the production
of weapons.
Mixed low-level wastes may.be
generated in several ways. For example,
medical diagnostic procedures use
scintillation fluids that contain small
amounts of radioactivity in toxic organic
solvents (e.g., xylene and toluene).
These solvents generally pose a greater
chemical hazard than does the low-level
radioactivity. The principal generators
of low-level mixed wastes are nuclear
power plants, DOE, academic, and
medical institutions.
One commenter submitted a list of
substances generated at commercial >
nuclear power plants that may be
classified as low-level mixed wastes..
This included a wide variety of liquid
organic wastes such as spent solvents
containing suspendedOT dissolved =
radionucUde's.-.scintillation cocktails,
spent freon used for cleaning protective
garments, acetone or solvents used for:
cleaning pipes or other equipment, and
still bottoms from the distillation of
freon. Also, the list included a wide
variety of solid materials such as spent
ion-exchange resins (contaminated with
various metals), filters used in ',
reclaiming freon, adsorbents, residues
from the cleanup of spills, lead shields,
lead-lined containers, welding rods, and
batteries.
Military weapons production involves
the generation of large amounts of
wastes that can fall into the low-level
and TRU categories of mixed waste.
These wastes are similar in form, but
TRU waste is considered by government
regulators to be more dangerous;
because of the alpha radiation emitters.
High-level-mixed wastes are
extremely dangerous to handle due to
their high level of radioactivity. The
DOE is responsible for the storage and
disposal of all the nation's high-level
mixed wastes. High-level wastes are
defined as the waste resulting from the
reprocessing of irradiated fuel rods from
commercial and military nuclear
reactors. This reprocessing involves the
handling of materials that are extremely
hot both thermally and radiologically.
One of the reprocessing steps involves
dissolving the fuel rods in a nitric acid
bath so that plutonium-239 and tritium
can be recovered. It is the high-level
waste generated from this reprocessing
that is considered mixed waste and
which requires treatment. DOE has
indicated that this high-level waste is
EP-toxic for several metals, including
lead (DOOC), silver (D011), chromium
(D007), barium (D005), and mercury
(D009), and may also exhibit the
characteristic of corrosivity (D002).
b. Applicable Technologies
The Agency believes that for
treatment of metals in low-level mixed
wastes and for some TRU mixed wastes
containing low radioactive components,
chemical precipitation will remove the
metals in wastewaters, and stabilization
technologies will reduce the leachability
of the metal constituents in
nonwastewater matrices. These are the
same technologies that are applicable to
nonradioactive wastes containing
metals.
DOE submitted data demonstrating
the applicability of stabilization as a
treatment technology for the low-level
waste fractions that are separated from
the high-level waste generated during
the reprocessing of fuel rods. As used by
one particular facility, a stabilization
process called-grout stabilization-
involves blending commercially
produced cement-based reagents with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22627
the liquid, low-level waste fraction. The
material sets up as a solid mass,
immobilizing the waste. The
performance data indicate that
stabilization provides immobilization of
the characteristic metal constituents and
radioactive contaminants for this low-
level radioactive waste, and that it is
possible to stabilize the RCRA
hazardous portions to meet the '
treatment levels for the characteristic
metals.
For organic low-level mixed wastes,
the Agency believes that incineration is
an applicable technology for organic
compounds in both wastewater and
nonwastewater matrices, and that
technologies such as carbon adsorption
can achieve removal of organics in
wastewaters where incineration is not
practical. DOE has submitted
information indicating that plans are in
place to begin incineration of a D001
ignitable liquid mixed waste containing
benzene. Incineration is also an
applicable technology- for D001 Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory nonradioactive
wastes. Therefore, this particular mixed
waste, if incinerated, would meet the
treatment standard for D001 Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory.
For TRU mixed wastes with
considerable radioactive components,
and for high-level wastes, EPA believes
that vitrification is an applicable
technology for treatment of both organic
and inorganic constituents. DOE
provided information to support that
vitrification is an applicable technology
for their high-level wastes generated
from the reprocessing of fuel rods.
Treatment can be accomplished by
using either direct vitrification or a more
complex treatment process which
includes a series of chemical steps that
separate the low-level radioactive waste
fractions from the high-level radioactive
waste. The high-level radioactive
portion is then x'itrified. When using
separation technologies such as
precipitation followed by settling or
filtration, the bulk of the radioactivity
can be incorporated into a high-level
liquid waste containing up to 99 percent
of the radioactivity of the original
irradiated fuel rods. By separating high-
level and low-level mixed wastes, the
amount of high-level waste that may
require vitrification treatment can be
reduced.
DOE submitted specific data on how
x-itrification will be used to treat high-
level mixed waste. As used in the
facility design, the vitrification process
will incorporate the high-level mixed
waste into a glass matrix, achieving a
reduction in the mobility of its RCRA
hazardous and radioactive constituents.
The waste will enter the vitrification
system as a slurry (i.e., a blend of solid . *
particles in a liquid base). The mixture
will be pumped into a glass melter and
heated so that the water is evaporated
and the solid glass and waste particles
melt and blend. After the mixture has
been converted into molten glass, it will
.be poured into protective stainless steel
canisters, where it will harden to form
borosilicate glass. The canisters will
then be capped and decontaminated and
a second cap will be welded into place,
forming an additional seal.
c. Determination of BOAT for Certain
Mixed Wastes
In many cases, current practice or
planned treatment will achieve the .
promulgated treatment standards for the
RCRA hazardous wastes. For example,
DOE generates radioactive zirconium
fines that are pyrophoric under 40 CFR
261.21(a)(2) (i.e., that cause fire through
friction). Consequently, the RCRA
hazardous portion of this mixed waste is
considered a characteristic ignitable
waste included under the D001 Reactive
Ignitable Subcategory by EPA. The
Agency is promulgating "Deactivation
as a Method of Treatment" as the
treatment standard for D001 Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory. The DOE
submitted data which indicate that this
waste can be stabilized to remove the
characteristic, thereby achieving the
treatment standard.
(1) Treatment Standards for Mixed
Wastes Not Otherwise Subcategorized.
The Agency is reiterating that as of the
effective date of today's rule, all
promulgated treatment standards for
RCRA listed and characteristic wastes
apply to the RCRA hazardous portion of
mixed radioactive (high-level. TRU, and
low-level) wastes, unless EPA has
specifically established a separate
treatability group for a specific category
of mixed waste. In other words, unless
specifically noted in §§ 268.41. 268.42. or
268.43 of today's rule, the standards
located in these sections apply to all
mixed wastes. (All alternative standards
that are specifically discussed later in
this section of the preamble that apply
only to specific mixed wastes are
identified in § 268.42 Table 3 of today's
rule.) All handling requirements for
radioactive materials set forth by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission must
also be met.
(2) Treatment Standards for Specific
High-Level Wastes. For most
characteristic metal wastes, the Agency
has determined that conventional
stabilization is BDAT, and has
developed treatment standards using
stabilization performance data. The
Agency does not believe, however, that
stabilization using cementitious binders
is an appropriate treatment for high-
level radioactive mixed wastes
generated specifically during the
reprocessing of fuel rods. Such mixed
wastes exhibit the characteristic of
toxicity for certain RCRA hazardous
metals (lead, chromium, barium,
mercury, and silver). While stabilization
would reduce the leaching potential of
the characteristic metals, it would not
provide treatment of the high-level
radioactive portion of the mixed waste.
The Agency provided notice in the
proposed rule (54 FR 48492) that DOE '
was providing to the Agency treatment
data for mixed waste. These data were
received and placed in the docket for
the proposed rule and were available
during the comment period for notice
and public comment. The Agency
analyzed these data and performed a
subsequent site visit to the vitrification
unit to assess the treatment process.
Based upon these data and the site visit,
the Agency has concluded that
vitrification will provide effective
immobilization of the inorganic
constituents (i.e., both radioactive and
RCRA hazardous) in high-level mixed
waste generated during the reprocessing
of fuel rods. The Agency is hereby
specifying that vitrification is BDAT for
these wastes.
The Agency lacks, however,
performance data upon which to base a
concentration-based standard for this
mixed waste. Additionally, the Agency
believes that the potential hazards
associated with exposure to
radioactivity during analysis of this
high-level mixed waste preclude setting
a concentration-based treatment
standard. For these reasons, the Agency
is promulgating "Vitrification of High
Level Radioactive Waste as a Method of
Treatment" as the treatment standard
for the high-level fraction of the mixed
waste generated during the reprocessing .
of fuel rods exhibiting the
characteristics of corrosivity (D002) and
toxicity for metals (D004-D011). (See
§ 268.42 Table 1 in today's rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code in the parentheses.)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D002, D004, D005, D006, D007, D008,
D009, D010.ANDD011
[Radioactive high-level wastes generated during the
reprocessing of fuel rods Subcategory]
Vitrification of high-level radioactive waste (HLVIT)
as a method of treatment
-------
* (3) Treatment Standards forD008 .
Radioactive Lead Solids. The Agency
proposed to develop a subcategory
within the D008 wastes and to establish
separate treatment standards for
specific radioactive lead solids (54 FR
48439). These lead solids were proposed
to include, but not be limited to. all
forms of lead shielding, lead "pigs", and
other elemental forms of lead. The
proposed treatment standard for these
wastes was "Surface Deactivation or
Removal of Radioactive Lead Portions
Followed by Encapsulation: or Direct
Encapsulation as Methods of
Treatment."
The Agency received comments
requesting that the Agency clarify what
would be included in "Isad solids" for
purposes of meeting this treatment
standard. To clarify this point, today's
treatment standard applies to all forms
of radioactive mixed waste containing
elemental lead (including discarded
equipment containing elemental lead
thai served a personnel- or equipment-
shielding purpose prior to becoming a
RCRA hazardous waste). These lead
solids do not include treatment residuals
such as hydroxide sludges, other
wastewater treatment residuals, or
incinerator ash that can undergo
conventional pozzolanic stabilization,
nor do they include organo-lead
materials that can be incinerated and
then stabilized as ash.
One commenter challenged the
Agency's proposed approach, stating
that the proposed method that included
"Surface Deactivation" was not based
on a demonstrated, available
technology. The Agency has information
indicating that the lead surface of a
shield can be decontaminated using a
number of commercially available
processes. The Agency agrees, however.
that these processes have not been
adequately investigated to determine
which may be considered
"demonstrated" or "best". The Agency,
therefore, is dropping "Surface
Dpsct'vji'- m" from the final treatmpnt
siaml
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22629
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
IMercucy-containing hydraulic oil contaminated with
radioactive materials subcategory]
Incineration (INCIN) as a method o! treatment
9. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
a. Background
The Agency received several
comments in response to the Second
Third proposed rule (54 FR1056, January
11,1989) 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 residues from analytical
samples. These lab packs may contain
hundreds of restricted wastes, and the
applicable treatment standards 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 being land disposed. In the
Second Third final rule (54 FR 26594),
the Agency restated its position that all
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. As a result, the
Agency proposed alternate treatment
standards in the Third Third proposed
rule (54 FR 48372. November 22,1989),
which generators would have the option
of utilizing in managing "organic" and
"inorganic" lab packs. The Agency
received numerous comments in
response to the proposal, and is today
promulgating the alternate treatment
standards with some revisions.
b. Alternate Treatment Standards
Many commenters suggested that EPA
expand the universe of waste allowed in
organic and inorganic lab packs. The
Agency agrees with some of the
information and suggestions provided
by the commenters, and is promulgating
revisions to the alternate treatment
standards for lab packs in response to
these comments. In order to facilitate
implementation of the lab pack
standards, the Agency is expanding the
proposed list of waste codes in
appendix IV to part 268 to include
certain inorganic and organometallic
hazardous wastes. The revised appendix
IV includes the following hazardous
wastes:
(1) Inorganic:
(2) Organometallic;
(3) Organic;
, (4) D003 reactives; and
(5) D002 corrosives.
The Agency is promulgating an alternate
treatment standard of incineration as a
specified method followed by a .
requirement to meet the treatment
standards for the EP toxic metals
included in appendix IV (i.e., D004-
D008, and D010-D011; mercury wastes
may not be included in appendix IV lab
packs). Such lab packs are hereafter
referred to as appendix IV lab packs.
The Agency is also revising the
proposed appendix V to part 268, which
now identifies organic hazardous
wastes that can be effectively destroyed
by incineration. The Agency is
promulgating an alternate standard of
incineration for lab packs containing
organic hazardous wastes identified in
appendix V to part 268, hereafter
referred to as appendix V labpacks.
Generators may commingle .
unregulated (nonhazardous) waste in
both appendix IV and appendix V lab
packs. Generators may also commingle
hazardous wastes that already meet the
treatment standards in the appropriate
appendix IV or V lab pack.
The Agency believes that the
alternate approach being promulgated in
today's final rule is broader in scope
than the proposed approach and
provides substantial administrative
relief. 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, except for the EP toxic metal
constituents of organometallic.
inorganic, D002 corrosive, and D003
reactive wastes where the waste codes
are identified in appendix IV. As
explained below, these waste streams
must continue to meet all applicable
treatment standards for the EP toxic
metal constituents.
Generators who wish to use the
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs must notify the treatment facility
in writing of the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s) for each hazardous waste
contained therein. Generators must
submit such notices with each shipment
of waste. Appendix V organic lab packs
treated by the specified technology may
be disposed of in subtitle C facilities
without further testing or analysis for
compliance with part 268. (The Agency
reiterates, however, that owners/
operators are responsible for
determining whether all treatment
residuals exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
before land disposal, either by waste
analysis or knowledge of the waste.)
The Agency notes that the alternate
treatment standard is not mandatory,
and does not preempt the requirements
for lab packs in 40 CFR 264.316 and
265.316. Generators may continue to
ship regulated waste that meets all
applicable treatment standards to land
disposal facilities hi accordance with
the provisions, of these sections.
Generators of lab packs who wish to
comply with the current implementation
of the land disposal restrictions
regulatory framework (i.e., waste code
carry through) as it applies to lab packs
are free to do so. Lab packs containing
hazardous wastes other than those
specified in appendices IV and V are not
eligible for the alternate treatment
standards, and must meet the applicable
treatment standard for each waste
contained in the lab pack.
c. Agency Response To Major
Comments
The Agency received numerous public
comments on the proposed standards for
lab packs. In general, commenters
agreed with the proposed approach;
however, they provided
recommendations for further relief from
the administrative and technical
requirements for lab packs. The issues
raised by commenters are addressed in
the preamble and background document
to today's final rule.
(1) Inorganic and Organometallic Lab
Packs. The Agency proposed an
alternate treatment standard of
stabilization with Portland cement in a
20 percent binder-to-waste ratio (by
weight) for lab packs containing certain
EP toxic metals. As proposed, the
alternate treatment standard was
narrowly defined to include only
barium, cadmium, trivalent chromium,
lead, and silver; therefore, the alternate
treatment stardards were applicable
primarily to those EP toxic characteristic
wastes. Several commenters suggested
that the Agency allow disposal of all
hazardous and unregulated organic
waste amenable to stabilization in
inorganic lab packs. Several
commenters suggested that EPA
establish an alternate treatment
standard of incineration followed by
stabilization for organometallic wastes
(including F and K waste codes for
which EPA has promulgated treatment
standards for metal constituents). The
commenters stated that the organic
constituents in these wastes are
effectively destroyed by incineration,
and stabilization of the remaining ash
effectively reduces metals' teachability.
The Agency agrees with the commenters
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 199Q / Rules and Regulations
, \vhostatedthatthealternatestandard
for inorganic hazardous waste disposed
' of in lab packs should be expanded,
aand that the treatment train proposed.
by the commenters may effectively treat
certain organometallic wastes. The
Agency believes that a more effective
approach to managing inorganic and
organometallic wastes would allow
commingling of these wastes in an
"organometaDio" or "appendix IV lab
pack." The alternate treatment standard
of Incineration followed by treatment to
achieve the treatment standards for the
EP toxic metals included in appendix IV
will effectively destroy the organics and
immobilize the metal constituents. The
Agency, therefore, is not promulgating
the alternate treatment standard for
"inorganic lab packs" as proposed, but
rather is promulgating an alternate
standard for "organometallic" or
"appendix IV lab packs."
The Agency is departing from its
proposed approach for inorganic
hazardous waste based on concern with
specifying stabilization as a treatment
standard for metallic waste streams
with varying treatability with no
requirement for verifying that
stabilization of the hazardous
constituents was effective. The Agency
is also concerned that the proposed
standard would create risks to worker
health and safety due to the nsed for
removal of inorganic waste from inner
containers prior to stabilization with
Portland cement. Several commenters
claimed that such practices result in
unnecessary exposure of treatment
personnel, and increase the risk of
accidents and resulting environmental
exposure. The Agency was unaware of
these safety and environmental
concerns, and does not wish to increase
the risks associated with treatment of
these wastes.
Several commenters suggested that
the Agency allow corrosive (D002) and
reactive (D003) wastes in organic lab
packs, while others requested that they
be allowed in inorganic or
organomctalUc lab pecks. The
commenters stotnd that industry
experience with these wastes indicates
that they can be effectively treated by
incineration, and that recovery is not a
cost-effective or practical method of
treating these wastes. The Agency
agrees in part with the commenters.
Although Agency data show that some
corrosive wastes can be incinerated
effectively (54 FR 48422). many of these
wastes contain metal constituents that
may require further treatment. The
Agency is concerned that incineration of
metal-bearing wastes without
verification may not be protective of
human health and the environment.
(Where the Agency specifies a
technology as the treatment standard,
treatment using the specified technology
satisfies the land disposal restriction
requirements, and analysis of the
treatment residues is not required for
purposes of complying with part 268.)
The Agency, therefore, is prohibiting .
D002 corrosive and D003 reactive
wastes from appendix V lab packs.
Rather, the Agency believes that the
alternate treatment standard for
Appendix IV organometallic lab packs,
which requires incinceration and
treatment to meet certain EP toxic metal
treatment standards, is more
appropriate for DOQ2 and BOOS wastes
because it requires incineration of
organic constituents that may interfere
with stabilization and verification that
treatment of metals has occurred. The
Agency, therefore, is including these
waste codes in appendix IV to part 268.
Generators may dispose of D002and
D003 wastes in an appendix IV
(organotnetallic) lab pack along with
other wastes identified in appendix IV,
provided that the compatibility
standards in §§ 264.316 and 265.316 are
met.
The Agency wishes to clarify that
where an appendix IV lab pack contains
listed hazardous waste with waste code-
specific treatment standards for
inorganic constituents that are also EP
toxic metals (§261.24) (within the same
lab pack), the waste must be treated, at
a minimum, to meet the EP toxic metal
treatment standard. For example, an
appendix IV lab pack may contain
analytical samples of Fono waste
(wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) which has.
waste codfe-specific treatment standards
for cadmium, chromium, lead and silver.
These constituents are also EP toxic
. metals. In comparing the F006 treatment
standards with the EP toxic metal
treatmenl standards for these
constituents, the FOQ6 treatment
standards for cadmium, lead, and silver
are lower than their respective EP toxic
metal treatment standards, while the
F003 treatment standard for chromium is
higher. The applicable alternate
treatment standards for all of the metal
constituents in this hypothetical analytic
sample, at a minimum, would be the
treatment standards for the EP toxic
metals.
The Agency further wishes to clarify
that where lab packs are combined with
other non-lab pack hazardous wastes
prior to or during treatment (e.g., prior to
incineration), §§268.41 and 268.43 (b)
require that the entire mixture must be
treated to meet the most stringent
treatment standards applicable to the
wastes included in the mixture. For
example, ash residue resulting from the
incineration of a lab pack containing an
EP toxic characteristic lead waste
together with non-lab pack K001
nonwastewaters (bottom sediment
sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol), would have
overlapping treatment standards for
lead: 0.51 mg/1 for the K001
nonwastewater, and 5.0 mg/1 for the
characteristic ivaste. In this case, the
more stringent treatment standard
would apply, based on the mixture of .
the K001 waste with the lab pack
containing an EP toxic metal
constituent.
(2) Unregulated (Nanhazardous)
Waste. In the proposed rule, the Agency
stated its concern with the effect of
unregulated inorganic wastes on
treatment of lab pack wastes. Specific
data on the type and quantity of
unregulated inorganics destined for
disposal in "organic" and "inorganic"
lab packs were not available; therefore,
the Agency was reluctant to allow
disposal of these wastes in lab packs
where analysis of the treatment
residuals was not required.
The Agency received several .
comments stating that unregulated
waste such as glassware is typically
disposed of and incinerated with
hazardous waste generated by
laboratories. The commenters also
stated that protective clothing and gear,
such as goggles, gloves, aprons,
respirator cartridges, and pesticide
products are also disposed of in lab
packs. The commenters argued that
these unregulated wastes should also be
allowed in lab packs because their
presence does not affect the
performance of incineration of :
hazardous waste.
The Agency also received comments
indicating that the excessive cost of lab
pack disposal discourages commingling
of hazardous and unregulated wastes.
Thus, in most cases, disposal of
unregulated waste in lab packs is
limited to small quantities. The Agency
believes that these small quantities can
be effectively treated under the
alternate treatment standard, and is
revising its proposed approach to allow
generators to dispose of unregulated
waste in appendix IV lab packs.
(3) Organic Lab Pecks. The Agency
proposed to. limit the applicability of the
alternate treatment standard to organic
wastes that have a treatment standard
based on the performance of
incineration or thermal destruction, or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22631
whereincineration only is specified as
the treatment standard.
Some commenters stated that there is
no sound basis for excluding waste
codes that already meet the treatment
standards from disposal in their
respective lab packs. The Agency is not
opposed to extending the alternate
standards to such waste, but was
unaware that generators disposed of
treated waste (or waste that initially
meets the treatment standard) in this
manner. Numerous commenters have
expressed a desire to continue this
practice; therefore, the Agency is
revising the language in 40 CFR
268.42(c)(l) so that prohibited waste that
meets the applicable treatment
standards is not precluded from disposal
utilizing the alternate treatment
standards, provided that each waste
code(s) is listed in appendix IV or
appendix V, and the waste is disposed
of in the appropriate lab pack.
Several commenters stated that
incineration (or deactivation by
incineration) of small quantities of
reactive U and P wastes in lab packs is
proven to be safe and effective. The
commenters further point to the fact that
EPA proposed deactivation,
incineration, or thermal treatment for
several U and P waste codes that are
potentially reactive wastes, but failed to
include the applicable waste codes in
appendix IV. The Agency agrees with
the commenters that small quantities of
reactive U and P waste codes as
specified in the proposed rule (54 FR
48427-48428) can be safely packaged
and incinerated in a lab pack provided
that the requirements for incompatible
waste in § § 264.316 and 265.316 are met
The Agency is therefore amending
appendices IV and V to include several
additional U and P wastes codes. The
Agency also is including California list
PCBs and dioxin-containing waste
(F020-F023. F026-F028) in the lab pack
treatability group as proposed, but
reiterates that treatment of these wastes
requires more stringent performance
standards than wastes included in part
268 appendices IV and V (i.e., dioxins
must achieve a destruction and removal
efficiency of 99.9999 percent and PCBs
must meet the technical standard in 40
CFR 761.70). Where generators choose to
commingle one or both of these wastes
with organic lab pack wastes listed in
appendices IV and V. the entire lab pack
must be incinerated to meet the more
stringent standard. The following
examples are provided for clarification:
(a) A lab pack containing dioxin-
containing waste, California list PCBs
ami appendix V 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).
(b) A lab pack that contains only
dioxin-containing waste (F020-23 and
F026-28) or a mixture of dioxin-
containing waste and organic hazardous
waste codes listed in appendix V 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).
According to the provisions of today's
final rule, generators may utilize the
alternate treatment standards if their lab
packs contain those wastes summarized
below:
(a) "Appendix IV organometallic lab
packs" may contain the following
hazardous waste identified in appendix
IV:
(1) Organometallic;
(2) Inorganic;
(3) Organic;
(4) D002 corrosives; and
(5) D003 reactives.
(b) "Appendix V organic lab packs"
may contain only those organic
hazardous wastes identified in appendix
V.
Lab packs which contain any hazardous
waste other than wastes listed in
Appendix V are not appendix V organic
lab packs, and may not use the alternate
treatment standard.
d. Other Requirements
EPA proposed that generators or
owners/operators who dispose of lab
packs according to the alternate
treatment standard must also meet the
requirements for lab packs specified in
40 CFR 264.316 and 265.316. Several
commenters expressed concern with the
provision that requires metal outer
containers (§ 264.316(b)) and
§ 265.316(b}), and pointed out that the
original intent of these regulations was
to ensure adequate containment for lab
pack wastes that were being land
disposed with or without prior
treatment. The commenters further
stated that lab packs destined for
incineration are generally put in fiber
packs that meet the Department of.
Transportation (DOT) requirements (49
CFR 173.12) and are suitable for
incineration. The commenters requested
that the Agency allow the continued use
of fiber packs that meet applicable DOT
requirements. The Agency does not wish
to disrupt the use of fiber packs, and is
amending §§264.316fb) and 265.316(b) to
allow their continued use.
The Agency is promulgating its
proposed approach with regard to
generator notification requirements, and '
is requiring generators to list each EPA
Hazardous Waste Code on a notification
form and identify the applicable lab
pack categories. Several commenters
stated that the notification provision SB
proposed is burdensome. The Agency
believes, however, that notification is
necessary in order for owners/operators
to verify that they are accepting for
treatment only those waste codes
covered under their permit. The Agency
reiterates that the provisions
promulgated in today's final rule do not
supersede permit requirements under
the RCRA hazardous waste program.
Generators or owners/operators who
intend to utilize the applicable alternate
treatment standard for hazardous waste
codes listed in appendix IV and
appendix V to part 268 must comply
with the notification, certification, and
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
268.7(a) (7) and (8). They must also
comply with the provisions hi sections
(a)(l). (a)(5), (a)(6). (b)(2) and (c). The
Agency is requiring generators utilizing
the alternate treatment standards to
state whether the lab pack is an
appendix IV or appendix V lab pack.
and certify that hazardous wastes
included therein are listed in the
applicable appendix. The Agency
emphasizes that lab packs containing
hazardous wastes other than those
listed in appendix IV and appendix V to
part 268 are excluded from the alternate
treatment standards for lab packs.
III.B Capacity Determinations
1. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for
Surface-Disposed Wastes. Between May
8,1990, when this rule was signed, and
the date of its publication in the Federal
Register, EPA discovered and corrected
several discrepancies between the
capacity variances discussed in the
preamble and those included in the
regulatory language. For details on those
corrections, please contact those listed
in the additional information section at
the beginning of the preamble.
a. Total Quantity of Land-Disposed
Wastes. The capacity analyses for
wastes for which EPA is today finalizing
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 in 1986 (i.e., land disposal).
-------
22632 Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rule8 and Regulations
Survey data are part of the record for
this final rule. ^
Other major sources of data include
the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators, conducted by EPA
during 1988 and 1989. This survey
Includes data on waste generation,
waste characterization, and hazardous
waste treatment capacity in units
exempt from RCRA permitting. These
data are also part of the record for this
final rule.
For mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes,
EPA used data supplied by the U.S.
Department of Energy. Low-level
radioactive waste survey data from
Individual states and State compacts
were also used, as were data summaries
in several overview reports on mixed
radioactive waste.
The various land disposal methods
used in 1988 and the quantities of waste
they handled (excluding mixed
radioactive wastes) are presented in
Table inJ3.1.{a). The data indicate about
5.7 billion gallons of the wastes for
which standards are being finalized
today were disposed of in or on the
land. This estimate includes 77 million
gallons that were stored in waste piles
for short-term storage purposes. 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 waste piles have not been
included in the volumes of wastes
requiring alternative treatment.
EPA estimates that about 22 million
gallons of treatment residuals from
minimum technology impoundments or
from impoundments that were replaced
by a tank (e.g., standard cement, steel
tanks) will reguire alternative treatment
EPA assumes that these wastes are now
being sent off-site for treatment.
Consequently, this amount is included
as treatment capacity required in
today's rule.
TABLE III.B.1.(a)VOLUME OF WASTES BY
LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BBNG FINALIZED
tmHIions of gallons/year 3
TABLE lll.B.1.(a)VOLUME OF WASTES BY
LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BEING FINALIZED
Continued
[millions of gallons/year]
Land disposal method
Slorago:
Wasto pi'.es.-- . --..
Surfaca Impoundments ......._..._...-.
Treatment
WastB pitas
Disposal:
LtndfitJs.. -
Surface Impoundments
Umtaf ground injocwd
Volume
77
2
30
22
349
81
52
5,086
Land disposal method
Total . ,.,.,.--
Volume
5,701
In addition, 30 million gallons of
wastes were treated in waste piles, 52
million gallons were disposed of in
surface impoundments, 430 million
gallons were disposed of in land
treatment units or landfills, and 5.1
billion gallons were injected
underground. All of these wastes will
require alternative treatment capacity.
EPA notes, however, that the TSDR
Survey may overstate demand for
treatment capcity for wastewaters that
were treated or disposed of in surface
impoundments at the time of the survey
(1987 and early 1988). This
overstatement is due to the requirement
that impoundments receiving most
hazardous wastes must now be
retrofitted to meet minimum technology
requirements, or taken out of service, as
a result of RCRA section 3005(j). If an
impoundment continues to operate after
being retrofitted, it becomes a section
3005(j)(ll) impoundment, provided that
the wastewaters are treated and
residues are removed annually.
Wastewaters that are not treated or
disposed of in surface disposal units, or
that are treated in section 3005(j)(ll)
impoundments, do not creato any
demand for alternative commercial
treatment capacity.
EPA solicited comments on those
wastewaters currently disposed of in
surface units that require alternative
commercial treatment capacity. One
commenter mentioned that EPA did not
include volumes associated with surface
impoundments awaiting closure. No
commenter provided information on the
volumes associated with these
impoundments. Based on EPA's data,
approximately ten percent of the surface
impoundments that have submitted
closure plans are awaiting closure plan
approvals. EPA believes that most of
these impoundments removed liquid
hazardous wastes on or about
November 8,1988. EPA believes that the
remaining volume of wastewaters in
surface disposal units awaiting closure
is small. Consequently, EPA did not
include in the capacity analysis
additional volumes associated with
surface impoundments awaiting closure.
(This discussion does not apply to
wastewaters destined for deepwell
disposal.)
EPA also requested comments on the
quantity of RCRA P and U waste codes
currently being disposed of in
deepwells. The TSDR Survey data
include some large-volume waste
streams containing P and U RCRA
codes. However, P and U wastes by
definition are discarded off-specification
products or residues and are usually
generated in small volumes. Facilities
disposing of these large-volume waste
streams in deepwells have indicated'
that small volumes of P and U wastes
were mixed with large volumes of other
wastes, but the facilities were not able
to provide a specific volume for the
deepwell-disposed P and U wastes.
Since the facilities generally described
the volume of P and U wastes deepwell-
disposed as "very small," EPA has
assumed for the analysis of alternative
treatment capacity that the national
volume of P and U wastes needing
alternative capacity is less than 100,000
gallons. EPA also requested comments
on the assumption that the volumes of P
and U wastes being deepwell-disposed
are less than 100,000 gallons.
EPA received several comments
concerning deepwell-injected P and U
wastes. One commenter submitted data
indicating that their facility disposed of
20,456 gallons of U wastes by deepwell
injection in 1989. However, this
commenter has received a no-migration
petition approval and no alternative
capacity is needed. One commenter
indicated that EPA's methodology for
determining actual P and U volumes
was flawed, resulting in artificially low
estimates, and believed that the true
volume of these wastes was large
enough to warrant a national capacity
variance (3.3 million gallons at the
conimenter's facility alone). EPA has
reviewed these data and agrees that the
P and U volume at the second ,
commenter's facility is much larger than
previously assigned under the P and U
methodology of 100.000 gallons.
However, this volume has been
determined to belong to a stream that is
not a hazardous waste under Section
261.3(a)(2)(iv). The large volume of the
stream does not reflect the volume of P
and U wastes in the streamwhich
resulted from de minimi's lossesbut
rather the total wastewater volume. This
volume, therefore, does not require
alternative treatment capacity.
Consequently, EPA is not changing its P
and U waste methodology and is not
granting a national capacity variance to
these wastes.
The following sections provide a
summary of the capacity analysis for the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 199O / Rules and Regulations 22633
final rule. The detailed analyses are
presented in the background document,
and all data are included in the public
docket
b. Required Alternative Capacity for
Surface-Disposed Wastes. EPA assessed
the.Tequirements- resulting from today'*
final rule for alternative treatment
capacity for surface-disposed wastes.
Using primarily the TSDR and Generator.
Survey data. EPA first characterized the
volumes of wastes for which treatment
standards are being established. Waste
streams were characterized on the basis
of land disposal method, waste code,
physical-and chemical form, and waste
characterization data. Using this
information, EPA placed the wastes in
treatability groups associated with
applicable treatment technologies. The
waste volumes were then summed by
treatability group to determine the
amount and type of alternative
treatment capacity that would be
required when owners or operators
comply with the land disposal
restrictions being finalized today.
Based on this analysis, EPA estimates
that today's rule could affect about 5.7
billion gallons of wastes that are land-
disposed annually. This total includes 77
million gallons in short-term storage,
and 79 million gallons that already meet
treatment standards or that can be
treated on-site. Consequently, only
about 5.5 billion gallons will require
treatment to meet standards EPA is
promulgating in today's rule. Of this
total, 515 million gallons were surface-
disposed (i.e., excluding underground
injection), and the remaining 5 billion
gallons were underground injected. (See
Section 2 for determinations of
alternative capacity and effective dates
' for wastes injected underground.) EPA
estimates that treatment of these
surface-disposed and deepwell-injected
wastes will generate approximately 82
million gallons of residuals requiring
treatment before land disposal.
The volumes of surface-disposed
wastes by waste codes that require
commercial treatment and/or recycling
capacity to meet the standards that EPA
is promulgating today are presented in
Table HLB.l.(b). This table does not
include waste volumes that can be
treated on-site by the generator, nor
does it contain volumes of mixed
radioactive wastes.
As explained in section ffi.A of this
preamble, EPA is finalizing treatment
standards expressed either as
concentration limits based on the
performance of the BOAT, 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 BOAT
(and comparable technologies), as
discussed in Section HLA- 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.
The TSDR Survey contains data on
specific treatment processes at facilities.
The data enable EPA to identify specific
BOAT treatment (and comparable
treatment) 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 BOAT standard, which has been
developed such that a well-designed and
well-operated BDAT treatment process
should be capable of meeting it
In the proposed rule, EPA established
criteria for differentiating between a
liquid and a solid waste because of the
variance for D001 sludges and solids.
EPA requested comments on the
proposed criteria, and during the public
comment period received two comments
requesting clarification of the sludge/
solid definition. EPA also received
several comments identifying additional
sludge/solid incineration capacity.
Commenters identified new units at
existing faculties and increased capacity
resulting from trial burns conducted
after the 1986 survey. Based on an
analysis of this information, EPA has
determined that there is adequate
capacity to incinerate D001 sludge/solid
wastes. Consequently, EPA is not
granting D001 sludge/solids a variance.
and the criteria proposed for
differentiating between a liquid and a
solid are no longer necessary.
TABLE III.B.1.(b)REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CLING CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTES
[million gallons/year]
TABLE lll.B.1.(b)REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CLING CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTESContinued
CrnHfion gallons/year]
Waste code
First Third Code:
F006 . _. - -
F01 9__ .___.....
K004
K021 » 1Lrl,
ifn3i
KD15
K018 ,, ,.,-.
K049
K050. ,
K061 , ,
KOR? ,,,
Capacity
required
for
surface-
wastes
20.3
12.6
0.1
<0.1
0.6
37.1
31.7
11.6
78.1
12.5
<0.t
Waste code
P011.~
P012.-
P015-
P018_
P020_.
P037_
P050..
P058_
P059-
P069..
P070..
P081..
P087_
Capacity
required
for
surface-
disposed
wastes
0.2
0.1
O.S
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
2.7
-------
TABLE lll.B.1.(b>REQUIRED .ALTERNA-
TIVE , COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CUNQ CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTESContinued
IrnBlion gallons/year!. . . .
TABLE lll.B.1.(b)REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CLING CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTESContinued.
[million gallons/year]
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates. Table HI.B.l.(c) presents
an estimate for each treatment
technology of the volumes of wastes
that will require alternative treatment
before land disposal to comply with the
standards finalized today. The amount
of capacity that is available at
commercial facilities in each case is also
presented. Available capacity was
calculated using the TSDR Survey and
other capacity data. Available capacity
is equal to the specific treatment
system's maximum capacity minus the
amount used in 1986. 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 m.B.l.(c) indicates
that there is inadequate capacity for
certain technologies: combustion of
sludges and solids, mercury retorting,
acid leaching followed by chemical
precipitation, thermal recovery, and
vitrification.
For combustion of sludges and solids,
there is inadequate capacity for sludges
and solids derived from treating multi-
source leachate, for K048 through K052
nonwastewaters (temporarily), and soil
and debris. (See section III.B.3 for a
more detailed discussion.) However,
there is adequate capacity for all other
wastes needing combustion of sludges
and solids. For mercury retorting, there
is inadequate capacity for high mercury
D009, K106, and U151 nonwastewaters.
However there is adequate capacity for
other wastes needing this technology.
For acid leaching and chemical
precipitation, there is insufficient
capacity to treat low-mercury D009,
K106, P065, P092, and U151
nonwastewaters. For thermal recovery,
EPA has determined that there is
insufficient capacity for P087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. For
vitrification, there is inadequate
capacity for arsenic nonwastewaters.
It is important to note that some of the
wastes, because of their actual physical
form, cannot be treated to meet
standards simply by using the
technology identified as BDAT. These
wastes must be treated through several
steps, called a "treatment train." EPA
assumes that the resultant residuals will
also need to be treated using alternative
technologies before land disposal;
therefore, the total volumes reported
were assigned to appropriate
technologies.
The following sections discuss the
results of the individual capacity
analyses and effective dates for each
waste code included in today's final
rule. Table III.B.l.(d) summarizes all the
surface-disposed wastes for which EPA
is granting a two-year variance. The
detailed basis for EPA's conclusions can
be found in the capacity background
document for this final rule.
-------
1990 / Rules and Regulations
22633
TABLE 111 B 1 (0-AVA.LABLE AND REQU.RED ALTERNATE COMMERC.AL.TREATMENT (INCLUD.NG RECYCUNG)
v - ....- SURFACE-DISPOSED WASTES
CAPACITY FOR
tmiirions of gatlons/yr.»
.-. .. '. . .:' . °^ *
-- ._>;., - .' .= ;.-. . ' Technology
Acid teaching followed by 'chemical precipitation »_~. "~rZZ"rZIl"I~I-i~r:[Z;r.Zr.ll3!r.!ZI
Alkaline chlorinatjon ...- * ~ r~- " . ......,
Biological treatrnenL...-...««««--~«-«"«----~f"-~-''~7""'*"t"""""* ' **". " '""* ._.. ~
Biological treatment followed by chemical precipitation -
Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation ..._....-...-.. :;" ' """""
Chemfcal oxidation followed by chromium reduction and chemical precipitation » --
Chemical predpRation..i... . -- _;
Chromium reduction followed by chemical precipitation "HHL-i- '. - -~
Combustion of liquids : ' ____
Combustion of sludges/solids """IZIZZZIZZ.-
Secondary lead smelting - Z".ZZ!~Z
Thermal recovery3.... -.- ~~ :
Therma! recovery of cadmium battenes _-
Available
capacity
' ' ! o
7
6
:, 47
.. 34
28
2
339
. ' . . 96
' ,237
41
<1
36
37
478
0
<1
0
Required
capacity
-3
6
2
<1
<1
, 7
2
25-
85
16
«213
3
22
2
158
<1
<1
22
Variance
Yes
No
No
... .No
No
No
No
No
- No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
. . : : : : " .,,:. . n,ti,,nni ranaoitv variance for all applicable treatment technologies
nonwastewater volumes to bptn the
precipitation, respectively). EPA had ru,
tow mercury nonwastewaters.
» Excluding secondary smelting of lead
For further cla-ification of this numbe;
Excluding secondary smelting of lead wastes. un&n-iKmiy
For further clanficatfon of this number, see the discussion on K043-K052.
radioactive waste, .which are ^<^^t^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^.^^^
& between low and high ^^^"onwa^ewatOT ^nsequenuy, tKA COTOUC»^« teacning followed by chemical
STSS&'S* ^^^SW^^^^ *« is insufficiem capacity to treat these
wastes.
TABLE III.B.t.(d)SUMMARY OF NATIONAL
CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR SURFACE-
DISPOSED WASTES l
TABLE lll.B.1.(d)SUMMARY OF NATIONAL
CAPACITY VARIANCES FPR SURFACE-
DISPOSED WASTES "Continued
Required alternative
treatment technology
Acid leaching and
chemical precipitation.
CombusJior of sludge/
solids.
Mercury retorting
Secondary smelting
storage area.
Thermal recovery
Vitrification
Waste .code/Physical
form
DOC9 Low mercury
nonwastewater.
CI06 Low mercury
nonwastewater.
P065 Low mercury
nonwastewater.
PC92 Low mercury
nonwastewater.
U151 Low mercury
nonwastewater.
F039" Nonwastewater.
K048' Nonwastewater.
<(W93 Nonwastewater.
<0503 Nonwastewater.
K051 ° Nonwastewater.
K0523 Nonwastewater.
D009 High mercury
nonwastewater.
K106 High mercury
nonwastewater.
P065 High mercury
nonwastewater.
P092 High mercury
nonwastewater.
U151 High mercury
nonwastewater.
D008 Lead materials
before secondary
smelting.
P087 Nonwastewater/
wastewater.
D004 Nonwastewater.
K031 Nonwastewater.
K084 Nonwastewater.
K101 Nonwastewater.
KI02 Nonwastewater.
Required alternative
treatment technology
Waste code/Physical
form
P010 Nonwastewater.
P011 Nonwastewater.
P012 Nonwastewater.
P036 Nonwastewater.
P038 Nonwastewater.
U136 Nonwastewater.
EPA is granting these wastes a h«c-year national
capacity variance, except for K048-K052 non-
wastewaters. This table does not include mixed
radioactve wastes, which are receiving a national
capacity variance for all applicable treatment tech-
nolocies.
1 Mult-source teachate. .
>For K04B-K052 petroleum-refimng non-
wastewaters. EPA is granting only a 6 month vari-
ance
(1) Ignitable. Corrosive. Reactive, and
EP Toxic Halogenated Pesticide
Characteristic Wastes. This group
includes ignitable characteristic wastes
(D001), corrosive characteristic wastes
(D002), reactive characteristic wastes
(D003). and EP toxic halogenated
pesticides (D012. D013, D014. D015.
D016, and D017).
(a) Ignitable Characteristic Wastes
(D001). EPA has identified four
subcategories for D001 wastes: ignitable
liquids, ignitable reactives, oxidizers,
and ignitable compressed gases. EPA
has determined that the D001 ignitable
liquids subcategory should be divided
into three treatability groups: (1) D001
ignitable liquid nonwastewaters with a
TOC content greater or equal to ten
percent. (2) D001 ignitable liquid
nonwastewaters with a TOC content
greater than one percent but less than
ten percent, and (3] D001 ignitable liquid
wastewaters. EPA is promulgating.
deactivation as the method of treatment
for ignitable liquids nonwastewaters
with a TOC content less than ten
percent For ignitable liquids
nonwastewaters with a TOC content
greater than or equal to 10 percent, EPA
is promulgating incineration, fuel
substitution, or recovery as methods of
treatment. EPA is promulgating
deactivation as the method of treatment
for D001 ignitable liquids wastewaters.
For capacity analysis purposes, EPA
assigned volumes of these wastes to.
incineration. Sufficient treatment
capacity exists for the D001 ignitable
liquids wastes destined for surface
disposal; therefore, no capacity variance
is being granted for them.
EPA requested comments on
availability of capacity for incineration
of D001 liquids mixed with sludges and
solids. Several commenters stated that
. adequate capacity exists to treat D001 ,
liquids mixed with sludges and solids,
and therefore, that no capacity variance
should be granted to these wastes.
Based on the review of available
sludges and solids treatment capacity
-------
5. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
data for incineration and cement kilns,
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
DOW. liquids wastes. Therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
EPA is promulgating deactivation as
the method of treatment for D001
ignitable reactives and oxidfeers. EPA
has determined that sufficient capacity
exists for these wastes; therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
For D001 ignitable compressed gases,
EPA is promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment EPA has
determined that adequate capacity
exists for these wastes; therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
lb) Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
fD002). EPA has identified three .
treatability groups for D002 wastes:
acids, alkalines, and other corrosives.
EPA is promulgating deactivation, which
includes neutralization, as the method of
treatment for the D002 acid and alkaline
subcategories. In addition, recovery of
acids or bases is included as an option
for these standards. By definition,
wastes in these subcategories are
liquids; therefore based on the limited
number of surface impoundments that
meet minimum technology requirements
and the ban on liquids in landfills, EPA
believes that few. if any. of these wastes
are surface-disposed. For the capacity
analysis. EPA assigned all D002 wastes
to neutralization. EPA has determined
that sufficient neutralization capacity
does exist for acid and alkaline D002
wastes that are surface-disposed;
therefore. EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
For the D002 other corrosives
category. EPA is promulgating
deactivation as the method of treatment.
These wastes can be deactivated using .
chemical reagents or by other means. In
addition. EPA believes that these wastes
are generated in low volumes.
Therefore. EPA is not granting a
nation?! cepacitv variance for them.
(cj Ro.oclive Characteristic Wastes
(D005). for D003 wastes. EPA has
identified five treatability groups:
rc-aciivc cyanides, explosives, water
reuctives, rccctivs sulfides, and other
reactives. For D003 cyanides. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on alkaline chlorination. wet-air
oxidation, or electrolytic oxidation.
Although reactive cyanides account for
the majority of D003 generated wastes,
EPA believes that most are already
restricted from landfills by existing
regulations (40 CFR Part 264.312,
265.312). EPA believes that sufficient
capacity does exist for tr*<; volume of
surface-disposed D003 cyanide reactive
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For D003 reactive sulfides, EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of teeatment, which includes
chemical oxidation. EPA believes
sufficient capacity does exist for the
volume of surface-disposed D003 suffide
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For D003 explosive wastes, EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment. Because most of
these wastes are already restricted from
land disposal by existing regulations
and are commonly burned and/or
detonated, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For D003 water-reactive wastes, EPA
is promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment. EPA believes that
these wastes are generated sporadically
and in low volumes and are not
typically land-disposed. Therefore, EPA
is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
For other reactive D003 wastes, EPA
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment. EPA believes these
wastes could be incinerated or
detonated openly and that there is
adequate capacity for treating the small
volumes that ere surface-disposed.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(d) EP Toxic Halogenated Pesticide
Wastes.
D012Characteristic of EP Toxic for Endrin
DQ13Characteristic of EP Toxic for Lindane
D014Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Methoxychlor
D015Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Toxaphene
D016Characteristic of EP Toxic for 2.4-D
D017Characteristic of EP Toxic for 2.4.5-TP
For these EP toxic halogenated
pesticide nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. For D012 and
D015 wasiewaters. EPA is promulgating
incineration or biological tructment as
methods of treatment; for DG13
wastewaters. EPA has set Incineration
or carbon adsorption as methods of
treatment; for D014 wastewatcrs. EPA is
promulgating incineration or wet-air
oxidation as methods of treatment; for
D016 and D017 wastewaters. EPA has
set incineration or chemical oxidation as
methods of treatment. EPA has also set
biodegradation as an alternate method
of treatment for D016 nonwastewaters.
EPA has determined that sufficient
treatment capacity exists for thcSa
wastes; therefore. EPA is not granting
EP toxic pesticide wastewaters and
nonwastewaters a national capacity
variance.
(2) Metal Wastes. This group includes
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium,
and vanadium wastes.
(a) Arsenic Wastes
D004EP Toxic for arsenic
K031By-product salts genrated in the
production of MSMA and cacodylic acid
K084Waste water treatment sludges
generated during the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from afseni:
or organo-arsenic compounds
K101Distillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of verterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds
K102Residues from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the
production of veterinary pharmaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-arsenic
compounds
P010Arsenic acid
P011Arsenic (V) oxide
P012Arsenic (III) oxide
P036Dichlorophenylarsine
P038Diethylarsine
U136Pncodylic acid
For arsenic nonwastewaters, EPA. is
promulgating concentration standards
based on vitrification. EPA has
determined that for some arsenic
nonwastewaters the standards can be
met with chemical or thermal oxidation
to the arsenate form followed by
chemical precipitation with iron salts
followed by arsenic stabilization of the
precipitate. This technology may be
inappropriate for all arsenic
nonwastewaters because organics are
known to interfere with the stabilization
process. EPA believes vitrification will
work for all forans of arsenic :
nonwastewaters, because hiph
temperatures are expected to destroy
the organo-metallic bonds, ancJ
therefore, its performance is not limited
by the presence of organics. Thus, EPA
has assigned arsenic nonwastewaters to
vitrification for the capacity analysis.
The TSDR Survey indicates that no
commercial vitrification capacity exists.
EPA requested information on
commercial vitrification capacity, but
received no comments demonstrating
that this type of capacity exists.
Therfore, EPA is granting a two-year
capacity variance to the surface-
disposed arssnic nonwastewaters listed
above.
For arsenic wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exists- therefore.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22657
EPA is not granting arsenic wastewaters
a capacity variance. :
(b) Barium Wastes. For BOOS and P013
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical.precipitation; for D005 and
P013 (except as indicated below) -
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization. .
For P013 nonwastewaters with high
levels of organics, EPA is requiring that
these wastes be incinerated prior to
stabilization. Sufficient capacity exists
to treat surface-disposed D005 and P013
wastes. Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(c) Cadmium Wastes. For D006
wastes, EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for three categories:
wastewaters, nonwastewaters, and
cadmium batteries.
For D006 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. For
D006 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization or metal
recovery. EPA believes that sufficient
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
cadmium nonwastewaters and
wastewaters. Therefore. EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
For D006 cadmium batteries, EPA is
promulgating thermal recovery as the
method of treatment. In the proposed
rule. EPA proposed granting D006
cadmium batteries a national capacity
variance due to a lack of identified
recover}- capacity. During the public
coir.ment period, two commenters
identified available commercial
cadmium battery recover}' capacity
(these comments were available for
reply comments). EPA contacted these
commenters to verify their capacity.
Based on these contacts, EPA received
additional information and determined
that adequate capacity for treating
surface-disposed cadmium batteries
exists. Therefore. EPA is not granting
D005 cadmium batteries a national
capacity variance.
(d) Chromium Wastes. For D007
chrorniurr. and U032 (calcium chromate)
wastewaters. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation: for D007 and
U032 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based or. chromium reduction followed
by stabilization. EPA believes sufficient
treatment capacity exists for the volume
of these wastes. Therefore. EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(e) Lead Wastes.
D008EP toxic for lead
PUOTetraethyl lead
U144Lead acetate
U145Lead phosphate
U146Lead subacetate
K069Emissision control dust/sludge from
secondary lead smelting
KlOOWaste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emission control dust/sludge
from secondary lead smelting
For D008 wastes, EPA is promulgating
standards for three categories:
nonwastewaters, wastewaters, and
lead-acid batteries. For D008
nonwastewater lead wastes, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization, except where the
waste contains significant
concentrations of organics. In this case,
these wastes may need to be incinerated
prior to stabilization. For D008
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
sufficient capacity exists for surface-
disposed D008 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
D008 wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
with the exceptions noted below.
EPA is promulgating thermal recovery
as the method of treatment for lead-acid
batteries. Secondary lead smelters have
stated that they store these wastes in
piles prior to recovery. EPA has
indicated in a previous rulemaking that
the shells surrounding lead-acid
batteries are considered to be storage
containers (see 47 FR12318 and 40 CFR
264.314{f){3)). Therefore, to the extent
that lead-acid battery storage meets all
the requirements of the LDR storage
prohibitions at 40 CFR 268.50. such
storage is permissible.
In the proposed rule. EPA solicited
comments on the management cf other
D008 lead material at secondary
smelters. EPA also indicated that
storapp of lead materials in waste piles
prior to smelting is a form of land
disposal, and as such these staging,
areas are subject to the statutory
prohibitions. During the public comment
period. EPA received several comments
from the secondary lead smelting
industry regarding the storage of batter}'
parts prior to smelting. Several
commenlers expressed concern that
EPA's determination that staging piles
are a form of land-disposal could force
them to. close or operate out of
compliance while staging piles are
replaced by tanks (assuming tank
storage is viable). As a result of these
comments. EPA contacted several
secondary smelters to asses the
potential capacity impact of required'
staging area reconstruction. Because of
the large volume of batteries currently
processed at smelting facilities whose
continued storage operation remains in
question, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance to allow
storage of the batteries preceding
smelting. EPA is also reconsidering
whether certain forms of battery parts
storage meet the meaning of "land
disposal" under section 3004(k). In
particular, if battery parts (or other
wastes] are stored in 3-sided tank-like
devices on concrete inside buildings (the
present storage method of some
secondary lead smelters) the Agency is
not certain that the language and
policies underlying section 3004(k)
warrant designating such practice as
"land disposal." Given the two-year
national capacity variance in this rule,
however, the Agency need not make a
final decision on this point in this
rulemaking.
For P110, U144, U145. and U146 .
wastes, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation for wastewaters,
and stabilization for nonwastewaters.
P110, U144, U145. and U146
nonwastewaters containing significant
concentrations of organics may require
incineration prior to stabilization. EPA
believes sufficient capacity exists for
the small volume of these wastes that
are surface-disposed: therefore. EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
EPA is revoking the no land disposal
standard based on recycling standard
promulgated in the First Third rule for
the non-calcium sulfate subcategory for
K069 nonwastevvaters. For K069 calcium
sulfate nonwastewaters, EPA is
prorr.uigating concentration standards
based on stabilization. For K069 non-
calcium sulfate nonwnstewaters. EPA is
promulgating recycling as the method of
treatment. For K069 wastewaters. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. EPA
believes adequate capacity exists to
treat the volume of surface-disposed
K06t* wasteivatfirs and nonwastewaters:
therefore. EPA is not granting a capacity
variance for them.
For KlOO nonwastevvaters, EPA is
revoking the no land disposal standard
based on the "no generation standards"
promulgated in the First Third rule.
Today. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization for the nonwastewaters
and chemical precipitation for the
wastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists to treat the volume of
surface-disposed KlOO wastes.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
capacity variance for them.
-------
22638
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(f) Mercury Wastes.
D003EP toxic for mercury
K071Brine purification mods from the
mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately repurified
brino is not used
K10GWaetewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production ,
P065Mercury fulminate
P092Phenylmercuric acetate
U151Mercury
For D009, K106. and U151
wastewaiers, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. For P065 and
P092 wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation. K071 wastewater
standards were promulgated in the First
Third rule and remain unchanged. It
should be noted that mercury-bearing
wastewaters containing hexayalent
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 mercury nonwastewaters, EPA is
establishing low mercury and high
mercury subcategories. For the high
mercury sabcategory (greater than or
equal to 280 mg/kg), EPA is
promulgating roasting or retorting as
methods of treatment for DC09. K106,
and U151 nonwastewaters. For the high
mercury subcategory cf P065 and P092
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
incineration followed by roasting or
retorting as the method of treatment. For
Iho low mercury subcategory of D009.
K103, P063, P092. and U151
nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on acid
leaching and chemical precipitation.
Treatment standards for K071
nonwastewaters were originally
promulgated in the First Third rule. In
the proposed Third Third rule. EPA
proposed to revise the standards for
K071 nonwastewaters with a high
mercury content. For this high mercury
subcategory. EPA proposed roasting or
retorting as methods of treatment. For
the final rule, EPA is not adopting the
proposed revisions to KO/l wastes, and
the promulgated First Third BDAT
remains unchanged.
EPA believes sufficient capacity
exists to treat the volume of all surface-
disposed mercury wastewalers.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
Because current data do not provide
sufficient information on the volume of
nonwastewaters that contain high and
low concentrations of mercury. EPA
conducted a worst-case analysis and
assigned all volumes of surface disposed
mercury nonwastewaters to both
mercury retorting and acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation. EPA
has identified a small amount of
commercial mercury retorting capacity
(18,000 gallons). There is insufficient
mercury retorting capacity for D009,
K106, and U151 nonwastewaters. Due to
the sporadic generation rate of P wastes
from year to year and the small amount
of available commercial mercury
retorting capacity. EPA is granting all
high mercury nonwastewaters a two-
year national capacity variance. EPA
has also determined that there is
insufficient commercial capacity for acid
leaching followed by chemical
precipitation; therefore, EPA is granting
low mercury D009, K106, P065, P092, and
U151 nonwastewaters a national
capacity variance.
(g] Selenium wastes.
DfflOEP Toxic for selenium
P103 Selenourea
P114Thallium selanite
UZ04Selenious acid
U205Selenium disulfide
For selenium nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. EPA has also
determined that vitrification or recovery
may be used to reach the standards. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate stabilization
capacity exists. Therefore, EPA is not
granting selenium nonwastewaters a
national capacity variance.
For selenium wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exists; therefore,
EPA is not granting selenium
wastewaters a national capacity
variance.
(h) Silver Wastes.
DOllEP toxic for silver
P099Potassium silver cyanide
P104Silver cyanide
Treatment standards for P099 and
P104 nonwastewaters were promulgated
in the Second Third final rule. For PQ99
and P104 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. For
DOll, EPA is promulgating concentration
standards based on chemical
precipitation for wastewaters, and
recovery or stabilization for
nonwastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
DOll, P099, and P104 wastewaters and
DOll nonwastewaters. Therefore. EPA is
not granting a capacity variance for
them.
(i) Thallium Wastes.
P113Thallic oxide
P114Thallium selenite
P115-i-Thallium (I) sulfate
U214Thallium (I) acetate
U215Thallium (I) carbonate
U216Thallium (I) chloride
U217Thallium (I) nitrate
For P113, P115, U214, U215. U216. and
U217, EPA is promulgating thermal
recovery or stabilization as methods of
treatment for nonwastewaters, and
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
For P114, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization, vitrification, recovery for
nonwastewaters, and chemical
precipitation for waste waters.-Based on
the TSDR Survey and other capacity
data, adequate capacity exists for
surface-disposed thallium wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(j) Vanadium Wastes.
P119Ammonium vanadate
P120Vanadium pcntoxide
For P119 and P120, EPA is
promulgating stabilization as the method
of treatment for nonwastewaters, and
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
Because adequate capacity exists for
chemical precipitation and stabilization,
EPA is not granting P119 and P120
wastewaters and nonwastewaters a
national capacity variance.
(3) Treatment Standards for
Remaining F and K Wastes and U051.
These groups include certain F002 and
F005 wastes; F006 wastewaters and
F019; F024; F025; K001 and U051; wastes
from pigment production (K002 through
K008): K011, K013, K014: K015; K017 and
K073; K021; K022; K025, K026, K035, and
K083: K028, K029, K095, and K096; K032.
K033. K034, K041, K097, and K098
wastes; K036 and K037; K042, K085, and
K105 wastes; K044, K045. K046, K047:
K048 through K052; K060; K001
wastewalers; and K086.
(a) Additional Treatment Standards
for F002 and F005 Wastes. Treatment
standards for F002 and F005 were
promulgated in the Solvents and Dioxins
rule. Today, EPA is revising the
treatment standards for F002 and I-'005
to account for four newly listed F002
and F005 constituents. Wastewater
concentration standards for F002
containing 1,1,2-Trichloroethane f.nd
F005 containing benzene are based on:
biological treatment, or steam stripping.
or carbon adsorption, or liquid
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22S39
extraction. For nonwastswaters,
concentration standards for these two
solvents ate based on incineration. For
F005 containing 2-Ethoxyethanol, EPA is
promulgating incineration as fee method
of treatment for nonwastewaters, and
incineration or biodegradation as
methods of treatment for wastewaters.
For F005 wastewaters containing 2-
nitropropane, EPA is promulgating
incinceration, or wet-air oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption, or
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption as methods of treatment For
F005 nonwastewaters containing 2-
nitropropane. EPA is requiring
incineration as the method of treatment.
EPA believes that adequate treatment
capacity exists for these wastes;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(b) F006 and F019 Wastes. For F006
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
alkaline chlorination for cyanides and
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation for metals. EPA
believes that adequate capacity exists
for the volume of surface-disposed F006
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
EPA is promulgating concentration
standards for F019 wastewaters based
on alkaline chlorination for cyanides
and chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation for chromium. In
the proposed rule, EPA proposed
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanide in F019 nonwastewaters
based on wet-air oxidation. Due to
insufficient wet-air oxidation capacity,
EPA proposed a national capacity
variance for these wastes. In the final
rule, EPA is promulgating F019
nonwastewater concentration standards
based on alkaline chlorination for
cyanides and stabilization for
chromium. Because sufficient treatment
capacity exists to treat the FQ19
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, EPA
is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(c) F024 Wastes. EPA promulgated
concentration standards for F024
wastewaters and nonwastewaters in the
Second Third rule based on rotary kiln
incineration for the organic constituents
in nonwastewaters, and rotary kiln
incineration for organic constituents
followed by chemical precipitation for
metal constituents in wastewaters.
Today, EPA is revising certain of these
standards and is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization for metal constituents in
F024 nonwastewaters. EPA is providing
the option of incineration as a treatment
method for this waste in order to remove
obstacles to acceptance, previously
created by the explicit standard for
dioxins and furans. Several commenters
responded to EPA's request far
information, indicating that the
treatment facilities were not accepting
the wastes due to .the dioxin and furan
standard. Today's revisions to the
treatment standards are expected to
ensure that sufficient capacity is
available to treat F024, and that all F024
wastes containing dioxins and furans
will be incinerated, thereby ensuring
effective treatment of these constituents.
EPA has determined that adequate .
capacity exists to treat these
wastewaters and nonwastewaters;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(d) F025 Wastes. On December 11,
1989 (54 FR 50968), EPA amended the
listing for F025 waste (condensed light
ends, spent filters and filter aids, and
spent desiccant wastes from the
production of certain chlorinated
liphatics). The listing becomes effective
on June 11,1990. Most generators
already treat F025 as if it were
hazardous, and some facilities
commingle F024 and F025. Today, EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
for all categories of F025 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters based on
incineration. EPA has determined that
no alternative treatment capacity is
needed for F025 wastes. Therefore, EPA
is not granting these wastes a national
capacity variance, restricting land
disposal on August 8,1990.
(e) K001 and U051 Wastes. EPA is
promulgating revisions to the
concentration-based treatment
standards for K001 organics due to a
mathematical error that was made in the
calculation of the original standards in
the First Third rule. Since the treatment
standards for U051 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are based on a transfer
of the performance of K001, the
concentration-based standards for U051
also reflect this change. For the organics
in KOOl and U051 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
incineration. EPA is also finalizing
concentration standards for lead in KOOl
and UG51 based on stabilization for.
nonwastewaters and chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of both of
these wastes; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(f) Wastes from Inorganic Pigment
Production (K002, K003. K004, K005,
K008. K007, and K008). EPA is amending
the no land disposal standard previously
promulgated for KS04. K005, K007, and
K008 nonwastewaters. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chromium reduction followed
by chemical precipitation for KCQ2, K003,
K004, K006, and KQ08 wastewaters, and
alkaline chlorination followed by
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation for K005 and
K007 wastewatere. For nonwastewater
forms of these wastes, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. EPA believes
that sufficient capacity exists for
surface-disposed K002, K003, K004,
K005, K006, K007, and K008 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is
not granting a capacity variance for
them.
(g) K011, K013, and K014 Wastes.
Treatment standards for the surface
disposal of nonwastewater forms of
K011, K013, and K014 were promulgated
hi the Second Third final rule. For K011,
K013, and K014 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on wet-air oxidation. The TSDR
Survey, indicates that sufficient capacity
exists for the volume of surface-
disposed K011. K013, and K014
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(h) K015 Wastes. EPA is revoking the
no land disposal based on no generation
standard previously promulgated for
K015 (benzyl chloride distillation
wastes) nonwastewaters because of the
reported generation of ash containing
this waste. Consequently, for K015
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for five organic
and two meta! constituents based on
incineration followed by stabilization.
Sufficient capacity exists to treat this
waste;' therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for KOI 5
nonwastewaters.
(i) K017 and K073 Wastes.
K017Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the
purification column in the production of
epichlorohydrin
K073Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from
the purification step of the diaphragm cell
process using graphite anodes in chlorine
production
In today's rule, EPA is promulgating
final treatment standards for K017 and
K073 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Concentration standards for the
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of these wastes are based on
incineration. Sufficient capacity exists
to treat these wastes. Therefore, EPA.is
not granting a national capacity
variance for K017 and K073 wastes.
(j) K021 Wastes.
-------
22640
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
K021Aqueous spent antimony catalyst from
fluoromethane production
Concentration standards are being
promulgated today for wastewater and
nonwaslewater forms of K021 based on
Incineration. EPA is also promulgating
concentration standards for antimony
nonwastewaters based on stabilization
and antimony wastewaters based on
chemical precipitation. Sufficient
capacity exists to treat these wastes.
Therefore, EPA is not granting K021
wastes a national capacity variance.
(kj K022, K025, K028, K035. and K083
Wastes. EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for K022 wastewaters and all
forms of K02S, K026. K035, and K083
wastes. Treatment standards being
promulgated today for K025 and K083
would replace current treatment
standards of "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation" that were
promulgated in prior rules;
For organics contained in K022, K035,
and K083 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on: biological treatment, or steam
stripping, or carbon adsorption, or liquid
extraction. Concentration standards
promulgated for metals in K022 and
K083 wastewaters are based on
chemical precipitation. For organics in
K03S and K083 nonwastewaters. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. For metals in
K033 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization of incinerator
ashes.
For K025 and K026. EPA is
promulgating incineration as the method
of treatment for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. In addition, EPA is
also promulgating liquid-liquid
extraction followed by steam stripping
followed by carbon adsorption as an
alternative method of treatment for K025
wastewaters.
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists for K022 wastewaters,
and the wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of K025. K026. K035, and K083.
Therefore. EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(I) K028. K029. K095. and K098
' Wastes.
K028Spent catalyst from hydrochlorinator
reactor In the production of 1.1.1-
trichloroe lhane
K02SWaste from the product steam stripper
In the production of 1,1.1-trichloroethane
K095Distillation bottoms from the
production of 1.1,1-trichloroethane
K090Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of 1.1.1-
trichlore thane
Treatment standards based on
incineration were promulgated for K028
wastewaters and nonwastewaters and
the nonwastewaters forms of K029,
K095, and K096 in the Second Third rule.
Today, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for organics in
K029. K095 and K096 wastewaters.based
on incineration. EPA is also
promulgating concentration standards
for metal constituents in K028
nonwastewaters based on stabilization.
Sufficient capacity exists to treat these
wastes. Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for K028,
K029, K095 and K096.
- (m) K032, K033, K034, K041, K097. and
K098 Wastes.
K032Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chlordane
K033Wastewater treatment scrubber water
from the chlorination of cyclopentadiene in
the production of chlordane
K034Filter solids from filtration of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the
production of chlordane
K041Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of toxaphene
K097-Vacuum stripper discharge from the
chlordane chlorinator in the production of
chlordane
K098Untreated process wastewater from
the production of toxaphene
For K032, K033, K034. K041, K097. and
4 K098 wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
EPA is promulgating concentration
standards based on incineration.
Sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of these wastes; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(n) K036 and K037 Wastes. EPA
promulgated a treatment standard of
"no land disposal based on no
generation" for K036 nonwastewaters in
the First Third rule. EPA also
promulgated concentration standards
based on incineration for K037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters in the
First Third rule. Today, EPA is revising
these treatment standards for the
nonwastewater form of K036 (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).
Today. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for K036
nonwastewaters based on incineration.
EPA believes that adequate capacity
exists for these surface-disposed K036
nonwastewatera. Therefore. EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
For K037 wastewaters, EPA is revising
the 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 granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(o) K042, K085, and K105 Wastes.
K042Heavy .ends or distillation residues
from the distillation of tetrachlorobenzene
in the production of 2,4,5-T
K085Distillation of fractionation column
bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzenes
K105Separated aqueous stream from the
reactor product washing step in the
production of chlorobenzenes
For K042, K085, and K105 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of these
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(p) K044, K045, K046, K047 Wastes.
For K044, K045, and K047, EPA is
revoking the "no land disposal"
standard promulgated in the First Third
rule. EPA is promulgating deactivation
as the method of treatment for
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
has determined adequate capacity
exists to treat these wastes; therefore,
EPA is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
Today, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for K046.
reactive nonwastewaters based on
deactivation followed by stabilization.
For K046 reactive wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on deactivation and chemical
precipitation. Deactivation includes
chemical reduction or detonation. In the
First Third rule, EPA promulgated
treatment standards based on
stabilization for K046 nonreactive
nonwastewaters. For K046 nonreactive
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
deactivation followed by chemical
precipitation. EPA has determined that
adequate capacity exists for these
wastes. Therefore, EPA is not granting
them a national capacity variance.
(q) Petroleum Refining Wastes (K048-
K052). EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for organic constituents and
cyanides in K048-K052 based on data
from incineration, solvent extraction.
For the metals in K048-K052, EPA is
promulgating treatment standards based
on stabilization and chemical
precipitation. EPA is not revising the
promulgated BOAT treatment standards
for organic or metal constituents in
K048-K052 wastewaters, nor for cyanide
in nonwastewaters. In addition,'today's
rule deletes the treatment standards
proposed for arsenic and selenium in
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052
based on stabilization. Today's rule also
promulgates revised treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22841
standards for nickel and total chromium
in nonwastewater forms of K048-K052
based on stabilization. .
lie TSDR Survey indicates that
642UXJO tons of K048-KQ52 will require
treatment capacity (Le., will be
displaced from land disposal and will .
require treatment). EPA recognizes.
however, that this information is dated,
and to this end undertook to obtain as
current an assessment of demand for
treatment capacity as possible.
Based on informal contact with the
petroleum industry trade association, it
appears that the industry may be able to
manage approximately three quarters of
these wastes on-site after August 1S90,
in ways not involving land disposal
(primarily in-house incineration, use as
fuel, or use in coking). (This figure is
based on an informal survey of 93 API
member companies and assumes that
none of the pending no migration
petitions for land treatment units will be
granted. However, this estimate does
not account for the uncertainty and
timing of constructing and obtaining
permits for on-site disposal/treatment
facilities.) Therefore, assuming best case
(i.e.. on-site capacity is available), this
rGsuIts in approximately 161,000 tons per
year of wastes that will require
alternative treatment capacity.
EPA estimated that 100,000 tons of
capacity for treatment of KQ48-K052
wastes existed in the form of solids
incineration capacity and fuel
substitution capacity (these wastes are
suitable for use as alternative fuels in
industrial furnaces provided that they
are dewatered first). There is very little
commercial solvent extraction capacity
presently on-line. (EPA knows of some
small volume mobile solvent extraction
units being utilized in California, but
these units provide limited volumetric
treatment capacity.) Thus, based on
these data, there would be a capacity
shortfall of approximately 60,000 tons as
of May 8.5
However. EPA is aware of one large
commercial incinerator which could
come on line after May 8 that could
provide additional substantial volumes
of capacity (50.000 tons of new annual
capacity in addition to the 100,000 tons
of existing capacity) for K048-K052
wastes. This facility is presently seeking
5 1' was on the basis of this analysis that EPA
senior management tentatively concluded that a
f.ne.-year national capacity extension might be
warranted, which draft determination was
communicated to all interested parties by letter late
in April, a copy of which is available m the docket.
Tins was not a fmai EPA decision, however, and
EPA continued to monitor the situation. The
;i«iermianton in the final rule reflects more
Information than was available to EPA at the time
of its tentative determination.
a no-migration variance from EPA
regarding disposal of scrubber water
into a deep injection welL If the petition
is granted, this'facility would provide
sufficient capacity to accommodate
treatment demand posed by petroleum
wastes. A final decision on the no-
migration petition is expected within the
next six weeks. (There could still be
short-term logistic difficulties associated
with getting wastes to the facility and
the facility coming on-line that could
prevent immediate utilization of this
capacity, however.)
EPA also recently became aware
(within the last two weeks) of additional
solids incineration capacity which is
presently available that would provide
significant additional treatment capacity
for petroleum wastes. This technology,
however, requires that wastes undergo a
specialized de watering pretreatment
step. The treatment company presently
has two mobile dewatering pretreatment
units and (according to its estimates)
can add two additional dewatering units
every three months.-This limited amount
of pretreatment equipment (there are
approximately 190 petroleum facilities
to be serviced) could create a temporary
treatment bottleneck to use the
incineration capacity. (This information
appears to have been presented to the
petroleum industry by the treatment
company late in 1989, so that EPA does
not see notice and comment problems
vis-a-vis the petroleum industry in
relying on the information in this
rulemaking.)
Based on this information. EPA has
decided to grant a six-month national
capacity variance for these wastes,
lasting until November 7,1990. (This
effectively extends the industry's
prohibition compliance date three
months from the date established in the
first third rulemaking). EPA believes
that by this date, there will be adequate
pretreatment capacity as well as
incineration and fuel substitution
capacity to satisfy demand. There also
may be solvent extraction capacity
available by that date, although there
are sharply conflicting estimates in the
record of how quickly solvent extraction
capacity can be brought on-line. EPA
would be unjustified, however, in
extending the national capacity
variance until solvent extraction
capacity is available. See S. Rep..No.
284, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 19 ("It is not
intended that a generating industry * * *
.could be allowed to continue to have its
wastes disposed of in an otherwise
prohibited manner solely fay binding
itself to using a facility which has not
been constructed. Thus, when an
'alternate technology' facility is
operating at less than maximum
capacity, the Administrator should --
determine that alternative capacity is
available * * *"). Thus, EPA's decision
today is based on its best estimates of
when treatment capacity of any type -
will be available to accommodate these
wastes.
EPA recognizes that these data are
not the most precise, in some cases. In
addition, EPA is concerned with using
data that it obtains at the very end of
the rulemaking in making such decisions
(albeit these data tend to corroborate
other existing information regarding
amounts of solids combustion capacity
coming on-line). Therefore, based on
further information provided to EPA,
EPA may amend the capacity extension
in today's rule (through use of
appropriate rulemaking procedures).
(r) K060 Wastes. Today EPA is
revoking the "no land disposal" based
on a no generation standard
promulgated for K060 nonwastewaters
in the First Third rule. Instead, for K060
nonwastewaters, EPA is also
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. EPA is
establishing concentration standards for
K060 wastewaters based on biological
treatment EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed K060 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters requiring treatment
Therefore, EPA is not granting a .
national capacity variance for them.
(s) K061 Wastes. Today. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical reduction followed
by chemical precipitation for K061
wastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed K081 wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a .
variance for them.
(t) Revisions to K086 Wastes. EPA
promulgated concentration standards
for K086 solvent washes in the First
Third rule based on incineration and
stabilization of ash for nonwastewaters,
and incineration and chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. EPA is
promulgating revised concentration
standards for all K08S wastewater forms
of these wastes based on biological
treatment or wet-air oxidation followed
by carbon adsorption or chemical
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for organics, chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation for metals, and alkaline
chlorination for cyanides. For
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
incineration for organics, followed by
stabilization for metals. As a "worst-
-------
22642
Federal. Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations^
.. case" analysis, EPA included in the
capacity analysis conducted for First
Thi?d wastes all of the K088 wastes
identified In the TSDR Survey.
Consequently, no additional capacity
will.be required by today's rule, and no
. capacity variance is being granted for
. ,K068 wastes. '
i (4) Treatment Standards for V'andP
Wastes. Today's rule promulgates
treatment standards and capacity
determinations for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of U and P wastes
(as defined in 40 CFR 261.33 (ej and (f)).
Treatment standards and capacity
determinations for other U and P wastes
that are listed specifically as metal salts
or organo-metaUics are discussed in
previous sections of today's rule. This
section also includes a discussion of U
and P wastes that have been identified
as potentially reactive, primarily as
gases, or as cyanogens.
In the proposed rule, EPA grouped all
of the U and P wastes into various
treatability groups based on (1)
similarities in elemental composition
(e.g., carbon, halogens, and metals); and .
\Z) the presence of key functional groups
(e.g., phenolics. esters, and amines)
within the structure of the individual
chemical represented. EPA 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.
While EPA presented the proposed
treatment standards and capacity
determinations for U and P wastes
according to these treatability groups.
the promulgated treatment standards
and capacity determinations are
presented as follows: (a) Concentration-
based standards for wastewaters; (b)
concentration-based standards for
nonwastewaters; (c) technology-based
standards for wastewaters: and (d)
technology-based standards for
nonwastewaters.
(a) Concentration-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and P Wastewaters.
EPA is promulgating concentration-
based standards for those specific
constituents for which the U or P waste
is listed. For various reasons. EPA is
regulating additional constituents for
several U and P wastes.
U and P Wastewaters with
Concentration Standards Based on
Biological Treatment or Wet-Air
Oxidation Followed by Carbon
Adsorption
P004, P020. P022. P024. P037. P047 (4.6-
Dinilrocrosol), P048. P05b. P051. P059. POOO.
POTT. P082. P101, P123. U002. U003. U004.
UOOS. U009, U012. U018, U019, U022. U024,
U025, U027. U029, U030, U031, U038, U037,
U038, U039, U043, U044, U045. U047, U048.
U050, U051, U052, U057, U060, U061. U063.
U066, U067, U068, U070. U071. U072, U07S.
U076, U077, U078, U079, U080, U081. U082.
U083, U084. U1W, U105. U106, U108. Ulll,
Ulll U117. U118. U120, U121. U127. U128.
U129. U131, U137. U138. U140, U141. U142.
U152, U155. U157, U158, U159, U1B1. U162.
U165, U168. U169, U170. U172, U174, U179,
U180, U181. U183, U185, U187. U1B8. U192,
U196. U203, U207. U208, U209. U210, U211.
U220, U225, U226. U227, U228, U229, U240.
(2,4-D acetic acid), U243, and U247
For these U and P wastewaters. EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
based on biological treatment, or wet air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption. EPA has identified sufficient
capacity for treatment of these
wastewaters; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(b) Concentration-Based Standards
for Specific Organic U and P
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
nonwastewater concentration-based
standards for the following U and P
wastes, as proposed.
U and P Nonwastewaters with
Concentration Standards Based on
Incineration
P004. P020. P024. P037, P047. P048, P050. P051.
P059. P060. P077. PlOl. P123. U002, U004,
UOOS. U009. U012. U018, U019. U022, U024.
U025. U027. U029. U030, U031. U036. U037,
U039, U043. U044. U045, U047, U048, U050.
U051. U052. U060. U061. U063. U066. U067.
U068. U070, U071. U072. U075. U076, U077.
U078, U079. U080. U081. U082. U083. U084.
U101. U105. U106, U108, Ulll, U112, U117.
U118. U120, U1Z1. U127, U128, U129. U131.
U137. U138. U140. U141, U142. U152. U155.
U157. U158. U159. U161. U162, U165. U169.
U170. U172, U174. U179, U180, U181. U183.
U185. U187. U188. U192. U196, U203. U207.
U208. U209. U210. U211. U220. U225. U226.
U227. U228, U239. U240 (2,4-D acetic acid).
U243. and U247
For all of these specific organic U and
P nonwastewaters, EPA has identified
sufficient incineration capacity to treat
these nonwastewaters; therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(c) Technology-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and P Wastewaters.
EPA is promulgating technology-based
treatment standards (i.e., methods of
treatment) rather than concentration-
based constituent specific standards for
these wastes. EPA is promulgating wet-
air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption or chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption or
incineration as methods of treatment
Organic U and P wastes technology-
based standards are indicated below:.
U and P Wastewaters With (Wet-Air
Oxidation, or Chemical Oxidation),
Followed By Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment
POtil, P002, P003; POOS, P007, P008, P014. P016.
P017. P018. P023, P026, P027, P028, P034, .
P042.P045.P048, P047 (4,6-dinitrocresol
salts). P049, P054, P057, P058. P064, P068
P067; P069. P070, PQ72. P07S, P084, P088.
P093, P095, P102, P108. P116, P118, U001,
U008, U007, U008, U010, U011, U014, U015,
U016, U017, U020, U021, U026, U033, U034,
U035, U041, U042, U046, U049, U053, U055.
U058, U059, U062, U064, U073, U074, U085.
U089, U090, U091, U092, U093, U094, U095, .
U097. U110. U113, U114, U116. U119. U122.
U123, U124, U125, U128, U130, U132, U143.
U147, U148, U149, U150, U153, U154. U158. '
U163, U164. U188, U167, U171, U173. U176.
U177. U178, U182, U184. U186, U191, U193,
U194. U197, U200, U201. U202, U206. U213.
U218, U219, U222, U234, U236. U237. U238.
U240 (2,4-D salts and eaters), U244. and
U248.
EPA has identified sufficient capacity
for these organic U and P wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(d) Technology-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and P
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
the proposed technology-based
standards for the following organic U
and P wastes.
U and P Nonwastewaters With
Incineration as the Method of Treatment
POOS. P007, P008, P014. P018, P017. P018. P022.
P023. P028, P027. P028. P034. P042. P045.
P046. P047 (4.6-dinitrocresol salts). P049,
P054. P057. P058, P084. P066. P067. P089.
P070. P072. P075. P082, P084. P093, P09S.
P108. P116. P118, U003. U006, U007, U010.
U011. U014, U015. U017, U020, U021, U026.
U033. U034, U035, U038. U041. U042. U048.
U049. U057, U059, U062, U073, U074. U091.
U092, U093. U095, U097, U110, U114. U116,
U119. U130. U132, U143, U148. U149. U150.
U1S3. U156. U163, U164. U167. U168. U171.
U173. U176, U177, U178. U184. U191, U193.
U194. U200. U202, U206, U218, U219. U222.
U234. U236. U237, U238. U240 (Salts and
esters), U244
Incineration or Fuel Substitution as
Methods of Treatment
POOl. POOS. POOS, P088, P102, U001, UOOS.
U016, U053. U055, U056, U064. U08S. U089,
U090, U094. U113, U122, U123, U124, U125,
U126. U147. U154, U166, U182, U186. U197.
U201. U213, U248
EPA has identified sufficient capacity
for all of these U and P nonwastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(5) Potentially Reactive P and U
Wastes. This subgroup includes the
following waste codes:
P006Aluminum phosphide
P009Ammonium picrate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 /Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22643
P015Beryllium dust
P056Fluorine
P068Methyl hydrazine
P073Nickel carbonyl
P081-*Nitrpglycerin
P087Osmium tetroxide
P09&Phosphine .
P105Sodium azide
P112Tetranitromethane
P1Z2ZincT>hosphide (<10%)
lJ023-Benzctrichloride
U086N,N-Diethylhydrazine
U096a,a-Dimethyl benzyl hydroperoxide
.U0981,1-Dimethylhydrazine
U0991,2-Dimethylhydrazine
U103Dimethyl sulfate
U1091,2-Diphenylhydrazine
U133Hydrazine
U134Hydrofluoric acid
U135Hydrogen sulfide
U160Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
U189Phosphorus sulfide
U249Zinc phosphide (<10%)
These wastes either are highly
reactive or explosive or are polymers
that also tend to be highly reactive. For
the purpose of BOAT determinations,
EPA has identified four sub-categories:
incinerable reactive organics and
hydrazine derivatives (P009, P068, P081.
P105, P112, U023, U086, U096, U098,
U099, U103, U109, U133, and U160);
incinerable inorganics (P006, P096, P122,
U135, U189, and U249); fluorine
compounds (P056 and U134); and
recoverable metallic compounds (P015,
P073, and P087). For incinerable reactive
organics and hydrazine derivatives, EPA
is promulgating incineration, fuel
substitution, chemical oxidation, or
chemical reduction as methods of
treatment for nonwastewaters, and
incineration, chemical oxidation,
chemical reduction, carbon adsorption,
or biodegradation as methods of
treatment for wastewaters. Because
EPA has determined that sufficient
treatment capacity exists for the small
volume of surface-disposed incinerable
reactive organic hydrazine derivates
(P009, P068, P081, P105, P112, U023, U086,
U096, U098, U099, U1C3, U109, U133,
U160, and U186), EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For all incinerable inorganic
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
incineration, chemical oxidation, or
chemical reduction as methods of
treatment. For wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating incineration, chemical
oxidation, or chemical reduction as
methods of treatment. EPA has
determined that sufficient treatment
capacity exists for the small volume of
surface-disposed incinerable inorganic
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For fluorine compounds
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
adsorption followed by neutralization as
the method of treatment for P056
nonwastewaters, "and neutralization or
adsorption, followed by neutralization
as methods of treatment for U134
nonwastewaters. For P056 and U134
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
that adequate treatment capacity exists
for these wastes? therefore, EPA is not
granting a capacity variance for them.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
recovery as the method of treatment for
P015 wastes. During the comment
period, EPA received one comment
concerning P015 beryllium recovery, and
EPA verified that beryllium recovery
capacity does exist. Because EPA has
determined that sufficient capacity
exists for P015 wastes, EPA is not
granting a variance for these wastes. For
P073 wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
incineration or chemical oxidation; for
P073 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. EPA has
determined that there is enough capacity
available to treat P073 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; therefore, EPA is not
granting a capacity variance for them.
For P087 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
recovery as the method of treatment.
EPA has determined that there is not
sufficient treatment capacity for P087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, and
is granting these wastes a national
capacity variance.
(6) Gases. This treatability group
includes the following groups: P076
(Nitric oxide), P078 (Nitrogen dioxide),
and U115 (Ethylene oxide}. For P076 and
P078 wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
EPA is promulgating venting into a
reducing medium as the method of
treatment. For U115, EPA is.
promulgating thermal or chemical
oxidation as methods of treatment for
nonwastewaters, and incineration, or
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption, or wet-air oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption as
methods of treatment for wastewaters.
Because no volumes of P076, P078, and
U115 were reported as surface disposed
in the TSDR survey, EPA is not granting
a national capacity variance for them.
(7) U and P Cyanogens. For the U and
P wastes containing cyanide, P031
(Cyanogen), P033 (Cyanogen chloride),
and U246 (Cyanogen bromide), EPA is
promulgating incineration, chemical
oxidation, or wet-air oxidation as
methods of treatment for both
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
has determined that sufficient capacity
exists to treat these wastes; therefore,
EPA is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(8) Capacity Determination for Multi-
Source Leachate. (a) 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 final
rule, such leachate will be restricted
from land disposal. Residues from
treating such leachate, as well as
residues such as soil and groundwater
that are contaminated by such leachate,
are also restricted from land disposal
under this rule. Leachate derived from a
single source must meet the standard
developed for the waste code from
which it is derived; therefore, such
leachate is not subject to the standards
developed for multi-source leachate.
(b) Previous Treatment Standards.
EPA imposed land disposal prohibitions
on multi-source leachate in the Solvents
and Dioxins, California list, and First
Third rulemakings. In the First Third
rule, 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 the hazardous waste
management industry, and rescheduled
promulgation of a land disposal
restriction for multi-source leachate to
the Third Third rule in order to fully
study the most appropriate section
3004(m) treatment standards for multi-
source leachate and to reevaluate the
issue of available treatment capacity
(see 54 FR 8264 (January 27,1989)).
(c) Final Treatment Standards. In
today's rule, EPA is promulgating one
set of wastewater and one set of
nonwastewater treatment standards for
multi-source leachate; these standards
would apply to residuals derived from
the storage, treatment, or disposal of
multi-source leachate. For treating multi-
source leachate in the form of
wastewater, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards primarily based
on biological treatment followed by
chemical precipitation, or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation for organic and inorganic
constituents. For nonwastewaters, EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration for organic
constituents and on stabilization for
metals.
(d) Volumes Requiring Alternative
Treatment or Recovery Capacity. EPA
relied on data from the TSDR Survey,
the Generator Survey, and other
capacity data to determine whether
sufficient alternative treatment or
-------
.22644
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 J Friday. June 1, .1990 / Rules and Regulations
recovery capacity is available for multi-
source leachate.
generated in lanafills. However, EPA
'recognizeslhErtintflfi-sourceleadhHte
can alaofcesenerBitBd'at'closeS
facilities. Because only sparse-data -exist
onsuo"h1eadherte,'EPA requested
comments xm the?oharactenzstion of _
multi-source leachate'at'clbsedfeciBnes
and onthe volume«ofitreatefl3eadhate
that is presently land-disposed in
surface disposal mrrits. EPA also
requested the submission of cmrent'data
from interested parties >on the volumes
of multi-sourceHeauhate generated, 1he
current management of.'snch'leachate,
the amount of residuals 'generated, -and
the waste constituent composition of
xnulU-Bource'leachate.
Several txjmmentera suggested that
EPA hasTindezestimatediequired
capacrtyformultHsouroe leachatB
because leachateftom'dosEdiandfills
and ground watenfrom corrective
nctionsand CERCLA cleanups -were not
considered. EPA did not obtain
adequate data to .quantify the volumes
of such, leachates and leachate
treatment residuals that might be
surface disposed. These surface-
disposed volumes, however, are not
expected to affect the national capacity
variance determination.
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. EPA
evaluated this information to estimate
the volume of multi-source leachate
requiring alternative treatment.
(e) Determining National Variances
for Multi-Source Leachate. EPA
analyzed the alternative treatment or
recovery capacity for two categories of
multi-source leachate: wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
Most multi-source leachate is
managed in wastewater treatment
systems and discharged via an NPDES
permit and/or to a POTW. EPA
estimates that over 41 million gallons of
multi-source leachate nonwastewater
residues are surface disposed.
Given the low volumes of surface-
disposed multi-source leachate
waslcwaters and the adequate capacity
to treat these wastes, EPA proposed and
has decided not to grant a national
capacity variance for surface-disposed
multi-source leachate wastewaters. For
multi-source leachate nonwastewaters,
EPA is finalizing its proposal to grant a
two-year national capacity variance for
these'wastes, 'because there is
insufficient incineration capacity.
Most commenters agreed with the
p:oposed variance for surface-disposed
multi-source leachate nonwastewaters.
However, -afew commenters requested a
national tcapataty Variance TursurCace-
disposed mulfi-'sourceSeadfaate
wastewaters. However, commeriters-tKd
not pro vide evidence-oT surface-
disposed "volumes ofanrilfi-source
leachateywas'tewaters.!EEA Qtdiicft'
revise "the-Estimates'of'wastewater
volumes Taerause-no-data-were provided
showing volumes tjf Tnulfi-source
leachalte wastewaters mat are surrace-
disposed. Also,-as noted alrove.'fins
surface-disposal must involve-retrofitted
surface imp oundmerrts.mnder'RCRA
section "BOOSTf). vftdch ordinarily -are
section -30a5(jHH:) impoundments.
Therefore, there should'be little
additional demand for capacityior
displaced leachate-wastewaters.
Commertters aid-not dispute this
analysis.
(9) Capacity Determination far Mixed
Radioactive Wastes, fa) Background.
EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/
radioactive-waste as'any matrix
containing a RCRAliazardous-waste
and a radioactive-waste subject to -me
Atomic Energy Act [53 FR'37045, 37046,
September:^, 1988). Regardless-of the
type of radioactive-constituents that
these wastes contain (e.g., high-level,
low-level, or transuranic), they are
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations, including the land disposal
restrictions.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent solvents, dioxins, or
California list wastes are subject to the
land disposal restrictions already
promulgated For those hazardous
wastes. EPA has determined, riowever,
that radioactive wastes that are mixed
with First Third and Second Third
wastes will be included in the Third
Third rulemaking (40 CFR 268.12(c)).
Thus, today's rule addresses radioactive
wastes that contain First Third, Second
Third, and Third Third wastes.
(b) Data Sources. The Department of
Energy (DOE) is a major generator of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. For
data on DOE wastes, EPA used a data
set submitted by DOE. This data set is
based on a recent DOE survey and
contains information on mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste inventories,
generation rates, and existing and
planned treatment capacity at'21 DOE
facilities.
A variety of non-DOE facilities also
generate mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes, including nuclear power plants.
academic and medical institutions, and
industrial facilities. A variety trf
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 xurrent
management practices and'treatment
capacity. These sources .included ithe
TSDR Survey, the GeneratorSnrvey.,
and other studies. EPA (believes 4hat
these sources provide available
information on non-DOE mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes.
(c) Determining .NaiionaTVariances
for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes.
After investigating the -data sources
noted above, .EPARCAR/
radioactive wastes, data supplied igr
DOE indicate-a Jcurrenticapacity
shortfall for the treatment raf First,
Secondhand Third Third mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. DOE indicated
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22545
all alternative treatment technologies at
the national level.
The same commenter indicated that
EPA must determine that available
treatment capacity existing for non-
radioactive RCRA hazardous waste is
inappropriate for mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. EPA believes that
the lack of commercial mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste treatment capacity
was sufficiently demonstrated in the
proposed rule. Not only does the TSDR
Survey show a lack of permitted
treatment facilities accepting mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes, the most
recent data made available by States
and State low-level waste compacts
support the same conclusion. For the
reasons iterated here, EPA believes that
the national capacity variance for mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes is both
necessary and justified. All other
commenters addressing the national
capacity variance were in support of
EPA's proposal.
One commenter raised the question of
whether naturally-occurring radioactive
materials (NORM) containing RCRA
listed or characteristic hazardous
wastes fall under the definition of mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes. The question
was also raised whether the national
capacity variance extends to these
materials. EPA believes that because
NORM are not regulated by the Atomic
Energy Act, these materials do not fall
under the definition of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. EPA recognizes,
however, that insufficient alternative
treatment capacity exists to handle
these materials. Therefore, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to hazardous wastes mixed
with NORM.
EPA recognized that its information
for the proposed rule on mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes generated and
managed by non-DOE facilities might
have been incomplete. Consequently,
EPA requested comments by interested
parties on the current generation of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. Of
particular interest to EPA was
information on mixtures of radioactive
wastes and First. Second, or Third Third
waste streams. Although several
commenters addressed problems
associated with the storage and disposal
of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes,
only one commenter indicated that
additional data were available. The data
confirm the lack of available treatment
capacity and the commenter supports
the proposed national capacity variance.
2. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for .
Underground Injected Waste.
Today, EPA is prohibiting the
underground injection of virtually all
remaining RCRA section 3004(g) wastes,
including characteristic wastes, for
which no effective dates have been set
EPA is not acting on certain newly listed
or newly identified wastes. In the
proposed rule, EPA solicited comments
on the volumes and characteristics of
the wastes represented in this section,
as well as any information on the
characteristics and volumes of any
multi-source leachate that is currently
being injected.
EPA received several responses to
this request. One commenter submitted
data on the volume of U wastes (20,456
gallons) deepwell injected at its facility
in 1989. However, this facility has
subsequently received approval of its
no-migration petition. Another stated
that 3.3 million gallons of P and U
wastes are underground injected at its
facility. The facility has proved,
however, that this stream qualified for
the mixture rule exception under RCRA
section 261.3(a)(2)(iv), and is therefore
not considered a hazardous waste. One
commenter indicated it was injecting
7,200 tons of D004 waste at one of its
facilities. Further, one commenter stated
that it was injecting a wastewater
containing U115. Additionally, one
commenter submitted an underground
injection well survey. EPA
acknowledges these comments and has
incorporated them appropriately into the
capacity analysis.
EPA also received comments
pertaining to the form of certain wastes.
Several commenters indicated that the
nonwastewater forms of D002, D003
(reactive cyanide), D007, and K014 were
injected and needed to be included hi
the capacity analysis. EPA agrees that
nonwastewaters were not discussed for
many deepwell injected wastes and has
evaluated these waste forms for the
final rulemaking.
a. Effective Date Determinations for
Wastes with Treatment Standards in
Today's Rule
Consistent with the policy established
in previous land disposal restrictions,
EPA is restricting on August 8,1990, the
underground injection of all wastes,
with treatment standards in today's rule,
that are not currently being deepwell-
injected. This decision is consistent with
the intent of RCRA in moving hazardous
wastes away trom land disposal and
toward treatment. Wastes that are not
currently being deepwell-injected are
listed in table HI.B.2.(al.
The volumes of deepwell-injected
wastes that require alternative
commercial treatment and/or recycling
capacity are presented in table
nLB.2.(b). This table does not include
wastes that are currently being
deepwell-injected by facilities with '
appropriate on-site alternative treatment
technologies for treating the waste."
EPA is establishing effective date
determinations for all underground
injected wastes in treatability groups. If
there is adequate available alternative
treatment capacity for all the injected
volume in a single treatability group,
then every waste hi that group will be
restricted from underground injection. DC
there is inadequate available alternative
treatment capacity for the injected
volume in a single treatability group,
then EPA is allocating 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 that this is most consistent
with Congressional intent, which favors
both treatment over disposal and
minimal use of capacity variances. EPA
specifically solicited comments on this
approach; however no comments were
received during the public comment
period.
EPA recognizes that the effective
prohibition date of the Third Third rule
will critically affect the management of
large volumes of wastes disposed of on-
site in injection wells at a number of
facilities. On-site injection- wells are
characterized by direct piping of wastes
from plant operations to the injection
facility. In contrast, off-site injection
facilities receive manifested wastes
from other plant operations which are
transported directly to the injection
facility.
The injection wells at on-site facilities
are directly connected to the plant
operations and, all totaled, handle at
least five billion gallons of hazardous
waste per year. In order to realistically
meet the treatment requirements for the
Third Third rule, the plant managers will
need time to make considerable
logistical adjustments such as repiping,
retooling, and development of
transportation networks at the plant
operation facility. Therefore, EPA does
not believe that treatment capacity is
available if there is no feasible way for
generators to transport their wastes to
the treatment facilities. EPA can
legitimately consider the time necessary
to do this in determining whether.to
grant a national capacity variance.
EPA has relied on such logistic factors
in prior rulemakings to determine when
-------
f< June U, 199G -/ Rides and Regulations
Fctteral Register ] TtiL 55. tt5.
P120 P123. 0010. U016. U01B. U020. 0022,
0029 JTO36. 0041. 1J043. "0046. U050, TJ051, PM5.
UCF53 U061.'Urj53. UD64,'U066, ;JJBS7, IU077, P011 Q1
XTO78 UDBB. (UDB9. ITUffl. «trl24. 1«28,'1030. P020 " , ,
U137! >U-B5, 'inse. iWTI. OJ177, UIBO. ,U209, P048 '"'"~H 04
U237. iJ233, U248. U249. P058 1 11"
" " ' POS9~ ~ ~ ^'*
Second-Third Codes 1"= ~:"' 0.1
K025 (Wastewatars), -V3S2B i(wastewaters), !K028 ruo»
(wastewaterB).-KD41.'KD42.-K095 (wastewaters). FM02
K096 (wastewaters). K09B. WOS. P002. P003. P122 U1
PQ07. POOS, P013 (wastewaters). P014. P026, U007 _
P027 ^049. P054. P060, P065, ^067. P072. U009 - -
P099 P104 TTD7. rPin2. P113. IP1W. iTO03. U012 JJ
U005 UOI-l. 1JD14, 1J015. 'UQ21. U023. U025, U019
U026 U035, U047. U049. 1J057, U059, U060, U031 - "^
U062! U073, U083. U092, U093. 0094. O095, U037
U097. 0098. U099. U101. 0109. U110. 0111. 'U044 '
0114 01-H5. U119. LH27. AJT2B. O131. O135. 0074.-.. ^
0142 U143 O144. U-W6. OV»9, 0150, U161, 0103 * '
0163 0164. 0168. 0172, ,0173, 0174, 0176, 0105 - «'
0178 0179. 0189, U193. 0196. 0203, 0205. 0115 °"
0206 0208. 0213, O214. O215. U216. 0217. LM22 '
U218'- t5i3lz::::i:::::i::::i::": 0:2
y
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 J Rules and Regulations 226-17
Waste cods
D007 . ,. . ,,... . ,.,.. ., .... . ..
D008 , ., ,. .. .j.,. , ,,.,.,, ,
pnra " .... .
DOTO - . '-
DQ1 1 ... ;
P012 , , . ,.........,....,...
D01 3-, ...I-.. ...,,. ,,-., n--.- ,.. ,.,, -..
D014. . .. - -..
DOT5 _. .
D016._ .._ ;
Capacity
required for
under-
ground
injected
wastes
an 2
, 3.8
1.2
95.2
2.3
23
2.4
2.3
2.3
Waste code
O017 ; ,,, ,
F039 * . ._.._____ .__;
K002 , , , , ,!,,;
K032~_~
K083
P051 .
P056
P075 ;
U001
uo34 : ;
Capacity
required for
under-
ground
injected
wastes
2.3
15.'1
ai
s!o
,-. A i*
<01
-------
Federal Register /'Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance to D003
-(reactive cyanide) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. This waste will be
restricted from injection on May 8,1992.
(3) Alkaline Chlorination followed by
Chemical Precipitation. Treatment
standards based on alkaline
chlorination and chemical precipitation
are today being promulgated for F006
cyanide wastewaters and F019
wastewaters. As shown in Table
HLB.2.(c), the available capacity of 8
million gallons is adequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-injected requiring this type of
treatment EPA is prohibiting these
wastes from underground injection on
August 8,1990. (For faculties with
injection wells directly connected to
plant production operations, the
effective date is November 8,1990, as
discussed at the beginning of this
section).
(4) Biological Treatment For P020,
P048, U002, U009, U019, U031, U112,
U140, U159, U170, U188, U220, and U239.
EPA is promulgating concentration
standards based on biological treatment
for wastewaters. (EPA also determined
that the standards may be met using
wet-a!r oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption). Because there is adequate
biological treatment capacity for these
deepwell injected wastes, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them. (For facilities with injection wells
directly connected to plant production
operations, the effective date is
November 8,1990. as discussed at the
beginning of this section.)
(5) Chemical Oxidation followed by
Chemical Precipitation. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
for P122 wastewaters based on chemical
oxidation. For the capacity analysis,
EPA assigned P122 wastewaters to
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation. EPA has
determined that adequate capacity
exists to treat P122 wastewaters;
therefore, EPA is not granting P122
wastewaters a national capacity
variance.
EPA is promulgating deactivabon as
the method of treatment for D003
(sulfides), which includes chemical
oxidation. For the capacity analysis.
EPA assigned this waste to chemical
oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation. As indicated in Appendix
VI, EPA has identified other
technologies for treating these wastes.
The aggregate capacity of the additional
technologies is still insufficient for
treating these D003 wastes. Therefore,
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance to D003 (sulfide)
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. This
waste will be restricted from injection
on May 8,1992.
(6) Chemical Oxidation followed by
Chromium Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation. For D003 (explosives,
water reactives, and other reactives),
EPA is promulgating standards based on
deactivation. EPA did not have data in
sufficient detail to differentiate between
explosives, water reactives and other
reactives. Consequently, for the capacity
analysis, EPA has grouped these wastes
into one group. For the capacity
analysis, EPA assigned all volumes to
chemical oxidation, chromium .
reduction, and chemical precipitation.
As indicated in Appendix VI, EPA has
identified other technologies for treating
these wastes. The aggregate capacity of
the additional technologies is still
insufficient for treating these D003
wastes. Therefore, EPA is granting a
two-year national capacity variance to
these wastes, restricting D003
(explosives/reactives) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters from underground
injection on May 8.1992.
(7) Chemical Precipitation.
Wastewater forms of D004. D005, D006,
D008 (lead-non-battery). D009. D010,
D011. F006. K031. P011. P056, U134, and
U151 represent those wastes best
treated by chemical precipitation. As
shown in table III.B.2.(c), the 331 million
gallons per year of available chemical
precipitation are adequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-injected requiring this type of
treatment. EPA is prohibiting these
wastes from underground injection on
August 8.1990. (For facilities with
injection wells directly connected to
plant production operations, the
effective date is November 8,1990, as
discussed at the beginning of this
section).
(8) Chromium Reduction followed by
Chemical Precipitation. Treatment
standards based on chromium reduction
and chemical precipitation are today
being promulgated for wastewater forms
of D007, F006. K002, P011, and UO32. As
shown in Table III.B.2.(c), the 32 million
gallons per year capacity of available
- chromium reduction and chemical
precipitation is inadequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-injected requiring this type of
treatment. Excluding D007, however.
adequate capacity exists to treat the
remaining wastes. Therefore, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to D007 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, prohibiting this waste
from underground injection on May 8,
1992. For the remaining wastes, no
national capacity variance is being
granted.
(9) Combustion of Liquids.
Combustion of liquids is the standard of
treatment for deepwell injected D001
(ignitable liquids), D011, D012, D013,
D014, D015. D016, D017. K032. K083,
K086, K097, POOS, P050, P051. P057. P059,
P069. P075, P102, U001, U007. U008.
U012, U019, U034, U037, U044, U045,
U055, U05B, U070, U074, U080. U103.
U105, U108, U112, U113, U115, U118,
U122. U133, U138, U147. U154, U157,
U159, U160, U162, U165, U169, U185,
U192, U194, U197, U200, U210, U211,
U219, U220, U226, U227, U228, U239, and
U244. Although U041, U077, U083, U084,
and U213 are also underground injected,
because they will be treated on-site,
their quantities are not included in
required capacity for combustion of
liquids. As shown in table III.B.2.(c), the
219 million gallons per year of available
capacity are adequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-injected requiring this type of
treatment. Therefore, these wastes will
be restricted from underground injection
on August 8,1990. (For facilities with
injection wells directly connected to
plant production operations, the
effective date is November 8,1990, as
discussed at the beginning of this
section).
(10) Mercury Retorting. Treatment
standards based on mercury retorting
are being promulgated for
nonwastewaters forms of D009 wastes.
As shown in table IILB.2.(c), the less
than .01 million gallons per year of
available mercury retorting capacity are-
inadequate to treat the quantity of this
waste annually deepwell-injected
requiring this type of treatment. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to the nonwastewater forms of
D009, restricting this waste from
underground injection on May 8,1992.
' (11) Neutralization. EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment for D002
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. For
the capacity analysis, EPA assigned all
D002 acids and alkalines to
neutralization. As indicated in appendix
VI, EPA has identified other
technologies for treating these wastes.
The aggregate capacity of the additional
technologies is still insufficient for
treating D002 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance for the D002 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, restricting this waste
from underground injection on May 8,
1992. Deepwell injected D002 liquids
with a pH less than 2.0, which received
a two-year national variance in the
California list rulemaking, are required
-------
Federal Register J Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22619
to meet fee California list treatment
standards on August 8,1990.
(12) Stabilization. For residuals
containing D005, D006,-D007,D008 (lead-
non-battery), U011, K002, K083.K086,
and UQ32, stabilization is part of .the
treatment train. As shown in Table
m.R24&), .the 265 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
prohibited from land disposal on August
8,1990. {For facilities with-injection
wells directly connected to plant
production pperatipns, the effective date
is November 8,1990, as discussed at the
beginning of this section.)
(13) Wet-Air Oxidation. K01I, 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 m.B.2.(c), the less than 1 million
gallons of available capacity are
inadequate to treat the -quantity of K011
wastewatera, K013 wastewaters, and
K014 wastewaters and nonwastewaters
annually deepwell-injected requiring
this type of treatment. Therefore, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to the wastewater forms of
K011, K013, and K014, and the
nonwastewater form of K014,
prohibiting these wastes from
underground injection on May 8,1992.
(14) Wet-Air Oxidation followed by
Carbon Adsorption. For P058
wastewaters, treatment standards based
on wet-air oxidation and carbon
adsorption are being finalized 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-injscted required this
type of treatment; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
this waste. (For facilities with injection
wells directly connected to plant
production operations, the effective date
is November 8,1990, as discussed at the
beginning of this section.)
(15) Biological Treatment followed by
Chemical Precipitation or Wet Air
Oxidation followed by Carbon
Adsorption followed by Chemical
Precipitation. For F039 (multi-source
leachate) wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based primarily on biological treatment
followed by chemical precipitation or
wet air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation. As shown in table
III.B.2.(c), the approximately 14 million
gallons of available capacity is
insufficient to handle the 15 million
gallons of required capacity. EPA notes
that the 14 million gallons of available
capacity is the maximum available, as a
portion of this volume is contributed by
a facility that was scheduled to come
on-line in 1988. EPA was ^unable :to
determine whether this facility is
currently operating. Because of the lack
of available capacity, EPA w granting a
national rapacity for this waste.
b. Response to Request for Data on
Underground Injected K014
Nonwastewaters.
EPA addressed the underground
injection of K011 and K013
nonwastewaters in the June 6,1989,
Second Third final rule. In that rule, a
two-year national capacity variance
was granted due to the lacktif
alternative incineration capacity (54 FR
26642). Action on K014 nonwastewaters
was deferred so that EPA could evaluate
information on the composition,
characteristics, and volumes associated
with this waste. EPA has received
information indicating that, by
definition, K014 nonwastewaters are
being underground injected. Because
inadequate wet-air oxidation capacity
exists to treat K014 nonwastewaters,
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance for the underground
injection of these wastes, restricting
K014 nonwastewaters from underground
injection on May 8,1992.
c. Deepwell Injected Multi-Source
Leachate.
Commenters supported the proposed
capacity variance for underground
injected multi-source leachate. One
commenter provided data or additional
volumes of multi-source leachate that
are underground injected. Consequently,
EPA is updating its estimate of the
volume of underground injected multi-
source leachate by 1.5 million gallons.
EPA estimates that at least 15 million
gallons of multi-source leachate
wastewaters are currently deep-well
injected and will require alternative
treatment capacity. EPA believes-that
most multi-source leachate currently
underground injected contains both
organic and inorganic constituents. EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
for wastewaters primarily based on
biological treatment followed by
chemical precipitation, or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation for organic and inorganic
constituents. Because there is
insufficient capacity to treat
wastewaters based on these treatment
technologies, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance for multi-
source leachate that is underground
injected. This waste will be prohibited
from underground injection on May 8,
1992.
d. Mixed Radioactive Wastes.
EPA requires radioactive wastes
mixed withHCRA-regulated solvents
and dioxtns 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.
EPA requested comments on mixed
radioactive wastes that are being
underground injected. EPA received no
information indicating that mixed
radioactive wastes were Iteing
underground injected: thus, EPA-is not
granting a national-capacity variance for
them. These wastes will be prohibited
from underground injection on August-8,
1990.
3. Capacity Variances for Contaminated
Soil and Debris
Today, EPA is granting an extension
of the effective date for certain First,
Second, and Third Third contaminated
soil and debris for which the treatment
standards are based on incineration, .
vitrification, or mercury retorting; EPA-is
also granting a national capacity
variance for inorganic solids debris
contaminated with D004 through D011
wastes. 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 (g)." 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
8,1990). rather than the date on which
the "soft hammer" provisions took effect
(i.e., 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
BDAT 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
earns treatability group are allowed the
maximum 48 months (assuming capacity
does not become available at an earlier
date). The capacity extension will
therefore commence for First, Second, -
and Third Third wastes on May 8,1990,
and would extend (at maximum) until
MayB.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
portions of such mixtures should be
considered soil (52 FR 31197, November
8.1988).
Debris is generally 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 9.5-mm sieve size that are greater than
10 percent by weight, or that are at a
total level that, based on engineering
judgment, will affect the 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.
In addition. EPA has established a
specific treatability group for inorganic
solids debris contaminated with D004
through D011 wastes. Wastes in this
treatability group are defined as follows:
nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.5-mm
standard sieve that require crushing,
grinding, or cutting in mechanical sizing
equipment prior to stabilization, limited
to the following inorganic or metal
materials: (1) Metal slags (either dross
or scoria); (2) glassified slag: (3) glass;
(4) concrete (excluding cementitious or
pozzolanic stabilized hazardous
wastes); (5) masonry and refractory
bricks: (6) metal cans, containers,
drums, or tanks; (7) metal nuts, bolts.
pipes, pumps, valves, appliances, or
industrial equipment; and (8) "scrap
metal" (as defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8))
EPA has determined that there is
inadequate treatment capacity for al)
debris in this treatability group.
Therefore. EPA is granting inorganic
solids debris a national capacity .
variance. .-'
Analysis of the TSDR Survey data
indicated that a volume of ...
approximately 17 million gallons of soil
.and debris contaminated with wastes
subject to this rule were land-disposed
in 1988. 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 1988. Because of the major increase in
the Superfund remediation program,
EPA has determined that capacity is not
adequate for incineration, vitrification,
and mercury retorting of Third Third
contaminated soil and debris. In
addition, EPA has determined that there
is insufficient treatment for inorganic
solids debris. Therefore, EPA is granting
a two-year national capacity variance
for Third Third contaminated soil and
debris for which BOAT is incineration.
vitrification, or mercury retorting, and
all inorganic solids debris.
EPA is also granting 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 (or
other technologies for which EPA
determines there is insufficient capacity)
and also with other prohibited wastes
whose treatment standard is based oh
an available 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 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. Ninety Day Capacity Variance for
Third Third Wastes -
EPA is delaying me effective date of
the treatment standards in today's rule
for three months, or until August 8,1990
(except for those portions of the rule
delayed because of long-term national
capacity variances). EPA is taking this
step because the Third Third rule is of
unusual breadth (approximately 350
waste codes affected, plus all
characteristic wastes, multi-source
leachate, and mixed wastes),
complexity, and difficulty. Persons
having to comply must not only ;
determine what the treatment standards
are for their wastes, but must also .
grapple with the interplay between
standards for listed and characteristic
wastes, certain new interpretations
regarding permissible and impermissible
dilution, and certain new tracking
requirements for characteristic wastes.
Although the Agency has made all
efforts legally available to communicate
its resolution of some of these matters in
advance of the May 8,1990, prohibition
date, most members of the regulated
community are just receiving notice of
the requirements with which they must
comply. It takes some reasonable
amount of time to determine what
compliance entails, as well as time to
redesign tracking documents, possibly
adjust facility operations, and possibly
segregate wastestreams which
heretofore had been centrally treated.
EPA believes that these legitimate
delays are encompassable within the
concept of a short-term national
capacity variance because part of the
notion of available capacity is the
ability to get wastes to the treatment
capacity in a lawful manner.
Accordingly, the Agency is granting a
short-term national capacity variance
for three months.
The Agency emphasizes that during
this variance, all Third Third wastes
that remain hazardous and that are
being disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments may only be disposed of
in landfill or impoundment units that
meet the minimum technology standards
set out in § 268.5(h)(2). (See also section
III.D of today's preamble explaining that
a different principle holds for prohibited
wastes that are now nonhazardous.) In
addition, the recordkeeping
requirements of existing 40 CFR 268.7
(a)(4) and (b)(6) will apply during this
period. These provisions require a
certification that a restricted waste is
not subject to a prohibition for
enumerated reasons, such as existence
of a national capacity variance. EPA
does not intend, however, that
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rides and Regulations 22651
recordkeeping requirements apply to
characteristic wastes that have been
treated to meet the treatment standard
during this three-month.period. The new
recordkeeping requirements applicable
to these situations in fact do not take
effect.for three months based on the
Agency's determination that it will take
that long to understand how to use
them. Thus, tracking documents would
only be required for restricted wastes
that are hazardous wastes when sent
off-site. In addition, all existing
treatment requirements (e.g., California
list requirements applicable during the
period of a capacity extension) are
applicable from May 8,1990 to August 8,
1990.
D. Applicability of Land Disposal
Restrictions
1. Introduction
Under RCRA, wastes can be
designated as "hazardous" in one of two
ways: (1) they may be specifically listed
based on EPA's evaluation of factors set
out in 40 CFR 261 subpart B ("listed
wastes"), or (2) they may be considered
hazardous because they exhibit certain
indicator characteristics set out in 40
CFR part 261 subpart C ("characteristic
wastes").
A central issue in this rulemaking
concerns EPA statutory authority to
require full treatment for characteristic
wastes. Some industry commenters
argue that EPA lacks jurisdiction over
characteristic wastes if the indicator
characteristic is removed before land
disposal. Environmentalists and the
treatment industry, on the other hand,
argue that EPA must, in all cases,
require treatment of characteristic
wastes in the same manner it would for
listed wastes. EPA disagrees with both
positions. Rather, EPA believes that the
statute provides EPA ample authority to
determine whether additional treatment
beyond removal of the characteristic is
necessary for particular types of wastes
to achieve the goals of the statute.
In some cases, EPA is requiring
additional treatment beyond removing
the characteristic; in others, EPA deems
removal of the characteristic itself to be
sufficient especially where no toxic
contaminants are specifically identified;
finally, in several cases, EPA has
determined that there is only sufficient
information in the record to justify
treatment requirements to the
characteristic levels at this time. For
these respective wastes, data in the
administrative record is not adequate to
determine whether treatment below
characteristic levels is feasible to
minimize threats to human health and
the environment for the wide range of
differing waste matrices encompassed
by a single characteristic waste code. In
these respective cases, EPA is
establishing a treatment level based on
its best judgment on the information
currently available, and will review its
decision in light of new information in
the future.
Another critical issue is whether or
not to prohibit dilution of characteristic
wastes as part of the LDR program. As
discussed below, in some circumstances
a dilution prohibition is important to
ensure actual treatment of the waste.
EPA is applying a dilution prohibition to
wastes which exhibit a characteristic at
the point of generation, with two
exceptions. The first exception to the
dilution prohibition is for characteristic
wastes treated for purposes of CWA
requirements. CWA requirements,
including CWA dilution rules, serve
goals similar to the LDR dilution rules.
Relying on the CWA dilution rules will
generally accomplish the goals of the
LDR program without creating potential
inconsistencies or duplication in EPA's
regulations. A second general exception
to the LDR prohibitions is for
characteristic wastes that are
subsequently diluted and disposed hi
injection wells authorized under the
SDWA. This exclusion is based, in part,
on EPA's evaluation that the disposal of
dilute, nonhazardous wastes into
appropriately confined injection zones
would not constitute a threat to human
health and the environment. EPA's
decision also is based on the
unnecessary regulatory burden that
would ensue from application of the
LDR prohibitions on the SDWA program
regulating nonhazardous well disposal.
A more detailed discussion of EPA's
rationale and decision rules follow.
2. Legal Authority over Characteristic
Wastes
a. Introduction. One of the most
fundamental issues in this rulemaking is
whether the prohibition on the land
disposal of untreated characteristic
wastes applies at the point of generation
or at the point of land disposal. The
choice of approach will affect EPA's
ability to establish methods of treatment
(rather than allowing dilution to meet a
level), to apply a dilution prohibition, to
require treatment of constituents other
than those specifically addressed by the
characteristic, and to establish
treatment levels below characteristic
levels.
This issue arises from current
regulatory distinctions between
characteristic hazardous wastes and
listed hazardous wastes. Listed wastes,
and wastes derived from the storage,
treatment and disposal of listed wastes,
remain hazardous for all regulatory
purposes unless that waste is '
specifically delisted by Agency approval
of a delisting petition under 40 CFR
260.22. Thus, a listed hazardous waste
remains hazardous from the point of
generation through the point of land
disposal unless specifically delisted.
In contrast, a characteristic hazardous
waste is no longer deemed hazardous
when it ceases to exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic. 40 CFR 261.3(d)(l).
However, as discussed below, the
characteristic level is only one indicator
of hazard and, thus, removal of the .
specific characteristic is not the same as
assuring that the waste is safe. Until
today, a hazardous waste characteristic
could be removed by treatment;
however, it could also be removed by
simple mixing or dilution. Thus, if LDR
requirements were applied only to
wastes which exhibit a characteristic at
the point of land disposal, EPA would be
unable to require full treatment or, in
some cases, any legitimate treatment of
wastes which exhibit a characteristic at
the point of generation.
EPA's proposed approach for both
treatment standards and applying a
dilution prohibition for characteristic
wastes received many comments. Most
commenters expressed concern about
the regulatory impact of these rules on
land disposal facilities regulated under
RCRA subtitle D. There was particular
concern over the impact of the proposed
rules on existing wastewater treatment
trains regulated under the Pretreatment
and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs,
pursuant to sections 307(b) and 402 of
the CWA, which use surface
impoundments not regulated under
RCRA subtitle C. In addition, there were
many comments concerning the impact
of the proposed rules on the SDWA
program for nonhazardous injection
wells.
As discussed below, Congress has
given apparently conflicting guidance on
how the Agency should address land
disposal prohibitions for characteristic
wates. EPA believes it has authority to
reconcile these potential conflicts and to
harmonize statutory provisions to forge
a coherent regulatory system. (See
RCRA Section 1006(b)"The
Administrator shall integrate all
provisions of (RCRA) for the purposes of
administration and enforcement and
shall avoid duplication to the maximum
extent practicable, with the appropriate
provisions of the (CWA and SDWA)".)
Within this authority EPA seeks to
further the policy of section 3004(m) to
treat hazardous waste prior to land
disposal. However, EPA may also take
-------
, Btcps to address problems feat could
arise from integration of LDR
prohibitions in the context of the RORA
SubtitleD, CWAandSDWA programs.
A more detailed discussion of the legal
authority for this approach is provided
below.
b. General Standard for Agency
Construction of Statutes. Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 US. 837 (1984]
sets forth a two-step process for
determining whether to sustain an
agency's statutory interpretations. First,
a court determines whether Congress
has spoken directly to the precise
question at issue. If the intent of
Congress is clear, then the agency
construction must be consistent with the
Congressional directive. If. however, the
statute is silent or ambiguous with
respect to the specific issue, the agency
choice must be based on a permissible
construction of the statute. The
construction may reflect a reasonable
accommodation of policies that are
committed to the agency by statute.
For the reasons stated below. EPA
believes that Congress has not spoken
to the precise question of the point at
which LDR prohibitions apply and, thus.
the Agency may develop a reasonable
interpretation of the statute considering
the goals and objectives of the LDR
program and RCRA in general.
c. Scope of Agency Authority for
Treatment Requirements. Several
industry commenters argue that EPA
must determine the applicability of LDR
requirements at the point of land
disposal based on the language of RCRA
section 3004(g), which authorizes EPA to
prohibit "the land disposal of hazardous
waste." Commenters argue that this
language indicates a Congressional
decision to apply LDR requirements only
to waste which is listed or exhibits a
characteristic at the point of land
disposal. .
The Agency agrees that this is one
permissible construction of the language
in section 3004(g). Clearly a waste must
be "hazardous" to fall under the
mandate of 3004(g). EPA could assess
whether or not a waste is hazardous at
the point of land disposal to determine
whether the prohibition in 3004(g)
applies. The Agency, however, does not
believe this is the only, permissible
construction. Although section 3004{g)
clearly authorizes EPA to prohibit the
land disposal of characteristic waste, it
does not specify that the status of the
waste for purposes of the prohibition
can onlv be evaluated at the point of
land disposal. Rather, the evaluation of
whether a hazardous waste is subject to
the prohibitions can apply at the point of
generation or at the point of disposal
(and possibly at some other point or
1
combination of fee two). Indeed, section
3004(g){5} requires EPA to consider
it* * * t^ goal of managing hazardous
waste in an appropriate manner in the
first instance," (emphasis added} when
determining the scope of the land
disposal prohibitions. See reference to
section 3004(d)(l)(B) in section
3004{g)(5). This language can be read to
refer to a point of generation approach.
Moreover, the statutory structure
provides for treatment of hazardous
waste under section 3Q04(m) treatment
standards before land disposal and not
necessarily at the physical point of land
disposal. Commenters further argue that
the Congressional policy is to limit the
scope of the LDR provisions to facilities
currently regulated under subtitle C of
RCRA.
As discussed below, the Agency has
concluded that applying LDR
requirements at the point of generation
is not only a permissible construction of
the statute, but one which may better
serve the goals and objectives of the
LDR program.8 Specifically, EPA
believes that applying LDR requirements
at the point of generation may, in some
cases, be necessary to effectuate the
requirement that the Agency set
treatment standards or methods for
characteristic wastes under section
3004(m). As the Agency noted in the
proposal at 54 FR 48490. the point of
disposal approach could undermine the
Congressional goals of the land disposal
restrictions in critical ways when
applied to characteristic wastes.
First, the Agency would not
effectively be able to set a particular
method of treatment or limit dilution for
a characteristic waste. A point of
disposal approach might permit dilution
of characteristic wastes, since waste
dilated below a characteristic level prior
to land disposal would not be regulated
by LDR provisions. Such dilution could
be in lieu of treatment or a specified
method and would not fulfill the goals of
section 3004(m). In many cases, dilution
simply increases the volume of a waste
without reducing or immobilizing fee
mass of hazardous constitutents in the
waste.
Second, the point of disposal
approach could be construed to limit
treatment standards both in terms of
treatment levels and fee range of
hazardous constituents affected by the
treatment standard. For characteristic
wastes, a point of disposal approach
would, in effect, preclude a requirement
to treat below fee characteristic leveL In
some cases, characteristic levels are not
levels below which there may be no
significant risks to human health and fee
environment. Rather, fee EP (and TC)
limits are levels at which wastes clearly
are hazardous. 45 FR 33084 (May 19,
1980]; 51 FR 21648 (June 13,1986); 55 FR
11798 (March 29,1990).7
Characteristic wastes also may
exhibit both a specific characteristic and
contain significant concentrations of
other hazardous constituents. (This is
true, for example, of fee high TOC _
ignitable wastes and reactive cyanide
wastes regulated under today's rule.)
Simply treating the one specific
characteristic which is an indicator that
fee waste is a hazardous waste would
not necessarily fulfill fee goal of section
3004(m), Le., to "substantially diminish
fee toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from fee waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and fee environment
are minimized" (emphasis added). The
statutory focus on hazardous
constituents beyond the specific
characteristic constituent is also
enunciated in sections 3004(dHg) °f
RCRA. These provisions authorize EPA
to take into account "* * * the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and
propensity to bioaccumulate of such
hazardous wastes and their hazardous
constituents"\n establishing hazardous
The Agency has previously adopted the point of
generation approach with respect to identification
of waste sub|ect to the California list prohibitions
set out in RCRA section 3004(d)(l) and (2). 52 FR
25760 (July 8.193")- !Jke characteristic waste*.
California list wastes must contain constituents or
exhibit a property above a certain level. Moreover.
as a general matter, to ensure the proper
management of waste in the First instance. EPA has
required application of several 40 CFR part 288
requirements at the point of generation. See
§ 268.30(a)(3) and 52 FR 21012 (June 4.1987) (initial
generator must determine whether solvent wastes
are prohibited): 53 FR 31146-47 (August 17.1988)
and 54 FR 28605 (June 23.1989) (waste code carry-
throueh principle applies at the point of generation
and determines both the prohibition and the
treatment standard for listed wastes). All land
disposal restriction tracking requirements likewise
attach at the point of generation. (268.7(a) and 54 FR
36968 (Sept. a 1989).
7 In Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA
(H WTC 111). S86 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989) the court
noted that it would be inappropriate under section
3004(m) to require treatment below levels which
there are no longer threats to human health and the
environment, id. at 363. However, the court noted
that the inquiry under section 3004(m) concerning
the extent of treatment is different than levels
established for other regulatory purposes, and
specifically noted that EPA need not construe
characteristic levels as levels below which no
further minimization of threats can occur. Id. at 382.
The Agency has recently discussed its rationale for
a technology-based approach to treatment
standards under section 3004(m) which does not cap
the treatment requirements at delistings levels. (See
55 FR 6640, (February 28,1990'). EPA recognizes that
HWTCniis not dispositive on the issue we address
today whether characteristic levels at the point of
disposal serve as a jurisdictional bar to application
of section 3004(m) treatment standards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22653
waste prohibitions. Section 3004(d)(l)(C)
(emphasis added). Thus, EPA believes it
has statutory authority to take into
account all aspects of a waste stream in
determining appropriate treatment and
is not limited to considering merely one
specific "characteristic" that indicates
that the waste is hazardous in the first
instance.
EPA also has general authority under
RCRA section 3004 (a)(3) to establish
different criteria for determining when
wastes will enter and exit the hazardous
waste management systemi.e., when
they will initially be designated as
hazardous waste and when they no
longer require RCRA subtitle C
management controls. For example, the
clean-closure standards for regulated
units that hold characteristic wastes
require removal of hazardous
constitutents even if the waste no longer
exhibits a hazardous characteristic. See
53 FR 8705 (March 19,1987). EPA also
has previously promulgated regulations
requiring that incinerators treating
hazardous waste be operated to a
certain efficiency even if a characteristic
waste in the waste feed ceases to
exhibit a characteristic somewhere in
the combustion process.
EPA believes that under the first test
in Chevron, Congress has neither
mandated nor precluded a point of
generation approach. In this case the
"meaning or reach of a statute involve[s]
reconciling conflicting policies."
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 846 (citation
omitted). Moreover, "a full
understanding of the force of the
statutory policy in the given situation
has depended upon more than ordinary
knowledge respecting the subject
matters subjected to agency
regulations." Id. Accordingly, EPA
should make choices which represent "a
reasonable accommodation of
conflicting policies that were committed
to the agency's care by statute." Id.
In this regard, section 1006(b) of
RCRA provides EPA authority to
integrate provisions of RCRA and other
acts it administers, including the CWA
and SDWA, for purposes of
administration and enforcement. Such
integration must be consistent with the
goals and policies of these acts. Under
this framework, EPA can analyze
potential overlaps between regulatory
programs in its decision-making. Where
the goals are consistent, and uniform
administration or enforcement is
preferable, EPA may rely on one
regulatory framework instead of
applying potentially duplicative or
inconsistent regulations. Accordingly,
the Agency believes that it can
harmonize potentially conflicting
policies by considering both the benefits
of a given approach and any regulatory
problems (including regulatory overlap)
that would be engendered by the
approach. The balancing may thus result
in different application of LDR
requirements for certain classes of
facilities.
d. Agency Framework for Addressing
Treatment Standards for Characteristic
Wastes and Integrating them With
Other Regulatory Programs. The Agency
believes that it has authority to apply
LDR requirements at the point of waste
generation for characteristic wastes and
that such an approach will generally
better achieve the goals of the LDR
program. Specifically, EPA believes it
has the authority to set treatment levels
below the characteristic levels, to
specify methods of treatment, and to
prohibit dilution for characteristic
wastes where necessary and
appropriate to further the goals of the
statute. EPA recognizes, however, that
there are many far-reaching policy
considerations respecting the actual
implementation of this approach. For
example, a point of generation approach
could apply to management of waste
prior to RCRA subtitle D land disposal.8
LDR standards which require waste to
be treated to below characteristic levels
would apply to wastes currently
destined for RCRA subtitle D facilities.
Application of the LDR provisions
would be a very significant change in
the regulatory scheme for these
facilities, and could cause major
administration and enforcement
problems for both EPA and these
facilities. For example, EPA currently
has no authority to enforce subtitle D
criteria against subtitle D facilities, and,
hence has no enforcement program for
these facilities. In order to ensure that
these facilities met the subtitle G
requirements, the Agency would have to
implement an enforcement scheme that
addressed thousands of subtitle D
facilities. In addition, owners and
operators of subtitle D.facilities would
need to meet complex LDR tracking
requirements. Many may decide not to
accept partially treated characteristic
wastes rather than comply, thus,
diverting potentially large volumes of
non-hazardous waste to subtitle C
facilities and potentially aggravating
capacity problems at subtitle C
Waste disposed into such units would need to
meet the treatment requirements unless disposal is
(1) into a "no migration" unit approved under 40
CFR part 148 or 268. or (2) into a surface
impoundment which meets the requirements of
RCRA section 3005(j)(ll).
facilities.9 As noted in the proposal at 54
FR 48491, some of these problems may
be addressed by future regulatory
revisions. EPA will continue to evaluate
this issue as it addresses standards for
the wastes identified by the new
Toxicity Characteristic (TC). .
In addition, many of these potentially
affected subtitle D units contain wastes
that are regulated, in part, under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and
pretreatment programs under sections
301,304,307, and 402 of the CWA, and
the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the SDWA. Requiring
treatment below characteristic levels or
imposing a dilution prohibition would
require significant changes to the
operations of these faculties and create
problems of regulatory integration.
This is not to say that the section
3004(m) objectives carry little weight
with respect to characteristic wastes.
On the contrary, particularly with
respect to toxic wastes, these policies
are of critical importance. Moreover,
.. many of these potential
implementational problems may be
addressed by future rulemakings.
Section 1006(b) of RCRA requires the
Agency to integrate "for the purposes of
administration and enforcement" RCRA
subtitle C with the goals and policies of
other portions of RCRA, as well as other
statutes administered by EPA. In light of
.this requirement and the absence of any
clear Congressional directive to apply
LDR requirements directly to subtitle D
facilities, the Agency must ask itself
whether the benefits of treating below
characteristic levels warrant the serious
implementation problems such as those
discussed above. This is particularly
true where the administrative record
contains inadequate data to set levels
below the characteristic level for the
many waste matrices represented fay a
single characteristic waste code.
However, where the data is adequate,
EPA believes it can successfully
implement treatment requirements
beyond removal of the characteristic, on
a case-by-case basis, without significant
disruptions to other regulatory programs
to further the goals of section 3004(m) by
requiring treatment beyond removal of
the characteristic. EPA is prepared to
reevaluate these issues in future
rulemakings based on further
information and experience with
implementing the LDR program.
The extent to which the treatment
goals of section 3004(m) are furthered by
9 As noted below, EPA has provided a regulatory
structure to enforce dilution rules which does not
impact subtitle D facilities.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday, lune 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22654
"
treatment beyond removal of the
specific characteristic and by
application of LDR dilation rules is
discussed below for certain classes of
wastes and certain classes of waste
management practices. EPA also will
consider section 3«H(g) and the
Congressional directive under section
lOOOfb) of RCRAto integrate regulatory
programs. Accordingly. EPA's approach
is to balance both the extent of
additional treatment provided from
treatment beyond removal of a
characteristic and regulatory integration
concerns for LDR standards relating to
characteristic wastes.10
Below. EPA addresses three separate
LDR requirements: treatment levels,
methods of treatment, and dilution
prohibitions. In addition, EPA discusses
exclusions for some ol tnese
requirements for certain practices
regulated under the CWA and SDWA.
3. Treatment Levels
a. Environmental Considerations.
Section 3004(m) states that treatment
standards should substantially diminish
the toxicity or mobility and minimize
short-term and long-term threats. The
legislative history of this provision also
states that regulation under RCRA
should complement and reciprocally re-
enforce regulations under the CWA. S.
Rept at 16. EPA's framework for
developing best demonstrated available
technologies helps to ensure that
toxicity and mobility are minimized.
Additionally, the methods or levels
derived through the BDAT process also
minimize short and long-term threats to
human health and the environment
Thus, in establishing BDAT. EPA seelcs
to achieve substantial reductions in
toxicity and mobility, not merely
incidental or small reductions. Available
data and objectives of the land disposal
««In determining that some balancing of
composing »ccuon 30fH|m) and I006(b)/3OM(g)
interests is necessary in establishing prohibitions
for characteristic wastes, the Agency is further
determining that the framework outlined aj the
court opinion in HUTCM. 688 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Or.
1388) and the Agency's response to that opinion [55
FR 6040 (Fcb, 26.1990)) is not dispositive in the
dillering context ot characteristic wastes. Both the
opinion «nd the Agency's response dealt with
situations where listed hazardous wastes were
betns disposed »o there were no competing interests
to balance against the Section 3004(m) mandate.
Consequently, the Agency determined that until it
could develop I«TAA. A ~»*****Vtf*ifJ r^no Tticfrihllfi
implementing m& ^4w»»~.«.
HSWA); Associated Gas Distributors v.
FERC, 824 F. 2d.981,1039 (D.C. Cir.
1987).
{1} Toxic Wastewaters. EP toxic
inorganic wastewaters are primarily,
destined far NPDES wastewater
treatment systems; pretreatment
systems and UIC injection wells. Given
current data EPA could set treatment
levels about an order of magnitude
below the characteristic levels for some
of the EP toxic metal wastewaters.
Imposing treatment standards below fee
characteristic level however, could
have fee effect of invalidating legitimate
methods of treatment involving surface
impoundments that are part of CWA
wastewater treatment trains
(equalization basins used to equalize
flows to centralized chemical
precipitation and sedimentation
treatment for example). A treatment
standard below characteristic levels
would need to be met prior to placement
in a subtitle D treatment impoundment
This would be so even though fee
impoundment might treat fee waste for
purposes of CWA requirements. In
effect, this could move BAT/PSES
standards from end-of-pipe to in-
process, requiring facilities to change
their existing wastewater treatment
systems or comply wife internal waste
stream requirements feat would overlap
with CWA requirements. Imposing such
standards on Class 1 non-hazardous UIC
disposal could interfere wife protective
disposal practices with no
corresponding environmental benefit
(see discussion on dilution below).
As a result, EPA is not imposing
treatment standards below
characteristic levels for such
wastewaters. Based on the information
in the rulemaking record virtually all
wastewaters are managed in fee context
of CWA treatment impoundments or
UIC wells.11
(2) Toxic nonwastewaters. With
respect to nonwastewaters exhibiting
the EP characteristic for metals, EPA
determined that BDAT is based on
vitrification of stabilization. These
technologies are matrix-dependent types
of treatment. When considering
characteristic wastes, fee amount of
diversity within a single waste code is
typically extensive. This is because,
unlike listed wastes, fee characteristics
do not identify wastes from single
processes, single industries, or single
chemical species, but rather can come
from virtually any process or industry.
1' If EPA should receive information in the future
indicating that significant volumes of wastewater is
land disposed in another context EPA will
reevaluate the issue of setting treatment levels
lower than the characteristic level for EP toxic
metals. Again EPA is utilizing its considerable
discretion to address issues one at a time. See
HWTCIII, supra. 881 F. 2d at 287.
-------
Jedecal Kefflster / Vol 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1L990 J Holes tmd Regulations 22655
Using available date, it IB not possible In
this rulemaking, due to lack of time and
data on this diverse universe, to
subcategorize Bach characteristic waste
into trealahiBtyjgroaps designed
specifically lor certain industries or
processes.'Thus, in considering what
treatment standards are achievable lor
EP tadcmetal nonwasifiwaters,1:he
Agency 3iad to develop uniform
standards based -on BDAT technology
that constitute all or most of the wastes
identified by the characteristic.
As discussed in sectionIHA. of flie
preamble, the Agency is confident "foal
these wastes can tie treated at least to
characteristic levels. However, me
Agency is unable to treatment standards
below the characteristic level are
achievable for all of such wastes.
Certainly, as shown by data submitted
by the waste treatment industry and
other commenters, some samples in
these waste categories cam be treated to
levels below the characteristic, and
some to levels well below {an order of
magnitude or more, in some cases}. The
Agency does not believe that these data
are sufficiently representative, however,
to warrant extrapolation to all waste
matrices under a given waste code.12
See discussion in section IIIA.
In reviewing the additional data .
submitted by commenters, the Agency
was struck by the amount of diversity
often present in the treatment data for a
particular characteristic, not only
confirming the matrix-dependent nature
of the technology, but the difficulty of
finding a single numerical standard that
would be generally achievable for all
wastes in that particular metal waste
code. Another problem confirmed by
data is that many wastes exhibit
characteristics for more than one metal,
and optimized treatment for one metal
can preclude optimized treatment for
another. Yet virtually all of the metal
treatability data in this record is for
treating only one metal.
Even if the Agency had enough data
to require treatment below the
characteristic levels for these wastes, it
would likely have to establish specific
treatability -groups within the individual
codes {as done today to a limited
extent). Many of the difficulties in
assessing data noted briefly above, and
discussed in detail hi the sections on
each characteristic metal, appear to be
industry or process specific. It should be
noted that the Agency expects that
treatment will result in levels slighSy
" The treatment industry data, for example, was
often deficient an such information as to whether
and how concentrated characteristic wastes are
mixed and back calculations for dilution effects
resulting from pretreatment mixing. See section IIIA.
below the characteristic levels in any
case. 'Jm's is because most treatment
technologies cannot easily be **tarned
off" at precisely the characteristic level
and, thus, EPA believes the requirement
to treat to the characteristic level win
often result in further treatment
For EPioxic pesticide
nonwastewatem, treatment is based on
a non-matrix dependent technology lhat
can reduce hazardous .constituent levels
to orders of magnitude telow flie
characteristic level Thus, the types of
difficulties posed ior EP metals
assessing treatment aohievability for a
wide variety of wastes treated by a
matrix^dependent technologyare not
presented for pesticide wastes.
Moreover, the pesticide wastes are
potentcarcinqgens, so that .removing the
uncertainties of the threats they pose
when land disposed is highly desirable.
The Agency, thus, is establishing
treatment standards for these wastes
based on performance of optimized
destruction tecanology. EPA does not
believe the general regulatory
difficulties in implementing this
requirement to treat below
characteristic levels are significant in
the context of subtitle D facilities as
there is a limited amount of this waste
in existence and the destruction of the
toxic constituents is a dear benefit over
other treatment approaches.
(3) Other Characteristic wastes. As
discussed in section IIIA., for most
corrosive, reactive, and ignitable
characteristic wastes, the Agency has
determined that the appropriate
treatment for these wastes is to remove
the characteristic. The environmental
concerns from the properties of
ignitabflity, corrosivity, and reactivity
are different from the environmental
concern from EP toxic wastes. Toxic
constituents can pose a cumulative
impact on land disposal even where
waste is below the characteristic level.
Where wastes pose an ascertainable
toxicity concern, as -with high TOG
ignitable wastes, and cyanide-bearing
and -sulfide-bearing reactive wastes, the
Agency has developed treatment
standards that address the toxicity
concern and tin effect) require treatment
below the characteristic level. As.
discussed in section IIIA., this approach
is important to address toxic
constituents in this waste. EPA does not
believe the regulatory problems in
implementing standards for this Thnited
number of streams will be significant.
Otherwise, treatment that removes the
properties of ignrtabiiity. corrosivity,
and reactivity, fully addresses the
environmental concern from the
properties themselves. Further
discussion is -contained in file preamble
b. Regulatory Problems. In Teaching
the approach set forth in today's Tide,
EPA lias considered fee advantages of
additional treatment, -with flie
difficulties infl3 implementing a
.requirement to treat "below
characteristic levels and 12) the effect trf
such a rule on overlapping federal
environmental programs.
The characteristic level evaluated at
the point of disposal serves to
distinguish certain disposal practices
and facilities from other permitting and
regulatory requirements under Subtitle
C of RCRA. Many commeBtene argued
that there are significant advantages to
providing a clear regulatory boundary
which serves, in most cases, to separate
the jurisdiction of different
environmental programs. As discussed
above, IDR provisions feat apply to
require treatment beyond .removal of the
characteristic might require complicated
tracking and enforcement provisions
that would apply at assay subtitle D
disposal facilities which are cunendy
not subject to any subtitle C
requirements. The most complicated of
such requirements would tavolve
enforcing levels below the .characteristic
levels. To enforce and implement such
requirements, EPA would potentially
need to expand the universe of disposal
facilities covered by the LDR provisions
to perhaps thousands of facilities.
Requiring levels of treatment below
the characteristic level -would also have
specific disruptive impact on practices
regulated, in part, under fee CWA. In
effect, a treatment standard below
characteristic levels would need to be
met prior to placement in a surface
impoundment used in the treatment
process. EPA estimates that up to 2000
nonhazardous treatment impoundments
could be affected by a requirement for
treatment below characteristic levels.
There are other difficulties in applying
treatment standards below
characteristic levels to injection wells
regulated under the SDWA which are
described in detail below.
EPA does not believe that Hie cprrent
technical data in the record justifies
treatment levels below characteristic
levels for the nonwaste water EP toxic
metals. Thus, EPA has not engaged in an
extensive balancing of regulatory
integration problems for the wastes in
this rule. For the EP toxic pesticides,
EPA believes treatment to the levels
provided for hi the BDAT incineration
technology is important to destroy ftiese
particularly dangerous pesticides.
Because there is a limited amount of
these pesticides, EPA believes the
-------
1990 / Rules and Regulations
, environmental considerations outweigh
any difficulties in implementing the LDR
requirement to treat below the
characteristic level. For wastewaters,
EPA believes the regulatory difficulties
in integrating the CWA and SDWA
programs outweigh the limited benefit
from additional treatment based on the
1 current infonnation.-Finally,-EPA has set
requirements to remove certain toxic
constituents from certain ignitable and
reactive wastes. Some of these
treatment requirements are in the form
of methods which are discussed below.
Again, EPA believes the environmental
benefit in terms of treatment outweights
the regulatory problems in providing
such standards for these wastes because
of the limited circumstances involving
such wastes.
4. Methods of treatment
a. Environmental Considerations. EPA
has express authority to specify
methods of treatment as the treatment
standard. As discussed above, this
necessarily entails a point of generation
approach. Imposition of these treatment
methods normally results in more than
the removal of the characteristic and
further minimizes threats to human
health and the environment.
EPA proposed methods of treatment
for certain classes of characteristic
wastes. There are several advantages to
specifying a method of treatment. First,
EPA may not have enough data to set a
level of treatment. In such cases, a
method can still fulfill the purposes of
3004(m) by providing for treatment.
Second, analytic methods may not exist
to measure key constituents in a
prohibited waste, in which case
designation of a method is the only way
to ensure treatment. Third, a method
may treat other constituents beyond
those addressed by the specific
characteristic. Finally, specifying a
method may preclude other treatment
alternatives which the Agency believes
create other risks to the environment.
For example, some wastewater
treatment systems remove volatile
organics from the wastestreams simply
by venting these volatiles to the
atmosphere. However, there are two
disadvantages to specifying methods of
treatment: (1) It may preclude the use of
alternative methods or development of
aUematives that are cost-effective and
consistent with Agency objectives; and
(2) it establish a national requirement
that may not be appropriate for a
variety of case-specific applications. For
these reasons, EPA must consider
carefully a decision to rely on methods
of treatment.
In today's rulemaking. EPA is
cpccifying incineration or fuel
substitution for ignitable characteristic
wastes with high levels of total organic
carbon [TOG). The TOG content of these
wastes serves as an indicator of high
concentrations of hazardous
constituents which incineration will
destroy. See, e.g., Senator Chaffee's
floor statement introducing the
amendment that became section
3004(m): "for wastes with a high organic
content, incineration should be required
In lieu of land disposal." 130 Cong. Rec.
S9179 July 25.1984).
b. Regulatory Problems. To have any
practical effect, methods of treatment
must generally attach at the point of
generation. EPA does not believe,
however, that this requirement will be
difficult to implement in this rule
because a limited number of
characteristic wastes are affected. EPA
is also somewhat limiting the
circumstances under which the methods
would apply to avoid certain regulatory
integration problems with the SDWA
program regulating underground
injection wells. However, as discussed
below, the requirement to incinerate
these wastes is entirely consistent with
and promoting of the objectives of the
CWA. Accordingly. EPA believes the
benefits of incineration of certain
categories of characteristic waste
outweigh any limited regulatory
problems under the CWA.
5. General Dilution Prohibition
a. Environmental Considerations.
Dilution rules are intended to prohibit
dilution in lieu of treatment and to
ensure that wastes are treated in
appropriate ways. As discussed in the
preamble sections on treatment of
characteristic wastes, EPA believes the
mixing of waste streams to eliminate
certain characteristic is appropriate
treatment for most wastes which are
purely corrosive, or in some cases,
reactive or ignitable. As a general
matter, these are properties which can
effectively be removed by mixing. On
the other hand, simple dilution is not
effective treatment for toxic
constituents. Dilution does not itself
remove or treat any toxic constituent
from the waste. Accordingly, EPA
'believes that a dilution prohibition for
characteristic wastes is important for
purposes of the treatment requirements
and carries a significant benefit.
The dilution rules will help minimize
hazardous constituents that are
currently disposed under both the RCRA
subtitle C and D programs. Although
few data on specific health and
environmental impacts resulting from
subtitle D facilities are available, the
large volume of waste and number of
facilities involved present concerns
about actual and potential threats.
Based on a 1984 study, EPA estimated
that there were 7.6 billion tons of
industrial nonhazardous waste disposed
in approximately 28,000 industrial solid
waste and disposal facilities. More than
half of these facilities were surface.
impoundments, which create concerns
because of the mobility and physical
driving force of liquids in impoundments
and the current limited use of design
controls. Study results indicated only
sporadic use of design and operating
controls at industrial solid waste
landfills and surface impoundments,
with only 12 percent and 22 percent,
respectively, employing any type of liner
system. (53 FR 33320, August 30,1988).
Study findings also reveal that few of
these facilities have monitoring systems,
and only 35 percent were inspected by
States in 1984, the latest year for which
data are available. The present
inspection status is unknown. Limited
data on violations of State requirements,
coupled with these statistics on design
and operating controls, suggest that
releases may be occurring (53 FR 33320,
August 30,1988). As discussed below.
EPA believes this is an area where the
environmental benefits imposing a
prohibition on characteristic wastes at
the point of generation outweigh the
problems in integrating other regulatory
programs.
b. Regulatory Problems. As discussed
below, the LDS dilution prohibition
could have a significant disruptive effect
on practices regulated, in part, by
programs under the CWA and SDWA.
EPA generally agrees with the many
comments regarding impacts on these
programs. In harmonizing or reconciling
the general need for a dilution
prohibition with the need to avoid these
disruptive impacts, EPA believes it is
appropriate to exempt certain practices
from the dilution prohibition. These
practices and the rationale for the
exemptions are described in the sections
that follow.
EPA does not believe these same
regulatory problems apply to the
program for disposal of other waste
under subtitle D of RCRA. Subtitle D
establishes a framework for Federal,
State, and local government cooperation
in controlling the management of
nonhazardous solid waste. The Federal
role in this arrangement is to establish
the overall regulatory direction, to
provide minimum standards for
protecting human health and the
environment, and to provide technical
assistance to States for planning and
developing environmentally sound
waste management practices. The actual
planning and direct implementation of
-------
Federal fibster / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22657
solid waste pBogcams wader subtitle D, .
hower eE.TOmaia State ?mri farai
functions. Aiost States inapose some set
of overall facility performance
standards; however, among the States.
specific design and operatiag standards
varygMa-%. . -
Under ihe.ajithojity'Gf sections
1008(a)(3)aad4004(a)ofJ8,C»A,EPA
promulgated the "Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" |40 CER part
257), dud subsequently issued nrinor
modifications to these Criteria. These
Subtitle D Criteria .establish minimum
national performance standards
necessary to ensure that "no reasonable
probability of .adverse .effects an health
or the environment" will result from
solid waste disposal facilities or
practices. The existing Part 257 Criteria
include general environmental
performance standards addressing eight
major topics-^Soodplains. endangered
species, surface water, ground water.
land application, disease, air, and
safety. Currently. EPA does not have the
authority to enforce these criteria
directly.
EPA does not believe this regulatory
framework is at all similar to those
under the CWA and SDWA which, as
discussed below, the Agency is
excluding from the LDR dilution rules.
Specifically, there are limited federal
regulatory, implementation or
enforcement provisions that would
require integration. (This is net the case,
incidentially if treatment standards are
established below characteristic levels.)
In that case, the subtitle D facility would
necessarily be involved in the
implementation and enforcement of the
prohibitions. Accordingly. EPA is
codifying the general dilution
prohibition for characteristic wastes
with certain exceptions.
6. Exemption to Dilution Prohibition for
Characteristic Wastes Treated for
Purposes of Certain CWA Programs
a. Introduction. For listed wastes,
there are generally no overlapping CWA
and RCRA treatment requirements for
wastewater ultimately discharged to a
water of the United States or POTW.
13 Wastewater which contains a listed hazardous
waste and is ultimately discharged to waters of the
United States under an NPDES -permrt pursuant to
section 402 of tiie CWA or to a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works {POTW] pursuant to section 307
of the CWA is not ordinarily subject to the lanH
disposal prohibitions for several reasons. Erst, in
many situations, the wastewater is managed m
tanks prior *o discharge and. thus, there is mo
placement in a land disposal unit. Second, even
where a surface impoundment 4s -used to treat
hazardous waste prior to discharge such surface
impoundments may satisfy the Teqoirements oT
section 3005IJK11) of RCRA in lieu of meeting
(Of course, sludges .or other residues
from JSEQES iseabaentirains winch are
subsequently land disposed axe
to the land disposal restriction
provisions.) Some of tEbese facilities.
a l*ava»»iinns characteristic but after
mixing wiifa other waste streams ceases
to exhibit that ^characteristic prior to
placement in a subtitle Dsnrface
impoundment nviririi is part of the
was tewater treatment train. These
surface impoHndrneids are tear! disposal
units for purposes of LBR prohibitions. .
The practice of mixing cooid 3ms trigger
LDR diiffiion rules. EPA received many
comments that the proposed RCRA
dilution prohibition lor wastewater
going into these impoundments could
undennme the abifly of these operators
to use noT&azardoiis waste surface
impoundments as part of their NPDES
treatment train." Tins impact would
occur despite the fact 1hat farther
treatment wouW occur in the
impoundment to remove constituents
from fee wastewater prior to discharge
to waters of the United States or to a
POTW. These commenters farther
argued that application of such RCRA
rules to wastewaters already required to
be treated under CWA requirements
would be unduly confusing and
duplicative.
b. Environmental Considerations. As
discussed below, the NPDES program
has a series of technology-based
requirements for the treatment of
wastewater prior to discharge to waters
of the United States. See 33 U.S.C. 1314
and 40 CFR Farts 400-471. These
requirements provide for treatment of
wastewaters prior to discharge. Indeed,
many of the LDR treatment standards
are based on data used to set the CWA
standards. Thus, EPA believes the
overlap of an LDR dilution prohibition
where an NPDES treatment tram
includes a nonhazardous treatment
impoundment would not substantially
further the treatment goals of the land
disposal restrictions.
c. Regulatory Problems. The
regulatory overlap of similar but not
identical dilution rules would create
significant regulatory disruption. Section
100S(b) of RCRA provides EPA the
section 3004(m3 treatment standards. See 5 268.4.
Section 3005(j)(ll)reqnires an impoundment to meet
certain design requirements set out in section
3004(o)(l) of RCRA and be dredged annually to
remove residues.
" As noted above, applying LDR requirements at
a point of generation would require £ facility either
to (1) treat the waste prior to placemetfl in the
surface impoundment (2) obtain * "no migration
variance, (3) comply with .section 3005{j)(ll): or (4J
install tank treatment instead of using surface
impoundments.
authority to consider these integration
problems andseireqnir.ements that are
consistent with the "goals and policies -of
the CWA and RCRA. Many of ie
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. jnclnflii^g .all .of .those
reflecting mass-based limits aad
standards, have factored in controls on
dilution. In addition, NPDES permit
writers can .set requirements which
reflect the nature of ihe treatment
process, inchiding best management
practices, mass limitations in lieu of
concentration based lissitsikms,
adjustments to reflect pdQatants in
intake water, and conditions on internal
waste streams. 40 CER 122,44(3$ 122/45
(f), (g) and (h). Indirect dischargers are
also ssbfect to specific CWA dilution
rules in both the general pretreatmerit
rules and the Combined \Vastestream
Formtfia {as weH as though many ftte
categorical standards}. 40 CFR 403* {cTj
and (ej.
In this case, lie general treatment
requirements and associated dilution
rules under the CWA are generally
consistent with the similar requirements
under RCRA. Relying on ihe existing
CWA provisions is, thus, consistent with
the goals of both Acts and avoids
unnecessary duplication and potentially
conflicting requirements.
EPA also believes, however, that
where the Agency has established a
method of treatment, arid where
application of that method is consistent
with and promotes the objectives of the
CWA program, then the dilation
prohibition shoold apply to make it
impermissible to dilute these -wastes to
avoid treating them by the designated
treatment method. This group includes
the ignitable nonwastewaters containing
greater than 10% total organic carbon
(TOC). The treatment methods for these
wastes is incineration or, in the case of
the ignitable waste, fuel substitution.
Prohibiting dilution to require the
specified method is entirely consistent
with the regulatory framework for the
CWA programs. The high TOC ignitable
wastes, in particular, are inappropriate
for wastewater treatment .systems as the
high TOC levels would overwhelm the
capacity for most biological treatment
systems. In addition, EPA believes there
are few remaining pesticide wastes
designated as D01Z-17. Tims, this
requirement should have minimum
impact on CWA systems. Accordingly,
the exemption from the dilution
prohibition for CWA systems is not an
exemption for fee requirement to fallow
specific methods of treatment.
-------
Federal »-*»« / V°l- 55- No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
7. Exemption from LDR Prohibitions for
Characteristic Wastes Disposed Below
Characteristic Levels in Wells Regulated
under the SDWA ..
a. Introduction. EPA has set out a
regulatory program under sections 1421.
1422, and 1425 of the SDWA which
contains "minimum requirements for
effective programs to prevent
underground injection which endangers
drinking water sources." 42 U.S.C.
300h(b)(l). Class I deep wells inject
below the lowermost geologic formation
containing an underground source of
drinking water CUSDW). 40 CFR
144 6fa).15 These wells are subject to
location, construction, and operating
requirements set dut at 40 CFR parts 144
and 146. In addition, EPA may authorize
states to administer the UIC program. 40
CFR parts 145 and 147. There are
approximately 400 such wells currently
injecting only nonhazardous waste.
The large facilities that have these
wells often mix waste streams and
through this mixing remove the
characteristic prior to disposal. A
dilution prohibition would require
restructuring of these facilities.
Alternatively, the facilities could apply
for a "no migration" variance under 40
CFR part 148.
b. Environmental Considerations.
LDR dilution rules for wastes currently
disposed of below the characteristic
levels in UIC wells would be limited to
toxic wastes. As discussed below, EPA
is generally providing that treatment of
ignitable. corrosive or reactive
waslewatermay be accomplished
simply by removing the characteristic.
This could be accomplished by mixing.
(There are a few exceptions discussed in
the specific discussion on treatment
standards.) These general standards are
based on EPA's technical evaluation of
appropriate treatment for purposes of
3004(m) regardless of the disposal
scenario. Thus, for these particular
characteristic wastes, the application of
the part 268 dilution prohibition to
operators of nonhazardous waste
injection wells would not require any
additional treatment beyond what is
already occurring. Moreover, there is a
very limited amount of the pesticide
wastes D012-17, and EPA is unaware of
deepwell injection practices for these
wastes. Thus, the characteristic wastes
of concern for UIC wells in this rule are
those that exhibit the characteristic of
EP toxicity for metals at the point of
generation.
EPA believes that the application of
dilution rules to these wastes would not
further minimize threats to human
health and the environment
Specifically, EPA believes that disposal
of these metals by underground injection
at the characteristic level is as sound as
the treatment option. Native formation
fluids in injection zones already contain
substantial concentrations of these
metals. The addition of more metal-
bearing fluid below characteristic levels
would not appreciably alter these
concentrations. Moreover, the
propensity of such metals to adhere to
and. thereby, generally stay contained in
the injection zones makes the practice ot
deep well disposal of such constituents
an environmentally sound one. The
example of immobilizing heavy metals
in a unit is also noted in the legislative
history.16 In addition, as discussed
below, there is a significant body of
information that EPA has received from
the petition process under 40 CFR part
148 concerning the containment
properties of injection zones for dilute
levels of the wider range of toxic
constituents. This data supports the
containment properties of these
injection zones.
c. Regulatory Problems. There would
be significant regulatory problems from
application of a dilution prohibition to
this category of facilities. If such a
prohibition were to apply, many well
operators would seek a "no migration
variance for their wells. EPA considers
such wells likely candidates to be
granted variances. Currently, however.
EPA is processing variances for
hazardous waste injection wells and is
not processing variances for
nonhazardous wells.
Hazardous waste injection is
specifically subject to RCRA's land
disposal restrictions. RCRA section 3004
(f), (g) and (k). Approximately 65 of
these facilities have submitted petitions
to obtain "no migration" variances from
the LDR treatment requirements as
provided for in 40 CFR part 148. EPA has
proposed to grant 15 such variances, has
granted 12, and anticipates that many
other petitions will be both proposed
and granted for underground injection.
Thus, as a general matter. EPA believes
the practice of deep well injection can
be a protective practice within the
framework of the land disposal
restrictions rule. The petition process,
however, has been very time consuming
»» A USDW It defined to include aquifers
containing waters with up to 10.000 milligrams per
liter {"mg/n of total dissolved solids fTDS"). 40
CFR 144.3.
« "Another example of a potentially acceptable
land treatment situation involves wastes containing
heavy metals. Although land treatment does not
render the waste nonhazardous. a prohibition would
not be necessary if there is long-term certainty that
the hazardous constituents would be immobilized
H. Rep. No. 198 at 34.
and resource intensive. In addition, the
process has involved a high degree of
coordination with states that are
authorized to administer the UIC permit
program.- ...
EPA experience with the no
migration" petition process indicates
that many nonhazardous deep wells
could probably qualify for a "no
migration" variance under 40 CFR part
148. However, operators of
nonhazardous waste wells have not had
reason to believe that their operations
would be subject to the land disposal
restrictions and have not submitted
variance petitions. Moreover, EPA is not
convinced that the Part 148 regulations
would be appropriate for nonhazardous
waste wells. The goal of the SDWA
regulations for deep well injection is
containment of the wastes in an
injection zone. This goal is consistent
with the protectiveness goals behind the
"no migration" variance under RCRA.
There are no documented problems with
the effectiveness of the UIC regulations.
Moreover, even where the practice
involved disposal of hazardous waste,
Congress fashioned statutory provisions
in RCRA which reflect the view that
there is more certainty concerning the
safety of the deep well disposal practice
than surface disposal practices. For
example, RCRA sections 3004(0) and
3019(b) ban both landfilling of liquid
hazardous waste and underground .
injection of hazardous waste into or
above USDWs. RCRA provisions
regarding deep well injection of
hazardous waste, however, provided for
further EPA review of this method of
land disposal and allow for variances
from the statutory prohibition. RCRA
section 3004 (f) and (g). The legislative
history of the 1984 Amendments also
state that "underground injection of
hazardous waste can be safe
environmental technology," Statement
of Senator Bentsen, 129 Cong. Rec. S9153
(daily ed. July 25,1983), and envisioned
that compliance with the then-existing
underground injection control
regulations could be sufficient to justify
continued operation. Id. Through the
Part 148 petitions, EPA has gained
further knowledge concerning the
critical issues determining the safety of
the practice. In general, where the
SDWA regulations are followed,
injection of dilute amounts of toxic
constituents is safe. Where injection is
of waste below the characteristic level
the injection zone will appropriately
contain these hazardous constituents in
a properly operating injection well.
Accordingly, if EPA were to apply a
dilution prohibition to nonhazardous
wells at this time, there would be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations 22651
considerable disruption at facilities that
EPA generally considers safe. On
balance, EPA believes it is appropriate
to exempt from the LDR prohibitions
characteristic waste disposed below the
characteristic level in these wells. ''
E. Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes
In today's final rule, the Agency is
promulgating several new provisions
concerning implementation of the land
disposal restrictions for characteristic
wastes. Specifically, the Agency is
amending 40 CFR 268.7 and adding 40
CFR 268.9 to incorporate recordkeeping
requirements and special rules for
characteristic wastes, and is revising the
current regulations in parts 261 and 262
regarding the identification and
management of wastes that exhibit a
characteristic. In addition, the Agency is
clarifying which requirements apply
during the period of a national capacity
variance both to wastes that are
prohibited on the basis of exhibiting a
characteristic only, and to wastes that
have applicable treatment standards as
both listed and characteristic wastes.
Finally, the Agency is clarifying whether
to apply the TCLP or EP analytical
methods to verify compliance with the
treatment standards.
1. Overlap of Treatment Standards for
Listed Wastes that also Exhibit a
Characteristic
The Agency is today promulgating its
proposed approach with respect to
determining applicable treatment
standards for wastes that carry more
than one waste code.
(1) For wastes that carry more than
one characteristic waste code, the waste
must be treated to meet the treatment
standard for each characteristic.
(2) If a listed waste also exhibits one
or more hazardous characteristics, the
waste must be treated to meet the
treatment standard for each of the waste
codes 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
characteristic(s).
One commenter suggested that EPA
should require treatment in compliance
with the most stringent treatment
standard rather than the most waste-
specific treatment standard. The Agency
disagrees, and EPA is following the
general principle set out in previous
rulemakings that the more specific
treatment standard takes precedence.
This is the principle EPA adopted with
respect to California list wastes that are
covered by another treatment standard,
an analogous situation. See 52 FR 25773
and 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 is necessary for that
characteristic to be treated to meet the
characteristic treatment standard.
The Agency received several
comments indicating that subjecting
listed wastes to treatment standards for
characteristics is a major shift in the
current regulatory program. As stated in
the proposed rule, the Agency believes
that 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 requiring
treatment. As with the California list
wastes, EPA is applying this principle at
the point of generation, since otherwise
the treatment standard for the
characteristic constituent could be
ignored by removing the characteristic.
EPA is consequently promulgating new
requirements in § 268.9 (b) and (c) as
proposed.
EPA is further promulgating
provisions specifying that disposal of a
waste which at the point of disposal
exhibits a characteristic is prohibited
unless the treatment standard for that
characteristic component is above the
characteristic level. This approach is
again essentially the same as that which
EPA adopted for the analogous situation
involving California list wastes (see 52
FR 25767), and is needed to ensure that
the statutory prohibition against
disposal of characteristic hazardous
wastes is not violated.
2. Revisions to Waste Identification
Requirements
A consequence of the Agency's
interpretation that the prohibition for
characteristic wastes can apply
concurrently to wastes that also are
listed is a change in the initial
determination that a generator must
make pursuant to § 262.11. That section
presently sets out an either/or scheme
where if the generator determines that a
waste is listed, the generator does not
need to determine whether the waste
exhibits a characteristic (40 CFR 262.11
(b) and (c)). For purposes of compliance
with part 268, however, the generator
would need to know if the waste
exhibits a characteristic, even if the
waste is listed, because further
treatment of the waste is required if the
treatment standard for the listed waste
does not address the characteristic
property. Consequently, EPA is
amending section 262.11 to indicate that
generators must determine whether
listed wastes also exhibit characteristics
of hazardous waste for purposes of
compliance with" part 268.
In addition. §§ 261.21261.24 indicate
that wastes that exhibit the respective
characteristics and are not listed have
the designations D001-D017. However.
as discussed above, generators (and
other handlers) will need to know both
the listed, waste code and the
characteristic waste code in the event a
listed waste also exhibits a
characteristic which is not addressed by
the treatment standard for the listed
waste. EPA is consequently amending
the language in these sections to
indicate that wastes that carry
characteristic waste codes may also be
listed wastes.
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity
Variance
RCRA section 3004(h)(4) states that
during periods of national capacity
variances and case-by-case extensions,
hazardous wastes subject to those
extensions that are disposed in landfills
and surface impoundments may only be
disposed of if the landfill or surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements of
section 3004(o). EPA has interpreted this
language to mean that the landfill or
impoundment unit receiving such wastes
must be in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements.
§ 268.5(h)(2), and this interpolation was
sustained in Mobil Oil v. EPA, 871 F. 2d
149 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Under the present rule, it is possible
for prohibited characteristic wastes
subject to a national capacity variance
to become nonhazardous. For example,
certain D009 mercury wastes are subject
to a two-year national capacity
variance. If, during the period of the
variance, such a waste was treated to be
nonhazardous by a means other than
retorting and was disposed of in a
landfill or surface impoundment,
arguably the landfill or impoundment
unit would have to meet the minimum
technological requirements. '
EPA does not read the statute or the
rules this way. Rather, section 3004(h)(4)
only requires compliance "with the
requirements of subsection (o)." Section
3004(o), in turn, only applies to units
subject to Subtitle C. See also
§ 268.5(h)(2), which likewise imposes
minimum technological requirements
only on landfill and impoundment units
that are permitted or that have interim
status. Consequently, EPA dop« not
-------
22660
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday. June 1. 3990 / Rules and Regulations
Interpret these provisions as requiring
subtitle D landfill and surface
impoundment unite receiving prohibited
waste* during a national capacity ,
variance to have to satisfy the minimum
technological requirements.
Finally, for wastes that are subject to
more than one treatment standard, the
Agency is clarifying that during the
period of a national capacity variance
for one of the wastes, the treatment
standards for any other waste codes
that have not received such a variance
must be met. For example, if a K048
nonwastewater also exhibits the
characteristic for chromium, the waste
has a six-month capacity extension as a
K048 listed waste, but no capacity
extension as a D007 characteristic
waste. Therefore, at a minimum, the
waste must be treated to meet the
treatment standard for D007 (and any
other applicable characteristic treatment
standard) prior to land disposal. This
requirement is consistent with the
Agency's approach in previous
rulemakings in which it stated that in
setting the treatment standard, the
Agency is making a more waste-specific
determination; however, this
determination is not effective until the
capacity variance ends. Because
capacity exists to treat the characteristic
waste, the characteristic treatment
standards still apply, and the K048
waste must meet'the prohibitions for
characteristic wastes. The K048
treatment standard would then become
applicable when the national capacity
\ ariance expires. See 53 FR 31188.
Furthermore, if such listed/
characteristic wastes have been treated
so that they no longer exhibit any
characteristic and are to be disposed of
on a surface impoundment or landfill.
the unit must meet the minimum
technology requirements set out in
section 3004(o). as required for listed
wastes during the period of a national
capacity variance.
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Methods
for Compliance
Tlis Agency proposed two
alternatives in the proposed rule, that
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes either be a numerical standard
(tvpically lower then the characteristic
level) or be established at "the
characteristic level." See, e.g., 54 FR
48430/3. If the latter alternative were
adopted, the Agency did not specify
whether the characteristic level would
be measured by the EP test or by the
TCLP. The Agency did indicate in a
somewhat different context, however.
that it strongly prefers to use the TCLP
to measure compliance'wherever
possible Id. at 48432/3.
As stated in section ffi.D of today's
preamble, EPA is establishing treatment
standards for most characteristic wastes
at the characteristic level. The Agency
has determined that this level should be
measured by the TCLP. This is the
protocol that large quantity generators-,
will use to assess the toxicity of their
wastes starting on September 25,1890
and small quantity generators will begin
using on March 29.1991. It is also the
protocol used to measure the efficacy of
stabilization or other immobilization
treatment in most of the BOAT
standards. Most of the data submitted hi
response to the Agency's proposal were
based on the TCLP to measure treatment
performance, and these data indicate
(with a few exceptions) that treatment
to the characteristic level, as measured
by the TCLP, is achievable, (These data,
incidentally, were available for reply
comments, and the Agency received
dozens of reply comments on the data.)
Furthermore, if EPA were to establish
the EP as the protocol to measure
compliance with metal standards, then
regulated entities would have to subject
many wastes to both the EP (for
purposes of land disposal restriction
compliance) and the TCLP (for waste
identification purposes). The Agency
prefers not to impose this type of
duplicative burden. Accordingly, the
Agency is adopting the TCLP as the
means of measuring compliance with the
metal standards for toxic characteristic
Third Third wastes in this rule, with two
exceptions. For lead characteristic
nonwastewaters and all
nonwastewalers containing arsenic as
the primary hazardous constituent (i.e..
D004, K031. K084, K101. K102. P010,
P011. P012, P036, P038, and U136), the
Agency is specifying that if a waste does
not achieve the nonwastewater
standard based on analysis of a TCLP
extract but does achieve the standard
based on analysis of an EP extract, the
waste is in compliance with the
standard. The Agency is taking this
action because the performance data
used to develop the treatment standards
for these wastes were based on EP
toxicity leachate data. A more detailed
discussion is provided in section II1.A of
today's preamble.
5. Newly Identified TC Wastes
There is one final interpretive point
dealing with the interplay of the EP and
the new TCLP. EPA interprets the
statute such that wastes that exhibit the
toxicity characteristic by the TCLP but
not the EP are not presently prohibited,
even if the constituent causing the waste
to exhibit the TCLP is also a constituent
controlled by the EP. This is because
such wastes are newly identified
pursuant to RCRA section 3004(g)(4);
they were identified as hazardous after
November 7,1984.
6. Further Principles Governing
Applicability
a. Other Statutory Exemptions fir
Exclusions. The issues in this .
rulemaking concerning when hazardous
wastes become prohibited from land
disposal does not change the status of
other regulatory or statutory inclusions
or exclusions to the definition of solid or
hazardous waste found at 40 CFR 261.2-
.8. These provisions can override the
LDR point of generation evaluation to
keep wastes from being prohibited and
subject to a dilution prohibition or
treatment standard. This result is
consistent with EPA's existing
regulation at 40 CFR 288.1.
EPA believes that different legal and
policy considerations under exclusions
from the statutory and regulatory
definitions of solid waste and hazardous
waste require an evaluation of the
status of the waste at the point of
disposal. Generally, these exclusions
address the status of the waste without
regard to a particular constituent
concentration, and thus do not involve
issues of treatment levels or dilution:
EPA has not fully analyzed these
exclusions and, in the absence of
specific justification, will continue to
provide exclusions from the land
disposal restrictions for waste excluded
from the definition of hazardous or solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2-.6.
For example, solid waste does not
include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage. RCRA section
1004(27). EPA regulations further
provide that any mixture of domestic
sewage and other waste that passes
through a sewer system to a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) for
treatment is not solid waste. 40 CFR
261.4(a)(l). Thus, even if a waste is
hazardous at the point of generation, the
domestic sewage exclusion would allow
land disposal of the solid waste at the
POTW without meeting treatment
standards under section 3004(m)
(assuming that there is no land disposal
of the waste before it becomes subject
to the domestic sewage exclusion).
b. Restricted Wastes Versus
Prohibited Wastes. Consistent with the
cradle-to-grave mandate of RCRA's land
disposal restrictions, those who manage
hazardous waste will need to assess
what LDR prohibitions apply at different
points in the waste management
process. First, generators of restricted
wastes must assess whether the waste
is prohibited under the LDR. Restricted
waste is defined by several conditions.
-------
Federal Register / -Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22661
See 51FR at 4061940632 (November 7,
1986); 54 FR 36967. 36968 (Sept. 6,1989).
As discussed above, however, certain
statutory exemptions that would be
evaluated at the point of land disposal
may apply to restricted wastes.
Moreover, during either a national ,
capacity variance under section
3004(h)(2) or a case-by-case variance
under section 3004(h)(3), disposal of
certain restricted wastes into certain
units would not be prohibited. Also,
placement of waste in a "no migration"
unit is not prohibited land disposal, nor
is placement in an impoundment in
compliance with 40.CFR 268.4. In
addition, there are situations where
waste in managed in a way which
results in no land disposal. EPA outlined
which LDR prohibitions attach to wastes
managed under each one of the above
scenarios in 54 FR 36967, 36968
(September 6,1989).
c. Changes in Treatability Groups.
The question of whether a given waste
is going to prohibited land disposal is
complicated by the fact that wastes may
change form or treatability groups after
undergoing treatment. For example,
treatment of a wastewater often
generates a nonwastewater sludge as
well as a treated wastewater. Also,
incineration of a nonwastewater can
generate a nonwastewater (ash) as well
as a wastewater (scrubber water). (A
treatability group is defined both in
terms of the applicable waste code and
the form the waste is in.) The specific
problem addressed here, which occurs
most often with respect to characteristic
wastes, is the effect that changes in
treatability groups have on the initial
status of a waste as prohibited or non-
prohibited.
First, by way of background, the part
148 and 268 regulations generally divide
the universe of wastes potentially
subject to land disposal prohibitions
into two broad categories: wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. For purposes of
the LDR program, "wastewaters" are
generally defined to have less than 1%
total organic carbon (TOC) and less
than 1% total suspended solids. Any
other waste stream is deemed a
nonwastewater. (There are certain
enumerated exceptions from certain
wastes such as F001-F005 solvents, and
K011, K013, and K014 acrylonitrile
wastes. See generally § 268.2 hi today's
rule, incorporating the various
regulatory definitions.) Part 268 provides
for different treatment standards for
these two broad categories of waste.
The standards may also have different
effective dates because of national
capacity variances. Treatment
standards for listed wastes apply to the
waste as generated as well as to all of
the residual wastes that are generated in
treating the original prohibited waste.
See 53 FR 31138, 31145 (August 17,1988).
However, 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 specify other requirements).
54 FR 26594, 26624,26630 (June 23,
1989).17
A change in treatability group during
the waste management process can
affect whether the waste prior to the
change hi treatability groups is subject
to certain LDR requirements. The
following rules are important to
understand this point First, if a
treatability group, and treatment
residues in the same treatability group,
is not going to prohibited land disposal,
then neither the original waste nor the
residue is subject to the treatment
standards or to the dilution prohibition.
As a corollary, waste is prohibited if the
treatability group, or residues from the
same treatability group is land disposed.
This interpretation provides a clear line
of demarcation, avoids the enormous
difficulties of determining new points of
generation every time a hazardous
waste is altered in some respect and
avoids having an initial waste's status
as prohibited determined in all cases by
some later management of a residue
derived from the initial waste.
d. Examples. Several examples will be
useful to help clarify this point.
Example 1. Listed wastewater A is
treated in a tank that yields two residue
streams: nonwastewater residue B and
wastewater residue C. The
nonwastewater residue is land disposed
and the wastewater residue is
discharged pursuant to an NPDES
permit without being land disposed.
Only nonwastewater residue B is
going to prohibited land disposal.
Moreover, residue B is a newly
generated hazardous waste belonging to
a different treatability group than the
original waste. See 53 FR 31209; 52 FR
25667 col. 1 (July 8,1987). The original
hazardous wastewater A is a restricted
waste, but not prohibited, and so is not
subject to the dilution prohibition in 40
CFR 268.3 or any treatment standard
under part 268. Wastewater residue C
17 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. See 52 FR 21012
(June 4.1987); but see 52 FR 25767 (June 8.1987) '
noting special circumstances when California list
wastes are involved. Dewatering technologies (such
as filtration and centrifugation) that are designed to
separate wastewater from nonwastewater are not
prohibited.
also is a restricted waste (due to the
"derived from rule" it carries the same
hazardous waste code under 40 CFR
part 261 as the original waste A), but it
is not a prohibited waste because the
wastewater treatability group is not
going to prohibited land disposal.
Example 2. Listed nonwastewater D is
treated to yield two nonwastewater
residues E and F (which,carry the same
waste code as D based on the derived
from rule). Residue E is incinerated and
the ash is land disposed; residue F is
directly reused as a substitute for a
commercial chemical product. In this
case, nonwastewaters D and E are
subject to treatment standards and the
dilution prohibition. EPA does not want
impermissible dilution of
nonwastewater D to be the reason that
the nonwastewater residue E meets the
BDAT level. Thus, since there is no
change in treatability group between the
original point of generation and land
disposal for one residue of the original
waste D the part 268 prohibitions apply.
However, residue F is not a prohibited
waste because the definition of solid
waste excludes secondary materials
that are directly reused as substitutes
for commercial chemical products.
As illustrated by the above examples,
a unit treatment operation can be a
point of generation for certain
treatability groups. To assess what
prohibitions apply, one must first
determine whether any residues of the
listed waste go to prohibited land
disposal. If no residues are land
disposed then part 268 treatment
requirements do not apply. If one or
more residues are placed in prohibited
land disposal, the dilution prohibition
applies between the point of land
disposal and the point that a given
treatability group first exists. In example
1, that point is immediately after the
tank treatment operation. In example 2,
that point is the original point of
generation for nonwastewater D.
The rules regarding treatability groups
apply similarly to characteristic wastes.
The fact that a waste loses its
hazardous characteristic at some point
prior to land disposal does not
constitute a change in treatability group.
The fact that the derived from rule does
not apply to characteristic wastes is
irrelevant because the derived from rule
only affects hazardous waste status, not
treatability group determination (which
is a function of physical form). To
determine if a characteristic waste is
prohibited, the decision is still made
based on whether the waste or any
residue in the same treatability group is
destined for land disposal. This
approach is necessary to assure that this
-------
1990 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No
level was met by treatment and not by
dilution. The following example helps
illustrate this decision rule.
Example 3, Wastewater J is EP toxic
for lead. It is treated in a tank and
generates a sludge K, that is non-
hazardons. The treated wastewater L,
which no longer exhibits a
characteristic, is then sent to a surface
impoundment for further treatment, after
which it in discharged under an NPDES
permit. The sludge is sent to a landfill.
The sludge K is not a restricted
hazardous waste, notwithstanding that
it derives from treatment of a
characteristic hazardous waste. This is
because it is a new treatability group
which is not hazardous at point of
generation. The status of wastewaters J
and L is determined by the special rules
for characteristic wastes managed in
CWA systems; therefore, they are
prohibited wastes but are not subject to
a dilution prohibition. Since wastewater
L meets the treatment standard when it
is land disposed, the disposal is legal.
Example 4. Electroplating wastewater
M which exhibits a hazardous
characteristic, is treated in a tank to
vield a treated wastewater N and a
nonwastewater sludge O. The treated
wastewater N, which no longer exhibits
a hazardous characteristic, is discharged
into a Class I injection well and the
sludge is sent to a landfill.
In this example, neither wastewater M
nor N is a prohibited waste due to the
rpecial rules for wastes managed in
Class I injection wells subject to the
SOW A. Sludge O is a newly generated
waste that meets the listing description
for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
Sludge O is a prohibited waste because
this nonwastewater is destined for
placement in a land disposal unit.
Example 5. An EP toxic wastewater
slude P is dewateved to yield a
ncnwaste.water sludge Q which is EP
toxin and now exceeds the California
list level for lead. Also, a wastewater R
is generated which exhibits a hazardous
characteristic. The sludge Q is sent to a
landfill and the wastewater R is mixed
with domestic sewage and sent through
e sewer system to a POTW.
Doth sludges P and Q are prohibited
wastes because Q is sent to land
disposal and P is in the same treatability
group as Q. Note that during a
(hypothetical) national capacity
variance for the lead characteristic
treatment standard. Q must comply with
the California list standard for lead.
Wastewater R is a restricted waste, but
not a prohibited waste because it is
covered by a § 261.4 exclusion from the
definition of solid waste.
In conclusion, it should be noted that
the previous discussion applies in
determining when prohibitions attach.
The issue of what administrative
requirements apply by virtne of a .waste
being restricted is discussed elsewhere
in this preamble.
F. Amended Tracking System for
Characteristic Prohibited Wastes
EPA's decisions concerning
characteristic wastes necessitate certain
modifications of the tracking provisions
contained in § 268.7. See 54 FR 48491
and 48492 (requesting comment on this
point]. This section of the preamble
outlines the modifications the Agency is
making to the existing rules, and
clarifies certain points regarding the
rules' applicability to listed wastes as
well as to characteristic wastes. The
Agency is also amending one of the
certification provisions that presently
fails to mention compliance with the
prohibition on impermissible dilution.
A. Applicability of Tracking
Requirements
1. Clarification of and Changes to
Generally Applicable Recordkeeping
Requirements. Section 268.7 applies to
generators, treaters, storers, and
disposers of restricted wastes. Most of
the provisions contemplate that
restricted wastes are being shipped off-
site for treatment or disposal (see § 288.7
(a)(2) and (a)(3), and § 268.7 (b}(4) and
(b)(5)). The first point the Agency
wishes to address is the existing
requirements that apply when restricted
wastes are managed on-site. At a
minimum, certain recordkeeping
requirements are triggered. Section
268.7(a) states that generators must first
determine whether their waste is
restricted. Section 2G3.7(a)(6) indicates
that generators must retain a copy of all
demonstrations and other waste
analysis or documentation for all wastes
sent to either on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal. The
Agency interprets these two provisions
to mean that ordinarily generators
managing hazardous wastes on-site
must determine if the waste is restricted,
and keep some documentation of that
determination plus some documentation
of where the restricted waste was
treated, stored or disposedwhether
treatment storage, or disposal occurs
on-site or off-site. These recordkeeping
requirements for on-site management
are needed to implement the various
prohibitions or to account for those
restricted wastes that for some reason
are not also prohibited. The Agency
notes briefly that certain wastes are not
subject to recordkeeping requirements
at all by virtue of the exemptions from
all of part 268 that are contained in
sections 263.1 (b) and (e). (See 54 FR
38968 (September 6.1989) discussing
what a "restricted" waste is.)
The Agency is applying the existing
§ 268.7 (a) and (a}(6) requirements to
characteristic wastes that are restricted
under today's final rule. These
requirements apply even when the
hazardous characteristic is removed
prior to disposal, or when the waste is
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste under § 261.2-
.6 subsequent to the point of generation.
For example, if a characteristic waste is
not prohibited because it is discharged
pursuant to a NPDES permit without
land disposal, some record must still be
kept indicating why the waste is not
prohibited. (For example, a statement
that there is no land disposal in the
system prior to the § 261.4 exclusion
should be kept in the facility's operating
record.) The rationale for this is that the
§ 261.4(a)(l) exclusion for domestic
sewage does not attach until the mixture
passes through the sewer system to a
POTW; in the interim, the waste is
restricted. (See also section III.E.6 of
today's final rule.) Finally, this
information should already exist in any
case, to justify the absence of subtitle C
regulation.
B. Tracking (i.e. Notification/
Certification) Provisions Applicable to
Generators Shipping Wastes Off-Site
Under existing § 268.7(a), generators
managing restricted wastes must
determine whether the wastes meet
applicable treatment standards on the
point of generation, or are otherwise
exempt from those standards. Separate
tracking provisions apply to each of
these situations. Section 263.7(a) (1), (2),
and (3). In all cases, however, the
generator must prepare a notice for each
. off-site shipment setting out the
hazardous waste identification number,
applicable treatment standard or
prohibition level, manifest number, and
available waste analysis data. If a
generator's waste meets the treatment
standard, the generator must prepare a
certification to this effect. (EPA is thus
using the terms "tracking document"
and "notification and certification"
synonymously in the discussion that
follows.)
If a generator's characteristic waste
has been treated to meet the treatment
standard before it is sent off-site, EPA
believes that the existing tracking
scheme requires some modification.
There are two principal reasons to make
changes. Characteristic wastes that
meet treatment standards will be sent
(almost invariably) to subtide D
facilities. EPA is concerned that sending
part 208 notifications and certifications
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22663
to subtitle D facilities could be
counterproductive. These facilities are
not familiar Maifcsnbtitle C paperwork
' and could easily .mistake ihe tracking
forms .{Le. the notifications and
certifications} for manifests and refuse
to accept the shipment. Even If the forms
are not mistaken for manifests, the
subtitle D facilities could view the forme
as describing hazardous wastes and
refuse to accept the wastes. This conld
result in a situation where scarce
subtitle C management capacity is used
for non4iazardous wastes because
subtitle D facilities are refusing the non-
hazardous wastes.
These potential misunderstandings
are probably solvable as subtitle D
operators become more sophisticated
and as EPA further implements its land
disposal restriction training and
guidance efforts. The Agnecy believes
further, however, that under today's rule
no important interest would be
vindicated by requiring notifications and
certifications to be sent to subtitle D
facilities. When listed wastes are
involved, the tracking document tells
disposal facilities what standard the
waste must meet before it can be land
disposed. Treatment standards for most
characteristic wastes are established at
characteristic levels, however. Thus,
these wastes can be land disposed in a
subtitle D facility when they no longer
exhibit a characteristic. Having a
generator certify to an off-site subtitle D
facility that the waste no longer exhibits
a characteristic adds little or nothing to
the information the disposal facility
needs to know to dispose of the waste.
That is, the disposal facility already
must determine that the waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic. Since under the
present rule,.tending the tracking forms
to subtitle D facilities could normally
have only the counterproductive effects
discussed in the previous paragraph,
EPA has determined that the tracking
forms should not accompany shipments
from generators to subtitle D facilities.
(As noted below, the Agency is adopting
the same approach for any shipments to
subtitle D facilities, so that a treatment
facility that has treated a characteristic
waste to meet a treatment standard also
would not send tracking documents to a
subtitle D disposal facility.) EPA
realizes that some of the treatment
standards in today's rule, notably those
for reactive cyanides and pesticides,
and the standards for characteristic
wastes that are treatment methods,
would generally result in treatment
below characteristic levels. In these
cases, the tracking documents would
add information useful to a subtitle D
facility. EPA is concerned enough about
potential confusion and disruption of
subtitle D disposal practices, however,
that at this time the Agency believes it
the better itecision not to require
' tracking documents for this set of
wastes to go to subtitle D facilities.
By deciding that tracking documents
for prohibited characteristic wastes that
no longer exhibit a characteristic should
not go to subtitle D facilities, the Agency
is not deciding that notifications and
certifications should not be prepared fat
such wastes. The Agency's concern is
where those notifications and
certifications are sent EPA believes,
and is requiring, that the notifications
and certifications be sent to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
or his delegated representative, or to a
state authorized to implement the land
disposal restrictions. The person
preparing the notification and
certification must also include the
identijty and address of the facility
where the treated waste is sent,
including the address. This is the
approach the Agency adopted in an
analogous circumstance where sending
notifications and certifications to the
ultimate disposer would be
counterproductive or otherwise be ill-
advised. See § 268.7(b)(8) and 53 FR
31198 (Aug. 17,1988) (notifications and
certifications of persons treating
hazardous wastes to produce hazardous
waste-derived products that are to be
used in a manner constituting disposal
are to send the notifications and
certifications to EPA or to an authorized
state, not to the ultimate user of the
hazardous waste-derived product). By
requiring notifications and certifications
to be prepared, EPA is also assuring that
a record is kept that the characteristic
waste has been treated to meet the
standard and not irapennissibly diluted.
Generators (or treatment facilities, see
below) would also have to certify that
these requirements were satisfied. Thus,
the key objectives of the notification
and certification provisions are
satisfied.
EPA is making some slight
modifications in the notification form
that would be sent to EPA (or to.an
authorized state). This is because the
existing notification form refers to the
waste's ID number and manifest number
when shipped. Since wastes no longer
exhibiting a characteristic have neither
an ID number nor a manifest number,
some small modifications are necessary.
While the notification form would not
contain hazardous waste codes, it must
contain a complete and accurate
description of the waste, including its
former hazardous waste classification.
In addition, although a manifest number
would not be included, the notifications
must clearly identify the facility
receiving the waste.
EPA is not amending the tracking
requirements for those characteristic
wastes that still exhibit a characteristic
when they are sent off-site. All of the
normal § 26&7(aXl} notice requirements
fit this situation {Le. the waste has an ID
number, it does have to have a manifest.
etc.) and do not require any change. The
tracking document also would be going
to a subtitle C facility so thai sose of the
counterproductive effects discussed
above with respect to subtitle D
facilities would occur. Thus, no changes
to existing rales are required.
The following examples illustrate how
the revised tracking requirements would
apply to generators of characteristic
wastes:
1. Generator A generates a D008
nonwastewater that is sent off-site to a
treatment facility.
The generator would prepare a '
§ 268.7{a)(l) notice which would set out
the EPA hazardous waste number,
treatment standards, manifest number,
and any waste analysis data. Because
the waste is still hazardous, no revised
notice is necessary.
2. Generator B generates a D008
nonwastewater that is not a spent lead
acid battery. The generator treats the
waste on-site to meet the treatment
standard and then sends it off-site for
disposal in a subtitle D landfill.
Generator B would have to prepare a
notice and certification to document that
the waste has met the treatment
standard and has not been diluted
impermissibly. Rather than send the
notification and certification to a
subtitle D facility, the generator would
send it instead to the EPA Regional
Office or to an authorized state.
Included on the notification would be
the identity and location of the subtitle
D facility where the waste has been
sent.
C. Tracking Provisions Applicable to
Treaters
EPA is adopting the same approach
for treaters of characteristic wastes as it
is for generators. Thus, tracking
documents for shipments of
characteristic wastes that meet a
treatment standard, and therefore no
longer exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, would be sent to EPA
or an authorized state (along with
information documenting the receiving
facility's location), not to a subtitle D.
facility. The reasons are the same as
those for generators discussed above.
EPA is also making the same slight
-------
1990 / Rules and Regulations
, adjustments in the notification
requirement.
The following examples illustrate now
the amended rules would apply to
treaters:
1. Treater A receives a D007
nonwastewater that it treats to meet the
treatment standard and sends to a
. subtitle D landfiUVThe treater also
generates a wastewater in the course of
treatment that does not exhibit a
characteristic.
The treater must prepare a notice and
certification which it would send to the
EPA Regional Office or to an authorized
state. The wastewater generated during
treatment is not a prohibited waste
because it is a new treatability group
whose status as a non-prohibited waste
Is determined when it (i.e. the new
treatability group) is generated.
Therefore, part 268 does not apply to the
wastewater.
2. Treater B receives a high TOG
ignitable waste that it incinerates. The
ash, which no longer exhibits a
characteristic, is sent to a Subtitle D.
landfill.
The treater would prepare a
notification and certification and send
them to EPA or to an authorized state,
as in the previous example. At least at
this time, the Agency is not requiring
that tracking documents be sent to
subtitle D facilities, even when the
treatment standard is a designated
method.
D. Land Disposal Facilities
Under existing rules, subtitle C
disposal facilities receiving prohibited
wastes must keep copies of the notice
and certification prepared by the
generator and/or the treater, must test
wastes (or waste extracts) at a
frequency specified in their waste
analysis plan (as modified in today's
rulef, and must dispose of certain types
of wastes in minimum technology units.
Section 208.7(c) (1), (2). and (3). These
requirements do not fit well for the
characteristic wastes prohibited in
today's rule. The requirement of
disposal in minimum technology units
does not have any applicability at all.
Moreover, if a land disposal facility is a
subtitle D facility receiving non-
' hazardous waste, EPA does not believe
that testing requirements are
appropriate to implement today's rule.
These facilities are already barred from
accepting hazardous waste and so must
ascertain if the wastes they are
receiving exhibit a characteristic. Thus,
since few of the treatment standards
adopted today require treatment to
levels below the characteristic, the
Agency believes that existing controls to
ensure against receipt of hazardous
waste will constitute sufficient
corroborative testing by a disposal
facility. The Agency is thus indicating
that the requirements of § 268.7(c) do
not apply to Subtitle D disposal facilities
receiving wastes that no longer exhibit a -
characteristic. -
E. Changes in Certification to Reflect
Dilution Prohibition
EPA is also amending the
certifications of compliance required of
treaters and generators to state that the
treatment standard was not achieved by
a form of impermissible dilution. This
requirement, of course, is already
contained in § 268.3 and today's
amendment simply includes a reference
to this requirement in the certification.
(The existing certification for treatment
facilities in fact refers to the dilution
prohibition, but does so in an overbroad
manner by referring to all dilution,
rather than only impermissible dilution.
EPA is thus modifying this reference in
today's rule.)
G. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies
to Centralized Treatment
1. Background
EPA discussed the issue of
permissible and impermissible dilution
of prohibited wastes at length in
previous rulemakings. EPA's existing
rules state that prohibited wastes
cannot be diluted in order to circumvent
a statutory or regulatory prohibition or
effective date. 40 CFR 268.3.18 The rules
also generally discourage aggregation of
wastes not amenable to cotreatment by
providing that when wastes with
different standards for a common
constituent are combined for purposes
of treatment, the treatment residue must
meet the lowest applicable treatment
standard. 40 CFR 268.41(b).
In interpretive preamble discussions,
the Agency explained that these rules
are not intended to discourage
legitimate centralized treatment, and
that aggregation of wastes preceding
legitimate centralized treatment is not
considered to be impermissible dilution.
See e.g., 52 FR 25766 (July 8,1987) and
other notices there cited. However, the
Agency noted that centralized treatment
of incompatible wastestreams was not
legitimate treatment and constitutes
impermissible dilution. Id. For example,
it is impermissible dilution to aggregate
a heavily concentrated organic solvent
for which incineration is the appropriate
treatment technology with less
concentrated solvent streams for which
biological treatment is appropriate.19
In this rulemaking, EPA believes that
it is a necessary and responsible action
on the Agency's part to indicate how
these existing rules apply when
prohibited characteristic wastes are
involved. Contrary to the views of some
of the commenters, this is not a new
issue unrelated to the general substance
of the Third Third rulemaking. Absent
discussion, the existing rules would still
apply to prohibited characteristic
wastes, but the regulated community
would be unaware of how the Agency
interpreted their application and would
be potentially unable to determine how
to conduct their operations hi order to
comply with the dilution prohibition.
EPA also believes that further
clarification of the dilution rules with
respect to prohibited listed wastes is
warranted.
2. Summary of Proposal
EPA's proposal dealt with two
particular issues. The first was the
question of what constitutes legitimate
treatment as opposed to impermissible
dilution. The Agency indicated that any
dilution that failed to meet the section
3004(m) standard of substantially
reducing the prohibited waste's toxicity
or mobility would be impermissible, and
further proposed to quantify this
statutory standard by indicating that
there must be some actual reduction in
the prohibited waste's toxicity or
mobility as a result of treatment. 54 FR
48494. To satisfy this test, the Agency
indicated at a minimum that there would
need to be actual reduction through
treatment of at least one BOAT
constituent for each prohibited waste
that is treated. Id. EPA further proposed
that any dilution of a prohibited waste
to render it non-hazardous, in lieu of
treating, would be considered !
impermissible. Id. at 48495. The Agency
solicited comment, however, on whether
dilation could be considered a legitimate
form of treatment for certain prohibited
characteristic wastes. Id. at 48496.
These proposals were the focus of
many of the comments, most dealing
with the implications for wastewater
' Although section 268.3 is written in terms of
"restricted" hazardous wastes, it applies equally to
the narrower class of prohibited hazardous wastes.
See 54 FR 38968 (Sept. 6,1989) explaining the
applicability of the dilution prohibition.
" EPA notes that its authority to promulgate a
dilution prohibition rests not only on the land
disposal restriction statutory provisions and
Congressional directives {see in particular section
3004(m) and related statutory requirements for EPA
to establish pretreatment standards as a condition
to land disposal: see also H. Rep. No. 198,98th
Cong. 1st Sess. 38 (1903) and S..Rep. No. 284, 98th
Cong. 1st Sess. 17), but in addition, the more general
authority in section 3004(a)(3) to establish treatment
standards "as may be satisfactory to the
Administrator" and "as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment".
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22665
treatment systems that include land-
based treatment (often biological
treatment ponds) or storage (for
example, holding ponds for corrosive
wastes that have been neutralized by
dilution). Commenters also correctly
viewed this issue as being intertwined
(atproposal) with the implications of
requiring treatment of characteristic
wastes below .the characteristic levels.
More broadly still the issue presents
another aspect of 4he question jof
whether to determine if wastes are
prohibited at the point of generation or
at the point of disposal.
3. Today's Action
The existing rules on dilution and
EPA's interpretive statements regarding
those rules indicate that the dilution
prohibition has a two-fold objective: (1)
To ensure that prohibited wastes are
actually treated; and (2) to ensure that
prohibited wastes are treated by
methods that are appropriate for that
type of waste. EPA has acknowledged
that prohibited wastes which are
aggregated are not diluted
impermissibly if they are treated
legitimately in centralized treatment
systems, irrespective of the dilution
inherent in such a system. Thus, if
"dilution" is a legitimate type of
treatment, or a necessary pretreatment
step in a legitimate treatment system,
such dilution is permissible. Conversely,
prohibited wastes that are "treated" by
inappropriate methods, or sent to
treatment systems that do not treat the
wastes, are diluted impermissibly.
In applying these principles to
characteristic wastes, EPA encountered
two major difficulties: first, the interface
with regulatory systems established
pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
Safe Drinking Water Act, and second,
difficulties in being able to quantify the
proposal in a meaningful way. In section
III.D above, we have already discussed
the potential difficulties of integrating a
full-scale dilution prohibition with the
Clean Water Act's NPDES and
pretreatment regulations, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act's UIC program. We
explain below'the attempts EPA made
to quantify the proposed standard, and
the obstacles the Agency encountered.
The Agency's proposal to require
reduction of a BOAT constituent as a
means of evaluating if impermissible
dilution has occurred did not indicate
how much reduction would be deemed
adequate, and thus without further
elaboration not only fails to provide
clear guidance but also potentially fails
to achieve the objective of assuring that
wastes are treated by an appropriate
treatment method. More importantly,
quantifying the extent of removal
necessary to be considered legitimate
treatment leads to * very complicated
system given ihe number of prohibited
wastes, treatabttity groups, treatment
methods and treatment train
configurations.
Given these problems and
complications, EPA has decided that the
most constructive course is to provide
additional interpretive guidance on the
existing dilution prohibition contained
in § 268A and to explain more fully how
those rules would apply in specific
situations. We also explain again how
we have determined to deal with the
interface between RCRA and other
wastewater regulatory programs.
a. The existing dilution prohibition
ordinarily would not apply to prohibited
characteristic wastes generated and
managed in treatment systems regulated
by the CWA orSDWA. As explained in
a previous section, EPA has determined
in most cases not to apply a dilution
prohibition to characteristic wastes that
are generated and managed in treatment
systems regulated under the CWA or
SDWA. EPA believes, however, that
where the Agency has established a
method as the treatment standard for a
characteristic waste, and that where
application of that method is consistent
with and promoting of the objectives of
the Clean Water Act or the Safe
Drinking Water Act programs, then the
method of treatment attaches to the
waste at the point of generation, and
dilution to change the treatability group
to avcid application of the method is
impermissible. For example, in this rule,
this is true of the ignitible
nonwastewaters containing greater than
10% TOG and the EP toxic pesticide
wastewaters (DO12-17) if these wastes
are managed in wastewater treatment
systems regulated under the Clean
Water Act The treatment method for
these wastes is incineration, fuel
substitution, or some type of wastewater
treatment technology that destroys
organics. Not only are these wastes
amenable to conbustion treatment (or
other treatment that destroys organics),
but they typically contain high
concentrations of toxic organic
constituents whose destruction furthers
the RCRA goal of decreasing waste
toxicity and minimizing threats from
land disposal.
Prohibiting dilution of these wastes
(i.e.. requiring application of a specified
treatment method) is entirely consistent
with the existing regulatory framework
of CWA's NPDES/pretreatment
programs. For example, the 10% TOC
ignitible wastes are inappropriate for
wastewater treatment as they would
overwhelm the capacity of most
biological treatment systems. (As noted
in the preamble section describing the
D001 treatment standards, EPA in fact
developed the 10% TOC -cutoff for
ignitible wastes based on the outer limit
of design capacity for biological
treatment systems.) The Clean Water
Act effluent limitations guidelines and
the standards addressing these types of,
wastes already contemplate that these
wastes will not be diluted, but rather
will be treated in "the appropriate
.
The Iqgic that forces this decision for
these wastes in a NPDES/pretreatment
Clean Water Act system is not equally
persuasive in the case of wastes
disposed of by injection. As noted in
section ELD, Class I deep wells inject
below the lowermost geological
formation containing an underground
source of drinking water. Deep wells are
not currently injecting wastes that
contain any of the pesticide constituents
found in D012-17 characteristic wastes.
Additionally, there is not a design
concern of overwhelming the biological
treatment system in the deep well
scenario. In this instance, it is illogical
to force deep wells to utilize a specified
method as there is little concomitment
environmental or technical benefit
through its utilization. Therefore, in
today's final rule, the Agency is
exempting deep walls from specified
methods and the dilution prohibition as
long as the characteristic is removed
before disposal
b. Dilution is considered to bean
acceptable method of treatment for non-
toxic characteristic wastes. Although
EPA proposed that the dilution
prohibition would cover all
characteristic wastes, the Agency
specifically noted that dilution might be
' an acceptable type of treatment for non-
toxic characteristic wastes and solicited
comment on the issue. 54 FR 48498. After
considering the comments, the Agency
has determined that for non-toxic
hazardous characteristic wastes (Le.,
wastes that exhibit a hazardous
physical or chemical property), it should
not matter how the non-toxic
characteristic property is removed so
long as it is removed. Thus, dilution is
an acceptable treatment method for
such wastes. (This issue is discussed in
more detail in the sections on each
particular characteristic waste.). The
Agency realizes that this approach does
not fully address the potential problem
of toxic constituents that may be present
in such wastes, nor encourages
minimization or recovery of non-toxic
characteristic hazardous wastes. EPA
has determined that these potential
problems should be addressed, if at all,
-------
1990 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol'. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1
in otherrulemakings (or potentially in a
reauthorized statute) and are too
difficult to resolve in this proceeding,
riven the extraordinary pressures and.
limited review time imposed by the May
8 statutory deadline.
EPA also notes that it considers high
TOG ignitable nonwastewaters, reactive
cyanide wastes, and reactive sulfide
wastes to be toxic characteristic wastes.
As noted above, the high TOG ignitables
have been shown to frequently contain
high concentrations of organic toxicants.
Reactive cyanide and sulfide wastes
obviously contain toxic constituents.
Thus, dilution would not be an
appropriate method of treatment for any
of these.
c. Determining when types of
treatment (including centralized
treatment) involving dilution are
permissible. The Agency is able to
provide limited additional guidance
today on the issue of when treatment
methods involving dilution are
permissible. The issue frequently arises
when prohibited wastes are aggregated
for purposes of treatment First, if the
wastes are all legitimately amenable to
the same type of treatment, and this
method of treatment is utilized for the
aggregated wastes, the aggregation step
is not impermissible dilution. Thus, it is
permissible (and normally desirable) for
prohibited organic-containing wastes
that are suitable for combustion to be
aggregated before combustion even
though the concentration of organics in
some of the wastes decreases. (See, for
example, the discussion for wastes
KCH8-52.) On the other hand, as noted
above, aggregation of high TOG
ignitable wastes with ignitable
wastewaters for centralized biological
treatment is not permissible. Biological
treatment is inappropriate for the high
TOG ignitable wastes, and the
aggregation step merely dilutes the high
TOG stream.
As noted above, EPA is unable to
quantify across-the-board what types of
treatment are appropriate for particular
prohibited hazardous wastes (both
listed and characteristic). Clearly, as
stated at proposal, units would have to
be doing some treatment (i.e., removing
toxicity or mobility of BOAT
constituents). In addition, treatment
units would have to be treating wastes
that are amenable to treatment in that
type of unit or by that type of treatment,
or. in the case of centralized treatment
units treating aggregated wastes,
appropriately combining wastes for
common treatment An example of type
of treatment that is inappropriate for
treatment of certain prohibited wastes
would be biological treatment systems
used to treat prohibited wastes having
treatment standards for metals. In these
systems, metal removal is incidental and
nowhere as efficient as systems
designed to treat metals; biological
treatment systems are designed solely
for organic treatment (EPA notes,
however, that since it is not applying
dilution rules for most characteristic
wastewaters, the above example would
only apply in cases when a listed
prohibited metal-bearing wastewatera
wastewater with treatment standards
for metalswas being treated in a
biological treatment unit If this
hypothetical biological treatment were a
surface impoundment EPA would not
view it as satisfying the requirement of
section 3005(j)(ll) and § 268.4 that it be
conducting "treatment." See discussion
at 52 FR 25778-79 (July 8,1987) where
EPA determined in an analogous
circumstance that impoundments which
primarily evaporate hazardous
constituents do not qualify as section
268.4 impoundments which may receive
' wastes that have not met the treatment
standard.) The clearest objective
indication that proper treatment for a
prohibited waste is being conducted is if
the treatment is the same type as that on
which the treatment standard is based.
Thus, any aggregation before such
treatment would ordinarily not be
considered to be impermissible dilution.
However, other forms of treatment may
also be appropriate. Such
determinations will be made on a case-
by-case basis.
d. Dilution to remove a characteristic.
EPA proposed that prohibited hazardous
wastes could not be diluted by
impermissible means to render them
non-hazardous, even though the waste
resulting from dilution would not have
to be managed in a subtitle C unit. 54 FR
48495. Although this possibility exists
for all prohibited wastesboth those
that are listed (i.e., dilution to achieve
delisting levels) and those that exhibit
characteristicsthe issue arises most
often with respect to characteristic
prohibited wastes.
EPA is finalizing this approach in the
final rule, modified, however, by a
number of principles discussed above.
Thus, since it is permissible to dilute
prohibited non-toxic ignitable, reactive,
and corrosive wastes, it is permissible to
remove the characteristic from such
wastes by this means. Second, dilution
of prohibited characteristic wastewaters
is normally permissible because the
Agency does not wish to disrupt existing
regulatory programs developed under
other statutes for such wastewaters.
These two modifications address the
concerns raised by many of the
commenters.-
For other situations; however, dilution
to remove-a prohibited waste's
characteristic (or to render it delistable)
is used "as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with [a
treatment standard]", and so falls within
the express terms of the § 268.3 dilution
prohibition. Furthermore, as the Agency
explained in detail in the proposal, if the
dilution prohibition were not to apply in
such circumstances, the authority
Congress granted the Agency to
establish treatment standards for
.characteristic wastes would be
essentially meaningless. Thus, EPA
adheres to the position that the act of
impermissibly diluting a prohibited
waste so that it no longer exhibits a
characteristic (or is rendered delistable)
is illegal.
5. Examples
a. Facility A generates an EP toxic
wastewater that it mixes in tanks with
other wastewater so that the
characteristic is removed. After mixing,
the aggregated wastewaters are
discharged to waters of the United
States.
The dilution prohibition does not
apply because the wastewater is not, a
prohibited waste; it is not being land
disposed. In addition, the Agency has
determined not to apply the dilution
prohibition rules to characteristic
wastewaters (with the exception of
those subject to certain treatment
methods that are managed in Clean
Water Act facilities).
b. Facility B generates a wastewater
that is corrosive and EP toxic for a
pesticide. It is mixed in tanks wjth other
wastewaters generated at the same
facility so that both characteristics are
removed. The aggregated mixture is then
injected into a Class IUIC well. While a
restricted waste at the point of
generation, these wastes are not
prohibited because they are injected
below the characteristic level in a Class
I injection well. See § 268.1(c)(3).
c. Facility C generates a wastewater
that is a listed hazardous waste that
contains metals for which EPA has
established treatment standards. It
aggregates this waste with organic
wastewaters that are generated on-site
so that the metal levels in the
aggregated wastewaters are below the
treatment standard. The aggregated
mixture is then sent to a surface
impoundment for biological treatment
and then discharged to waters of the
United States.
The dilution prohibition would be
violated. EPA does not consider
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. T.990 / Rules and Regulations
22667
biological treatment to be an
appropriate mode of treating metal-
bearing toxic wastes (i.e., wastes for ;
which there are treatment standards for
inorganic hazardous constituents); Any ,
. metal removal is incidental because the
treatment technology is not designed to
^remove metals. In addition, removals
are at a rate that is considerably less
efficient than could be achieved.by
chemical precipitation or other forms of
wastewater treatment Thus, in the
example, dilution would be used as a
substitute for treatment of the listed
waste and would therefore be illegal
dilution and not treatment (See 54 FR
38988 (Sept. 6,1989) (dilution prohibition
applies to wastes managed in section
268.4 impoundments).)
d. Facility D generates an EP toxic
nonwastewater that it stabilizes to meet
the treatment standard. The waste's
volume increases 400 per cent as a result
of stabilization..
Although there are too few facts hi
this example to give a definitive answer,
normally this large an increase in waste
volume would indicate that the
treatment standard is being achieved as
a result of dilution rather than
treatment, and therefore would be
impermissible.
H. Applicability of Today's Final Rule
to Mineral Processing Wastes
Section 3001{bK3)(A)(ii) of RCRA
excludes from the hazardous waste
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 (54 FR 36592) that narrowed the
scope of this exclusion for 25
enumerated wastea 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 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 became effective on March 1.
1990. On January 23,1990 (see 55 FR
2322-2354), EPA published another final
rule removing an additional five of these
wastes from the exclusion based on
additional volume and/or hazard data.
This final rule becomes effective on July
23,1990.
EPA believes that these previously
excluded'Wastes are "newly identified"
for the purpose of determining , .
applicability of the land disposal -
prohibitions. Although technically the -
wastes are not being identified by a new
characteristic, they are being brought
into the Subtitle C system after the
November 8,1984 enactment of HSWA.
A permissible interpretation of RCRA
section 3004(g)(4), which is ambiguous
as to whether it applies to wastes first
brought into the Subtitle C system after
1984 due to regulatory re-interpretation,
is that wastes brought into the system
after the 1984 RCRA amendments may
be prohibited from land disposal under a
different schedule than those wastes
that were hazardous on the date of
enactment of HSWA, and also are not
subject to the statutory hard hammer.
The policy reasons for preferring this
interpretation are those that prompted
Congress to establish a separate
prohibition schedule for other newly
identified and listed wastes: the need to
study such wastes separately, and
prioritization of hammer dates.
Consequently, because these wastes are
considered to be 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 promulgates treatment
standards for characteristic wastes. A
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 has the choice of whether
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
promulgated today as BDAT for EP toxic
hazardous wastes or other characteristic
hazardous wastes can be achieved in
treating the various mineral processing
wastes. Therefore. EPA has determined
that these newly identified mineral
processing wastes are not subject to the
BDAT standards promulgated today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. The.
Agency plans to study the mineral
processing wastes in the future to
determine BDAT for these newly
identified hazardous wastes.
. .There are circumstances when newly
identified mineral processing wastes
can, however, be subject to existing
hazardous waste prohibitions. In . .
particular, if the mineral processing
waste is mixed with other prohibited
wastes {Le., 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 solicited
comment on applicability of California
list prohibitions, but has determined that
these prohibitions will not apply. See
section HLF for a discussion of this -
issue. ..:' . ..
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 rules removing wastes from the
scope of the Bevill exclusion are not
being adopted pursuant to HSWA, they
do 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.
The Agency, in the proposed rule,
solicited comment on whether the BDAT
treatment standards proposed for the EP
toxic metals are appropriate for the
newly identified mineral processing
wastes. Of the comments received,
almost all supported EPA's position that
the mineral processing wastes are
sufficiently different from other
characteristic wastes to warrant
additional analysis, and that the
statutory hammer and the California list
prohibitions apply only to those wastes
regulated as hazardous at the time of the
HSWA enactment.
Several commenters argued against
the Agency's position-on mineral
processing wastes. One commenter
stated that since EPA has extensive
information available from the listing
process, that should be sufficient to
develop BDAT treatment-standards.
However, data collected and analyzed
for the purpose of listing a waste as
hazardous are different from those-.
required to perform BDAT analyses, 'n
addition, most of the analyses
-------
Feceral Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1
1990 / Rules and Regulations
performed have been to determine if the
' mineral procetsing wastes fall within
the scope of the Bevill Amendment (ie,
high vohnne/low hazard). Thus, the
Agency does not agree that it has '
sufficient data to determine BOAT
standards for mineral processing
wastes. ' '
Another commenier argued that these
wastes were improperly excluded from
regulation in the first place by an illegal
interpretation of the Bevill Amendment
in 1980, so should not be considered
newly identified at this time. The
Agency disagrees with the commenter
that mineral processing wastes cannot
bo considered newly identified wastes.
These wastes have become subject to
the subtitle C regulations subsequent to
the enactment of HSWA. and thus need
not be subject to the hard hammer, nor
must treatment standards for
characteristic hazardous wastes be
applied to them in this rulemaking.
Certainly, there is no indication in either
the statute or the legislative history that
in creating a 66-month deadline for
characteristic wastes, Congress
expected the Agency to address wastes
within the scope of the Bevill
Amendment at the time of HSW A's
promulgation.
/. 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 applicable treatment
standards and prohibition levels. This
notice must include the EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, the corresponding
treatment standards and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d). the manifest
number associated with the shipment of
waste, and waste analysis data, where
available f40 CFR 268.7(a)(l)). If the
generator has determined that the waste
bsing shipped is restricted, but can be
land disposed without further treatment.
the generator 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)). (EPA
reiterates that such determination must,
of course, be accurate. Thus, failure to
accurately determine a waste's status as
restricted is a violation of § 268.7 (a)(l)
or (a){2), as well as a potential violation
of other provisions.)
The Agency had received, prior to the
Third Third proposed rule, a number of
questions on whether the actual
treatment standards (lie* 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 of 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
these pre-proposal commenters had
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 argued that referencing the
standards serves the same purpose as
listing the specific treatment standards.
Furthermore, they stated that the
notification forms are becoming longer,
more complicated, and unwieldy as new
wastes *md corresponding treatment
standards are added to the list of wastes
restricted from land disposal, and thus
listing each treatment standard on the
notification form imposes an
unnecessary burden on generators.
As proposed in the Third Third notice
on November 22,1989 (54 FR 48496), the
Agency today is amending 40 CFR 268.7
to allow referencing the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) rather than listing
each treatment standard. EPA solicited
comment in the Third Third proposed
rule on this action to determine if the
regulated community anticipated any
problems with referencing of the CFR,
and to determine the effect this action
would have on hazardous waste
generators. The comments EPA received
on the proposal were overwhelmingly in
favor of allowing referencing the CFR.
Commenters stated that this action will
significantly reduce the paperwork
involved in handling the waste
shipments, reduce transcription errors.
and in no way cause harm to the
environment.
Although EPA today is allowing such
references to the CFR, the following
information also must be included in the
reference: the EPA Hazardous Waste
No., the subcategory of the waste code
(e.g.. D003, reactive cyanide
subcategory), the treatability group(s) of
the waste(s) (e.g., wastewater or non-
wastewater), and the CFR sections and
paragraphs where the applicable
treatment standards appear. In addition,
where treatment standards are
expressed as specified technologies in
§ 268.42, the 5-letter treatment code
found in Table I of § 268.42 (e.g., INCIN,
WETOX) must be listed. Omissions or
inaccuracies in listing any of these items
will be considered a violation, fa
addition, the Agency emphasizes that
the change to 40 CFR 268.7 allows
referencing of the CFR in lieu of only the
individual treatment standards; all other
§ 268,7 information is still required hi
the notification.
EPA notes that these revised
notification requirements also apply to
treatment and storage facilities, with the
following exceptions. These changes do
not apply to genera tors,, or treatment or
storage facilities that ship spent solvents
(F001-F005), multi-source leachate
(F039) or California list wastes off-site to
a disposal facility. These waste
categories each contain a number of
individual constituents or waste groups
(e.g., the waste code for multi-source
leachate (F039) contains 230
constituents). Therefore, referencing
only the CFR section in lieu of the
treatment standards would not provide
the disposal facility with meaningful
information regarding which
constituents might reasonably be
expected to be present in the waste. The
same is true for California list wastes
and spent solvents. For each of these
wastes, therefore, all applicable waste
groups and individual constituents
actually must be listed on the
notification. ,
In addition, some pre-proposal
commenters raised concerns about
notification requirements with regard to
shipments subject to the March 24,1986
small quantity generator (SQC) rule.
This rule, specifically 40 CFR 262.20(e).
exempts SQGs (100-1000 kg/mo.) with
recycling tolling agreements (as defined
in 40 CFR 262.20(e)) from the full Part
262 manifesting requirements. EPA
received a number of comments
supporting the proposed approach, and
today is amending § 268.7 to allow a
one-time notification and certification
for SQG shipments subject to tolling
agreements. Such agreements, as well as
the one-time notifications and
certifications, must be maintained by
the generator for three years after
termination or expiration of the
agreement in keeping with the
provisions of 40 CFR 252.20(e)(2).
The Agency is promulgating 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 a specified frequency. The
Agency believes that since the same
waste is picked up at reguar intervals,
one notice will suffice for the duration of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations 22669
the agreement to apprise the subsequent
handler of the land disposal restrictions
applicable to the waste.
/. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
In the proposed rule, EPA noted that
§ § 268.7 (b) and (c) currently require
treatment and disposal facilities to test
their wastes hi order to ensure that they
are in compliance with applicable
treatment standards and prohibition
levels. EPA also noted that these
provisions require such testing to be
performed according to the frequency
specified in the facility's § 264.13 or
§ 265.13 Waste Analysis Plan (WAP).
Although §§ 264.13 and 265.13 require
that waste analyses contain enough
information to allow the owner/operator
to comply with the 40 CFR 268
requirements, the Agency noted that a
comment found in both of these sections
has created implementation problems.
The comment states, "the owner or
operator of an off-site (treatment,
storage, or disposal) facility may
arrange for the generator of the
hazardous waste to supply part or all of
the (waste analysis) information." This
language has been construed
erroneously as precluding EPA (or an
authorized State) from requiring the
owner/operator to conduct a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of the
waste where the generator has supplied
the owner/operator with such waste
analysis information. Although EPA
stated in the proposal that it has
authority to require owner/operators to
test their wastes in such cases, the
Agency stated its preference for
removing any ambiguities and modifying
the regulations in order to clarify EPA's
intent.
The Agency noted in the proposal its
belief that ordinarily, treatment and
disposal facilities should do some
corroborative testing to ensure
compliance with LDR treatment
standards and prohibitions. Although
there are certainly situations where test
data submitted by the generator, or the
knowledge of the generator, may
constitute an essential part of the
necessary information, EPA's proposal
was premised on a need to ensure that
the LDR requirements are metp/rarto
disposal. The Agency also noted that
such corroborative testing provides
records that may be useful hi
ascertaining compliance with LDR
requriements. Thus, EPA stated that
treatment and disposal facilities
normally should do periodic
independent corroborative testing of
prohibited wastes, even if the generator
also tests the waste or otherwise
certifies that it is eligible for land
disposal.
Given this context, the Agency
proposed two approaches for specifying
the circumstances under which EPA
could require corroborative testing. The
first approach would allow off-site
facilities to arrange for the generator
and/or treater of wastes to supply all or
part of the waste analysis information
only if an EPA-approved WAP
affirmatively allows the generator and/
or treater to supply this information.
Since interim status facilities do not
have their WAPs approved until then-
permit applications are reviewed by
EPA (or the authorized State), such
facilities would no longer be able to rely
upon generator data under this
approach. Under the second approach,
the Regional Administrator or his
designate would determine the owner/
operator's testing frequency, but such
facilities would be required to conduct
waste analyses at least once a year.
Since such an approach would be self-
implementing, no revisions to existing
permits would be necessary.
Numerous commenters pointed out
the advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches. The primary issues
raised by commenters related to the
flexibility and resources associated with
the proposed approaches. Several
commenters supported the flexibility
that the first approach would provide.
Individual facility circumstances can be
considered, which the commenter,
believed would result in appropriate
testing frequencies. The Agency agrees
with the commenters and continues to
believe 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 managed, different types of
waste matrices, number of processes
invovled) is too broad to justify a single
national testing frequency. However,
evaluating the appropriate testing
frequencies for every treatment and
disposal facility can be very resource-
intensive, a task that likely would take
several years to complete. Some
commenters expressed a preference for
specific minimum testing frequencies, in
part to establish a baseline level from
which to depart. As stated above, a
required testing frequency is difficult to
specify for all facilities, and would be
excessive and redundant in some
situations while not being protective
enough hi others. To address this
problem, the Agency is developing
guidance to help identify what testing
frequency, based on site-specific
considerations, is reasonable and
appropriate for treatment and disposal
facilities.
Several commenters stated that
corroborative testing by treatment and
disposal facilities is unnecessary where
generators supply such waste analysis
data. Some of these commenters felt that
testing should be required only where
the generator does not supply testing
data (i.e., where the generator supplies
waste characterization data based only
on his knowledge of the waste or waste
generation process). EPA disagrees with
the commenters, and notes that the D.C.
Circuit, in upholding EPA's § 268.7
testing framework, has expressed its
support for treatment and disposal
facility corroborative testing
requirements:
P]t is the treatment facility's job to
transform waste otherwise deemed too
dangerous to permit into landfills into
acceptable form. It is therefore not irrational
for the EPA to introduce a backup, arguably
"redundant" testing stage for these wastes
requiring treatment and even to consider this
a "critical" stage in the process.
886 F.2d at 370. -
The court also noted that such
corroborative testing is necessary for
dispoasl facilities:
U]ust prior to land disposal, waste must be
vigorously tested to confirm that it is what
others have represented it to be and that it
may permissibly be land disposed.
Id
Given these concerns, the Agency
today is promulgating an approach that
combines elements of both the proposed
approaches. EPA is revising the
comment in § § 264.13 and 265.13 to
implement this approach.
Under the final approach, treatment
and disposal facilities may generally
rely on information provided to them by
generators or treaters of the waste.
However, treatment and disposal
facilities must conduct periodic detailed
physical and chemical analysis on their
waste streams to assure that the
appropriate part 268 treatment
standards are being met. Specifically,
today's final rule amends the comment
in § § 264.13 and 265.13 to make it clear
that the restricted waste testing
requirement (or other frequency
approved by the Agency) is not
superseded by the ability of the facility
to rely on information supplied by the
generator or treater. Also, with today's
change, § 264.13 more clearly specifies
that EPA may, through the permit,
require the owner or generator of a
treatment or disposal facility to conduct
periodic chemical and physical analysis
prior to treatment or other management
of wastes.
-------
Interim status facilities are snbject to
the testing requirement for restricted
wastes. Interim status waste.analysis
plans are developed by the facility and
maintained on-aite, in accordance with
self-implementing procedures of
§ 285.13-Tljerefore, interim status
facility owners or operators should-
ensure that their plan conforms with
today's new requirement For example,
if the facility's plan specifies total
reliance on generator or treater-
provided information, then the plan will
likely need to change to require
appropriate testing (See discussion
below regarding general Agency waste
testing considerations). Also, interim
status facilities should update their
pending permit applications promptly to
ensure that the applications reflect the
most current information and today's
revised regulatory requirements.
If a permitted facility wants to amend
its WAP to better address restricted
waste testing requirements, then it
would follow the permit modification
procedures in § 270.42. Under those
modification procedures, a change to
indicate a different testing frequency
would most likely be a Class 2
modification (see appendix I to § 270.42,
item BCD).
EPA believes that there will be
sufficient time to incorporate
appropriate waste analysis
requirements into the development of
permits for the approximately 1000
interim status treatment and storage
facilities expected to receive RCRA
permits in the next several years. WAPs
for permitted storage and treatment
facilities (including incinerators) will be
examined no later than at permit
ruissuance. Reevaluation ofland
disposal facility permits will occur ho
later than the five year permit review
requirnJ by § 270.50(d). so WAP changes
can be accomplished at that time. It
should also be noted that for permitted
facilities, EPA may address selected
WAPs earlier than the above timeframes
by using its general authority to reopen
permits when new standards or
regulations have been promulgated
(§ 270.41(a)(3)).
For both permitted and interim status
facilities, the Agency retains its
authority (particularly where a revised
WAP has not been Agency-approved) to
determine that, based on an inspection
or other information, the testing
frequencies and/or protocols are
inadequate at a particular facility. In
such cases, EPA (or an authorized State)
may take a number of actions, including.
but not limited to, terminating or
modifiying a facility's permit or pursuing
an enforcement action.
In order to aid permit writers and the
regulated community in determining the
appropriate testing frequencies at both
stages in time, the Agency expects to
issue guidance soon which will further
address these issues.
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
As noted in the November 22,1939
proposal, treatment of prohibited wastes
conducted in so-called 90-day tanks (or
containers) regulated under § 262.34 is
not presently subject to a waste analysis
plan requirement. 54 FR 48497. Thus,
there is no regulatory vehicle for
determining testing frequency in such
circumstances. In contrast, 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.
Therefore, in order to close this
regulatory gap, EPA proposed that
generators treating prohibited wastes in
§ 262.34 tanks and containers must
prepare a plan justifying the frequency
of testing they choose to adopt (54 FR
48497). EPA disagrees with several
commenters who contended that
sufficient regulatory mechanisms are
already in place for these units. Most
importantly, there is no regulation at all
addressing testing frequency. Since a
substantial volume of hazardous waste
is treated in these units, the issue of
testing frequency is viewed by the
Agency as important for ensuring the
integrity of the section 3004(m)
treatment standards. Furthermore,
today's imposition of a waste analysis
plan requirementaddressing, among
other issues, testing frequencyon
persons treating in 90-day tanks is
consistent with the Agency's
determination in the Solvents and
Dioxins Final rule that generators who
also treat must assume the same
responsibilities as off-site treaters. See
51 FR 40597). Put another way, EPA
believes that persons treating prohibited
wastes should ordinarily have the same
recordkeeping and documentation
responsibilities whether the treatment
occurs off-site or in 90-day tanks.
Therefore, in today's final rule, the
Agency is promulgating the proposed
action with several modifications in
§ 268.7(a)(4). In addition to die
modifications (and in accordance with
majority of comments), the Agency is
clarifying that only generators treating
wastes to comply with the applicable
BDAT treatment standards (as opposed
to wastes treated partially but receiving
further off-site treatment before meeting
the treatment standard) are subject to
the new requirement to prepare a waste
analysis plan. Specifically, generators
treating prohibited wastes in § 262.34
tanks and containers to meet the
applicable BDAT treatment standard
must prepare a plan detailing the
frequency of testing that is to be
conducted. The plan is to be justified on
detailed chemical and physical analysis
of a representative sample of the
prohibited wastefs) being treated, and
must contain all information necessary
to treat the waste(s) in accordance with
requirements of-part 268 (see § § 284.13
and 265.13, from which these
substantive requirements are drawn),
including die selected testing frequency.
Examples of factors EPA would expect
to be included in the plan are:
discussion of the number of prohibited
wastes treated, their variability, and the
variability of the treatment process. See
section IILJ of today's preamble for more
detailed information on factors to
include in the plan.
EPA does not believe however, that it
needs to require waste analysis plans
from 90-day generators who treat
partially, but do not treat to achieve the
treatment standard. Such a requirement
would duplicate waste analysis plans of
the ultimate treatment facility. The
requirement that EPA is adopting today
is meant to close an outright regulatory
gap which exists only when the 90-day
generator is the sole treater.
The plan will be self-implementing in
the sense that there is no requirement of
prior approval from any regulatory
entity. There is, however, a requirement
that the plan be retained as a facility
record, where it serves as the means of
justifying to enforcement officials why
the frequency of testing selected by the
facility is reasonable. Furthermore, as
suggested by several commenters, this
plan should be filed with the EPA
Regional office or State'within 30 days
prior to the activity by some mechanism
that can verify delivery {e.g., return
receipt requested. Federal Express, or
messenger). This provision will allow
the Agency or State an opportunity to
review the testing plan established. EPA
notes, however, that it reserves the right
at any subsequent time to disapprove of
the testing plan. This review mechanism
should ease one commenter's concerns
about these-plans being self-
implementing and not subject to
regulatory review.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 3390 / Rules and Regulations 22671
L. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid
Wastes
. 1. Residues Remaining in Containers or
Inner Liners
In the November 22,1989 proposal,
EPA proposed several amendments to
clarify the existing language <»f 40 CFR
261.33. The first amendment involved 40
CFR 261.33(c), a provision thai lists
' residues remaining in containers or in
an inner liner that have held commercial
chemical products listed in 40 CFR
261.33{e). EPA believes that this
language was partially in error as it
does not include residues remaining in
containers or in an inner liner
contaminated with the 40 CFR 261.33(f)
materials. All of the other provisions in
40 CFR 261.33 refer to both 40 CFR
26L33 (e) and (f) wastes, and there is no
reason that 40 CFR 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.
Many commenters misunderstood the
Agency's intent by this clarification. It
was not our intent to subject "U" wastes
(i.e., non-acute hazardous wastes) to the
triple-rinsing requirements of 40 CFR
261.7(b)(3) as this section applies solely
to acute hazardous wastes. In 40 CFR
261.33(c), there is not a corresponding
reference, however, that residues
remaining in containers or in an inner
liner contaminated with "U" wastes are
subject to regulation, unless empty as
defined in 40 CFR 261.7(b](l). This
omission could be read as allowing the
disposal of full containers of "U" listed
wastes. While this would clearly be an
incorrect reading, today's final action
corrects this omission.
2. Spill Residues
In addition, EPA proposed a clarifying
amendment to 40 CFR 261.33(d) to be
codified in 40 CFR 261.2 (b) and (c) to
state that residues of spills of
commercial chemical products listed in
40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f) will be
considered solid wastes if they are not
recycled within 90 days of the spill. 54
FR 48493-94. The Agency's rationale
was that although such spilled materials
may be considered to be "abandoned"
under the existing regulatory language,
it might be more appropriate to establish
a specific time period after which such
spills became solid wastes. The Agency
noted further that it ordinarily views
spilled commercial chemicals as solid
wastes because the nature of a spill
constitutes disposal, and because of the
difficulty of recycling spill residues in
such matrices as soil or groundwater. Id.
In these instances, not only are spill
residues of commercial chemical
products unlike other 40 CFR 261,33
material (e.g.. off-specification
products), but the Agency believes that
marginal claims of recyclabiliry could be
asserted to avoid proper cleanup of
spills. Id.
While comments on this issue were
mixed, a number of commenters made
the point that this issue was
inappropriate for determination in the
Third Third rulemaking because it is not
directly related to the Land Disposal
Restrictions program. Given that these
comments have merit and considering
the number of issues that must be
decided under the pressing timetable
imposed by the statute, the Agency will
not go forward with the quantified
standard that it proposed.
Furthermore, the Agency believes that
this issue can be addressed by
interpretation of existing regulations.
Under 40 CFR 261.33, mere assertion of
intent to recycle a spill residue of a
commercial chemical product does not
automatically immunize the spill area
from RCRA subtitle C jurisdiction. The
generator has the burden of proving that
the spilled material is not a solid waste,
and a generalized assertion does not
satisfy the burden. See 40 CFR 261.2(fJ.
Objective considerations that could be
pointed to to satisfy this burden include
whether the generator has begun to
recycle the spill residue, the length of
time the spill residue has existed, the
value of the spilled material, whether it
is technically feasible or technically
practical to recycle the spill residue, and
whether there is any past history of the
company recycling this type of residue.
EPA repeats that assertion of intent to
recycle does not satisfy the generator's
burden of proof. Rather, there must be
objective indicators of intent, and the
indicators must be strong given that a
spill of hazardous material to soil or
groundwater is normally a simple act of
disposal.
3. De Minimis Exception to the Mixture
Rule
In the context of the Third Third
proposal, several commenters requested
clarification of the scope of the mixture
rule exemption to the definition of
hazardous waste under 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iv). This provision exempts
mixtures which contain small amounts
of listed spent solvents ("F-listed
solvents") or other de minimis losses of
commercial chemical wastes f"P and U
wastes") from manufacturing operations
when these listed wastes are mixed with
other wastewater "the discharge of
which is subject to regulation under
either section 402 or section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (including wastewater
at facilities that have eliminated the
discharge of wastewater)." B0
Commenters raised die issue of whether
disposal of such mixtures via Glass I
UIC wells allows the facility to daim
this exemption, in particular.
commenters expressed concern that
recent-EPA statements regarding the
scope of this exemption imply thai large
volumes of wastewater wiU require
treatment of the P and U -wastes .within
the wastewater stream before injection
of a Class I well, and that capacity for
treatment of such wastestreams is not
currently available.
Before responding to these comments,
some background information is in
order. RCRA subtitle C generally
regulates as hazardous all mixtures of
listed hazardous wastes and other solid
wastes. One exception from this rule is
for mixtures that "consist]] of
wastewater the discharge of which is
subject to regulation under either
section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water
Act (including wastewater at facilities
which have eliminated the discharge of
wastewater) and: [contain specific
amounts of listed solvents or de minimis
losses of discarded chemical products]."
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv). This exception to
the mixture rule was established by
regulation on November 17,1981. See 48
FR 56582. A specific level for spent
solvents is established by the regulation
(either 1 ppm or 25 ppm). The regulation
sets a worst-case maximum
concentration of solvent within the
wastewater stream; the actual
concentration will almost certainly be
less. Conversely, there is no set
regulatory concentration for de minimis
loss levels of P and U wastes that are
listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f).
In the 1981 interim final rule, EPA did
not exempt all de minimis mixtures
generated at all facilities. Rather,'EPA
limited the exemption as follows: "[The
exemption] applies only to wastewater
mixtures managed in wastewater
treatment systems whose discharge is
subject to regulation under * * * the
[CWA]. This requirement will help to
prevent indiscriminate discharge of
wastes into wastewater treatment
systems because to do so would
jeopardize the generator's ability to
comply with its {CWA] discharge
requirements. * *. * (T)he Agency
20 The exemption also covers mixtures of small
amounts of luted hazardous wastes in wastewatera
resulting from laboratory operations. 40 CFR
26I.3(a)(2)(iv)(E). Also, there is similar, but not
identical, language contained in a final rule that
provided interpretations of certain terms and
provisions of standards for hazardous waste tank
systems (S3 FR 34079, September 2,1088). Today's
notice is not changing the applicability of the
September 2,1988 final rule with respect to
hazardous waste tank systems.
-------
means to include all facilities which
generate wastewater which is
discharged into surface water or into a
POTW(.) The Agency also means to
Include those facilities (known as 'zero
dischargers') that have eliminated the
discharge of wastewater as a result of.
or by exceeding (f.e., doing better than).
NPDES or pretreatment program
requirements.148 FR 56584 (Nov. 17,
1981).
Furthermore, the applicability of the
mixture rule exemption for P and U
wastes was limited to the introduction
of these wastes into wastewaters "in the
normal handling of these materials.
either as raw products used in the
manufacturing process or as
Intermediate or chemical products used
I'n or produced by the manufacturing
process." [emphasis added] 48 FR 56586.
Certain commenters assert that the
mixture rule exemption currently applies
to wastewater disposed of in a UIC well.
Specifically, these commenters argue
first that ail injection wells dispose of
wastewater "the discharge of which is
subject to regulation [under the CWA]."
Second, commenters argue that UIC
wells perse constitute a method for
facilities to "eliminate * * * the
discharge of wastewater." Commenters
further suggest that wastewater disposal
via UIC wells should be exempted as
consistent with the purposes for the
exemption expressed by EPA, i.e.. that
such wastewater mixed with de minimi's
levels of listed wastes are adequately
regulated by another statute. These
commenters express their belief that
disposal of such mixtures down UIC
wells would be adequately controlled
under the UIC regulations, and that
injection was the environmentally sound
method of disposal for these
wastewaters.
EPA does not agree completely with
the commenters' analysis of the scope of
the mixture rule exemption. First.
injection of a fluid in a UIC well is not a
"discharge" within the meaning of the
CWA. Injection wells can. in
appropriate instances, constitute a
practice which has "eliminated the
discharge of wastewater." but these
instances must be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. As the regulation states.
the issue is whether the "discharge" is
subject to section 402 or 307(b) of the
CWA, not whether the facility is
"subject to regulation" under section
402. A UIC well, whether or not the state
adopts its regulations under 402(d)
addressing such a well, is not a CWA
discharge point. Thus, facilities with
xvells for injection of wastewater do not
fall within the mixture rule exemption
simply because they have an injection
well on site.
UIC wells may, however, be "zero
discharge" facilities, i.e., those which
have eliminated their discharge. To
qualify as such a facility, it must satisfy
the definition of a "zero discharge"
facility outlined in the November 17,
1981 regulation. To repeat the language
from the 1981 preamble discussing that
provision, "(t)he Agency * * * means
to include those facilities (known as
'zero dischargers') that have eliminated
the discharge of wastewater as a result
of, or by exceeding. NPDES or '.
pretreatment program requirements." 48
FR 56584 (Nov. 17.1981) [emphasis
added]. Thus, a UIC well will certainly
qualify as a zero discharge facility if the
facility injects the wastewater to comply
with NPDES permit conditions or an
applicable CWA effluent guideline. A
well at a facility which is not "subject to
(CWA) regulation" under an NPDES
permit or an effluent guideline is not
within the scope of the language of the
mixture rule exemption. EPA notes that
this interpretation is fully consistent
with its 1981 preamble, and thus does
not constitute a "change" in
interpretation, as suggested by certain
commenters.
EPA notes, that as a practical matter,
the facilities concerned about the scope
of the mixture rule exemption are likely
unaffected by today's clarification. Most
of these facilities are^ in fact in an
industry category (organic chemicals)
whose facilities are "subject to
regulation" under section 402 by virture
of the effluent guideline for that
category. See 40 CFR part 414 (1989).
Thus, EPA does not believe that there
will be a problem with treatment
capacity for P and U wastes, because
most wastewaters containing de
minimi's amounts of P and U wastes
now being injected are not hazardous
waste now being injected are not
hazardous waste and will be unaffected
by today's rule. Nonetheless, EPA
wishes to caution such facilities that the
mixture rule exemption does not
constitute a license to mix collected
volumes of E. P. or U wastes .into a
treated wastewater stream and then
inject such a stream. As EPA clearly
stated in 1981. the exemption is
designed to cover situations where
"various spills or incidental losses" of
solvents or commercial chemicals are
"reasonably and efficiently managed by
being discharged into a plant's
wastewater treatment system." 46 FR
56584. EPA clearly did not assume that
facilities would attempt to avoid
treatment of such wastes.
M. Storage Prohibition
In the proposed rule, EPA recognized
that there are concerns with its existing
interpretation of the statutory storage
prohibition set out in section 3004(j) of
RCRA. Section 3004(j) provides that
storage of prohibited hazardous waste 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." Principal concerns are that
some storage may be prohibited even.
where it is not being used with the
intent to circumvent the land disposal
prohibitions, and whether the storage
prohibition should only apply if storage
is used as surrogate disposal.
To fully evaluate these concerns, the
Agency requested comment on an
alternative interpretation of 40 CFR
268.50. Under the alternative approach.
storage of prohibited wastes in tanks or
containers pending the utilization of
proper treatment, recovery or disposal
capacity would not be prohibited. EPA
provided two examples of allowable
storage under this alternative approach:
(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 arid then
stores the waste before treating it again
to meet the standard.
EPA recognized in the proposal that
under the alternative approach, the
phrase "utilization of proper treatment.
recovery or disposal capacity" needed
to be further defined. The Agency also
sought further 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. Commenters were
also asked to address other potential
situations where they believed that an
overly literal reading of 3004(j) may
have consequences they believe
Congress did not intend.
Many of the commenters supported
the proposed, broadening of the
allowable bases for storing prohibited
wastes. However, the commenters did
not offer specific workable suggestions
for defining terms such as "pending"
and "proper", as EPA noted was
necessary. Without objective criteria for
defining the limits of allowable storage,
EPA believes that the proposed
reinterpretation will be very difficult to
implement and enforce. For example,
does it matter how far in the future-
five years, two years, six months
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, Jane I* 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22673
proper treatment might be utilized? Mast
there be a contract -with a treatment
company? What if it is -contingent, or
contains option provisions? Thus, the
Agency is instead retaining its '-
longstandingmterpretafionofthe '
storage prohibition and is not finalizing
the proposed alternative approach.. ' '
Under ihe existing approach, libth
RCRA 3004Q) and 40 CFR 268.50provide
that storage of prohibited hazardous
wastes Is itself prohibited "unless such
storage is solely for fee purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal." Storage of prohibited wastes
is only allowed in non-land based
storage units {i.e., tanks and containers),
since land-based storage is a type of
land disposal.
Two ma jor-principles underlie the
storage prohibition: (1) the need to
reduce the risks created by long-term
storage; and (2) the goal of the Land-
Disposal Restrictions, and HSWA
generally, to encourage the expeditious
use of alternative treatment
technologies. Cf. Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F.2d. 355
(D.C. Or. Sept 15,1989) ("HWTC 777")
where the court said:
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.
888 F.2d. at 357.
Mechanisms such as national capacity
variances and case-by-case extensions
are intended to address situations where
there is a lack of treatment capacity.
No Finn time limit is established
pursuant to § 268.50. Generators and
owners or operators can store as long as
necessary. The legislative history makes
it clear that the intent of RCRA 3004(j)
and § 268.50 is to prohibit use of long-
term storage to circumvent treatment
requirements imposed by the Land
Disposal Restrictions. .129 Cong. Rec.
H8139 (daily ed. October 6,1983).
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.
Finally, EPA reemphasizes that intent
is not a critical factor in determining
liability. In order to successfully enforce
this provision, the Agency need not
demonstrate that those storing
prohibited wastes have a particular
state of mind. Rather, objective factors
such as the type and amount of waste in
storage and the time in storage still may
be relied upon as the key factors in
interpreting this provision. In
determining whether storage is lawful,
the Agency will continue to evaluate
these factors in light of its "treat as you
go" approach noted in HWTC HI, EPA
notes, however, that the intent of those
storing prohibited wastes may be
relevant in the Agency's determination
regarding what type of relief, if any, to
seek in a civil or criminal enforcement
action.
deadlines under other statutory
programs, are factors which are
affecting the management of mixed
waste. EPA will further evaluate the
legal, policy, and factual issues relevant
to this matter. Since this issue is not
material to the requirements which EPA
must promulgate in order to meet the
May B, 1990 Third Third rule statutory
deadline, EPA will resolve this matter
separately from this mkmaking. The
Agency expects to issue its policy on the
mixed waste storage issue during the
next 90 days.
1. Storage of Radioactive Mixed Waste pj. Case-by-Case Extensions
Several commenters urged the Agency,
to modify its existing interpretation of
the section 3004Q) storage prohibition as
it relates to radioactive mixed waste.
Mixed waste contains both a hazardous
waste component subject to RCRA
hazardous waste management
standards and a radioactive waste
component regulated under the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA). The commenters
asserted that there is little or no
available permitted treatment or
disposal capacity for commercially
generated mixed waste, and that many
of these mixed wastes contain spent
solvents or California list wastes that
are not eligible for the national capacity
variance which EPA is granting for
mixed waste containing first second,
and third-third wastes. The commenters
emphasized that generators have no
practical option but to store their
prohibited mixed waste on-site, pending
the availability of treatment and
disposal capacity. The commenters
stated that the Agency should not
interpret such storage as "surrogate
disposal" that violates section 3004fj),
since this interpretation would result in
a requirement allowing no possibility of
compliance by generators. The
commenters further asserted that
interpreting section 3004fj) in this
manner could give rise to an
inconsistency with the AEA. within the
meaning of RCRA section 1006{a).
EFA is aware of the difficulties posed
by the applicability of the section 3004(j)
storage prohibition to mixed wastes
under circumstances where there is no
treatment or disposal capacity. These
issues and their effects on certain low-
level waste generators (e.g., hospitals,
research institutions, universities), were
also discussed at length in a recent
report developed by the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA). (See
"Partnerships Under Pressure, Managing
Commercial Low-level Radioactive
Waste," OTA, November 1989).
EPA acknowledges that the current
shortage of treatment or disposal
capacity, anri the requirements and
Under RCRA Section 3004{h)(3), EPA
can grant case-by-case extensions of the
prohibition effective dates for up to one
year beyond the applicable deadlines;
extensions are renewable once for up to
one additional year. On November 7,
1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR
40572) establishing the regulatory
framework to implement the land
disposal restrictions program, including
the procedures for submitting case-by-
case petitions.
To obtain a case-by-case extension,
the statute requires that the applicant
make the following demonstrations:
(1) A binding contractual commitment
has been made to construct or otherwise
provide alternative treatment, recovery,
or disposal capacity that protects human
health and the environment.21
(2) Due to circumstances beyond his
or her control, such alternative capacity
cannot reasonably be made available by
the applicable effective date.
(3) If a surface impoundment or
landfill is used by the applicant to
manage the waste during the extension
period, the unit must meet the
requirements of section 3004(o). EPA has
interpreted these statutory provisions to
also require the following (see 40 CFR
268.5(a)):
(1) A good-faith effort must be made
to locate and contract with treatment,
recovery, or disposal facilities
nationwide to manage the waste in
accordance with restrictions by the
applicable effective date.
(2) The capacity being constructed or
otherwise provided will be sufficient to
manage the entire quantity of waste that
is the subject of the petition.
11 Section 3Q04(h}(3) refers to "such alternative
capacity." referring back to Section 3004(h}(2),
which speaks of "alternative treatment, recovery, or,
disposal capacity which protects human health and
the environment." For disposal capacity, EPA
interprets this language to mean a no-migration unit
See Sections 3004 (d}(l). (e)(l). and (g)(5). For
treatment and recovery capacity, the reference
refers to capacity that satisfies the Section 3004{En)
standard.
-------
22674
Federal Register / VoL -55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) A detailed schedule for obtaining
r required operating and constructing
permits, or an outline of how and when
alternative capacity will be available.
(4) Adequate capacity is available to
manage the waste during die extension
period..documenting in the petition the
location of all sites at which the waste
will be managed.
After an applicant has been granted a
case-by-case extension, the applicant
must notify the Administrator as soon as
he or she has knowledge of any change
in the demonstrations made in the
petition. In addition, the applicant must
Bubmit progress reports, at specified
intervals, that describe the progress
being made towards obtaining adequate
alternative capacity, identify any delay
or possible delay in developing the
capacity, and describe the mitigating
actions being taken in response to the
event. See 40 CFR 268.5 (fj and (g).
The Agency has received a number of
inquiries on whether a proposed no-
migration petition or proposed
treatability variance would satisfy the
first statutory requirement That is,
could a proposed no-migration variance
, or a proposed treatability variance
constitute the "alternative treatment
recovery, or disposal capacity." If so.
and if the Agency were to grant a case-
by-case extension, this could provide
petitioners with additional time while
their no-migration petition or treatability
variance is being considered for final
approval.
First, it should be noted that the
amount of time required to process no-
migration and treatability variances (for
other than injected wastes) is expected
to be 12-16 months due to the
complexity of the technical
demonstrations that must be made, and
their subsequent evaluation. On the
other hand, the case-by-case petitions
generally can be processed in about 6-8
months because the required
demonstrations are more
straightforward. This could give the
petitioner about 6 months of relief. Some
petitioners believe that there are a
number of legitimate circumstances
where the few extra months gained
would make the difference between
closing a facility which ultimately will
be granted a valid variance request, and
keeping it in operation.
In response to these inquiries, EPA is
taking this opportunity to clarify that the
statutory requirement to obtain a
"binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide
alternative treatment recovery, or
disposal capacity" may be satisfied by a
Federal Register notice wherein the
Agency proposes to grant either a no-
migration extension or a treatability
variance. The Agency believes that
EPA's proposing to grant either a
'treatability variance petition or a no-
migration petition is sufficient
demonstration that the-petitioner has
made a good faith effort to commit to
obtaining alternative protective disposal
capacity; any further commitment is
solely contingent on EPA's action at this
point In addition, the Agency's action in
proposing to grant the variance petition
serves as a partial imprimatur that the
alternative capacity under consideration
will prove to be protective. However,
the mere filing of a variance petition
provides no such guarantee (most of the
no-migration petitions for surface units
filed to date, for example, have proven
technically deficient), and thus cannot
be deemed to satisfy the statutory
requirement
Of course, should EPA then grant a
case-by-case extension, that grant
would be conditional: if EPA denies the
no-migration petition or the treatability
variance, then the basis for the case-by-
case extension may no longer exist and
the variance will be terminated unless
there is additional basis for the
variance. In addition, when the no-
migration or treatability variance is
granted, the case-by-case extension
automatically expires (since it is no
longer needed).
Because significant time and
resources would have been expended on
the case-by-case petition review
unnecessarily if the no-migration
petition or treatability variance is
ultimately denied, EPA will begin
review of a case-by-case extension
petition only after receiving a clear
indication that the Agency has the
intention of proposing to grant the no-
migration petition or treatability
variance {and will not propose to grant a
case-by-case extension unless the
Agency has actually proposed to grant
the variance). Conversely, when the
clear indication is that the no-migration
petition or treatability variance will be
denied. EPA will not review the case-by-
case petition, and the petitioner will be
notified at the same time he or she is
notified of the status of the other
petition.
O, Applicability of California List
Prohibitions after May 8,1990
In the November 22,1989 proposal,
EPA discussed two issues relating to
California list wastes. 54 FR 48498. The
first issue is the question of continued
applicability of California list
prohibitions to wastes which are
granted a national capacity variance in
today's rulemaking. The second issue is
whether California list prohibitions
apply to wastes that are first identified
and listed after the date of the HSWA
amendments. 54 FR 48498-99.
EPA discussed the relationship of
California list prohibitions to scheduled
wastes subject to a capacity variance
(either national or case-by-case) in the
preamble to the First Third rule. 53 FR
31188. The Agency established in the
First Third rule that although specific
prohibitions and treatment standards ;
take precedence over California list
prohibitions, during the period of a
capacity variance the California list
prohibitions continue to apply. EPA .
included this discussion in the Third
Third proposal not to reopen the issue
but to put persons on notice that the
same reading applies to Third Third
wastes, including characteristic wastes.
In fact, the few commenters on the issue
indicated that they agreed with and
were aware of the Agency's position.
The Agency did solicit comment
however, on whether it would be
permissible to reevaluate whether the
California list prohibitions for acid
corrosive wastes would apply during the
period of a national capacity variance
for Third Third acid corrosive wastes
(which are identical substances).
Several commenters suggested that the
prohibition for California list corrosives
should not apply to Third Third
corrosives that are granted national
capacity variances in today's
rulemaking. The Agency disagrees with
this assertion and believes that not
applying the more generally applicable
California list prohibitions as an interim
prohibition is contrary to the literal
statutory language and enunciations of
Congressional intent in the legislative
history. See S. Rep. No. 284. 98th Cong.
1st Sess. 17. Also, given the fact that
these wastes have been restricted since
July 8,1987, it is illogical that the
Agency would grant these wastes a
capacity extension in today's
rulemaking. Therefore, a corrosive
waste that is injected underground is at
a minimum subject to the California list
prohibitions on August 8,1990.
The other issue on which EPA
solicited comment is whether newly
identified or listed wastes could be
covered by California list prohibitions.
Most of the comments supported the
Agency's tentative conclusion that the
statutory language does not compel a
' reading that California list prohibitions
apply, and further supported the view
that California list prohibitions should
not apply. EPA is adopting that reading
in today's rule. As the Agency noted at
proposal, there would be massive
dislocations in the regulated community
if California list prohibitions were to
apply to newly identified and listed
-------
Federal Register / VbL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
226T5
wastes.' For example, if wastes
identified by the new Toxicity
Characteristic were HOCs, thus
triggering immediate California list
prohibitions; there would be immediate
prohibitions of these wastes rather than
the more phased schedule specified in :
section 3004{g)(4). EPA does not believe
this result is desirable. In addition, the
Agency believes that the better reading
of the statute is that the California list
prohibitions were not meant to apply to
wastes that are newly identified or
listed. Consequently, EPA is determining
today that wastes that are newly
identified and listed 22 are prohibited
only when the Agency takes specific
action with regard to them pursuant to
section 3004(g)(4).
Since the California list prohibitions
are superseded by more specific
treatment standards (with the caveat
that the prohibitions continue to apply
during capacity variance periods as
discussed above) 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.23
The California list prohibitions remain
applicable for (1) liquid hazardous
wastes that contain over 50 ppm PCBs;
(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 toxicity
characteristic); 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.
Finally, EPA proposed that it would
delete the provision specifying burning
in boilers and furnaces as a specified
method of treatment for California list
HOCs (existing § 268.42(a)(2)) because
there are virtually no situations to which
the provision could apply. 54 FR 48499.
There was virtually no comment on this
point, and EPA is finalizing this action
as proposed for the reasons stated at
proposal.
22 Newly identified means either newly subject to
an existing characteristic (e.g.. such as those wastes
removed from the Bevill exclusion) or subject to a
now characteristic. Newly listed wastes may still be
subject to any preexisting applicable characteristic
standards or California list prohibitions stemming
from the characteristic.
23 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).
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008,3013, and
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program hi
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in .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 final rule
is promulgated pursuant to sections 3004
(d) through (k), and (m), of RCRA (42
U.S.C. 6924 (d) through (k), and (m)).
Therefore, it will be added to Table 1 in
40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all States, regardless of
their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
in Table 1, as discussed in the following
section. Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1(j) will
also be modified to indicate that this
rule is a self-implementing provision of
HSWA.
The exception is the clarifying
amendment to § 261.33{c). This
clarification is 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 have 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 final rule in authorized States
until their programs are modified to
adopt these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule, is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1,1993 (see 40
CFR 271.24(c)).
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modification to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the
State must modify its program to adopt
these regulations is July 1,1991, in
accordance with section 271.21(e). These
deadlines can be extended in certain
cases (see section 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
rule. These State'regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
their efforts to implement their programs
rather than take separate actions under
Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
-------
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
However, the State most modify its
program fay the deadline set forth in .
§ 27L2t(e j. 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
40CFR271.3.
The regulations being promulgated
today need not affect the State's
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
primacy status. A State currently
authorized to administer the UIC
program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) could continue to do so
without seeking authority to administer
these amendments. However, a State
which wished to implement Part 148 and
receive authorization to grant
exemptions from the land disposal
restrictions would have to demonstrate
that it had the requisite authority to
administer sections 3004(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
7,1980, rule (51 FR 40572) affect State
implementation of today's rule and
impact Slate actions on the regulated
community:
1. Under part 268. subpart C. EPA is
promulgating land disposal restrictions
for all generators, treaters. storers. and
disposers of certain types of hazardous
waste. In order to retain authorization,
States must adopt the regulations under
this Subpart since State requirements
can be no less stringent than Federal
requirements.
2. Also under part 268. EPA is granting
two-year national variances from the
effective dates of the land disposal
restrictions based on an analysis of
available alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity. Under
§ 208.5. case-by-case extensions of up to
one year (renewable for one additional
year) may be granted for specific
applicants lacking adequate capacity.
The Administrator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective dates because these
determinations must be made on a
national basis. In addition, it is clear
that RCRA section 3004(h)(3) intends for
the Administrator to grant case-by-case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the basis of national concerns
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore, States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. Under § 268.44. the Agency may
grant waste-specific variances from
treatment standards in cases where it
can be demonstrated iht the physical
and/or chemical properties of the
wastes differ significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standards, and the wastes cannot be
treated to specified levels or treated by
specified methods.
The Agency is solely responsible for
granting such variances since the result
"of such an action may be the
establishment of a new waste
treatability group. All wastes meeting
the criteria of these new waste
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.a 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 for surface disposal
facilities 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
rulemakines. 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 Thud 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 then-
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 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 (SDWA)
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 108 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2267T
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
WHPAs 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 (CAA)
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 emissions 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.
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 (SO2). The Agency has
promulgated a National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for mercury emissions under
section 112 of the CAA (40 CFR part 61,
subpart E). There are no industry-
specific national CAA control standards
for SO2 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 SO2 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. EPA is
addressing problems of potential
mercury emissions by requiring that
retorters either be subject to the
NESHAP or operate with the PSDs on
which the NESHAP was based.
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 of SO2 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 SO2), then such emissions would
be subject to best available control
technology (BACT) requirements. An air
quality analysis for mercury and SO2
would also be required under PSD.
Moreover, an air quality analysis must
be conducted to demonstrate that the
SO2 emissions would neither cause nor
contribute to violations of any national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
or PSD increment for SO2. Facilities that
are located in areas that have failed to
meet any NAAQS for SO2 (i.e.,
designated nonattachment areas) and
emit more than 100 tons per year of SO2,
must not only apply emission controls
that meet the lowest achievable
emission rate but also offset their
remaining SO2 emissions by acquiring
federally enforceable emission
reductions from other nearby SO2
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.S.b
of today's preamble. A discussion of
potential nitrogen oxide emissions from
organo-nitrogen wastes is contained in
section III.A.S.c.
There are several general regulatory
development programs under RCRA that
address treatment technology air
emissions. The Agency has initiated a
three-phased program under § 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 expected to be promulgated this
spring.
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 expected to be proposed in the .
Federal Register this spring.
In the third phase of the section
3004(n) standards development, the
Agency will develop additional
standards for the sources addressed in
-------
Federal fiegster / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
tho first tvro phases as necessary to
address residual risks.
In addition to the section 3004{n}
standards, general standards to control
both organic and metal emissions from,
tho combustion of hazardous waste in
Incinerators and other types of
combustion devices are under various
stages oT development.
In certain cases, waste treatment may
occur in treatment technologies thai 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 nnder 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 BOAT requirements.
The Agency is considering whether to
propose regulations in a separate
rulemaking to limit 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 in 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 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 redisposed, 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 S1444
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
under today's rulemaking. This will
require that the Agency develop
guidance materials and provide training
on,how to comply with the requirements
of the land disposal restrictions.
Generators of significant quantities of
pesticide P and U wastes are farmers
and commercial pesticide applicators.
The provisions of 40 CFR 262.70 and
268.1 exempt farmers from regulation
under the land disposal restrictions
program; however, no such exemption
exists for commercial applicators. Such
generators of hazardous wastes have
traditionally land disposed their
pesticide wastes. With promulgation of
today's final rule, these generators must
comply with the requirements of the
land disposal restrictions if they dispose
a restricted hazardous waste.
C. Regulatory Overlap of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls fPCBs)
Under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) 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 AnalysisSurface
Disposed Wastes
In accordance with Executive Order
No. 12291, the Agency has reviewed the
costs and benefits of today's final rule
and has determined that today's final
rule constitutes a "major regulation"
because it results 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 final rule. The complete RIA
document. Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes Final
Rule (April 24.1990). is available for ^
review in the public docket for today's
final 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 final rule, as
detailed in the RIA document, as well as
comments received on the regulatory
impact analysis for the proposed rule.
Section VI.A.1 below describes the
universe of wastes and facilities
affected by today's rule. Section VLA^
below summarizes the analysis of
human health and environmental
benefits attributable to today's rule.
Section VI.A.3 summarizes the economic
cost and impact analysis performed for
today's 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).24 The effects of
the final rule were estimated by
comparing post-regulatory management
practices and conditions with those
occurring under baseline conditions.
Two post-regulatory scenarios were
examined. Under the first scenario, the
"subtitle C" scenario, all treatment
residuals would be disposed of in
subtitle C units. For the second, "subtitle
D," scenario, all characteristic waste
treatment residuals would be disposed
of in Subtitle D units. The baseline was
24 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.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 199O f Rules and Regulations 22673
defined as continued land disposal of
wastes in units meeting minimum
technological requirements.
The Agency adjusted reported waste
management practices to reflect
compliance with the 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. However, though
First Third soft hammer wastes were
examined under the First Third rule
Second Third soft hammer wastes are
included in today's analysis. Thus, all
First Third. Second Third, and Third
Third wastes have been addressed in
the land disposal restrictions rules
collectively.
1. Overview of Affected Wastes,
Facilities, and Management
The universe of waste and facilities
examined for the RIA was developed
from EPA's "National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities"
(hereafter, the TSDR survey) and EPA's
1984 "National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment.
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Regulated under RCRA in 1981"
(hereafter, the RIA Mail survey). Data
from these surveys have been updated
as part of the capacity analysis
accompanying this rulemaking (see
discussion in Section 3B). The data used
for the final regulatory analysis reflect
this updated data base and are
consistent with the data used for the
capacity analysis accompanying the
proposed rule.
As with past land disposal restrictions
RIAs. the TSDR and RIA Mail surveys
provide an overview of the number of
facilities treating, storing, and disposing
of waste; the quantities and types of
waste (by RCRA waste code) 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.
Several commenters noted that the
quantities of waste estimated do not
include non-hazardous waste that may
have been affected by the Agency's
proposed dilution prohibition. In today's
rule, however, the Agency is allowing
facilities that discharge their
characteristic wastes under a NPDES
permit or dispose of it in a UIC well to
dilute. The Agency is also allowing
facilities that generate non-toxic
characteristic wastes (with the
exception of high TOC ignitable
nonwastewaters, reactive cyanide
wastes, and reactive surfide wastes} to
dilute their wastes in order to achieve
treatment standards. However,
characteristic wastes discharged
pursuant to an NPDES permit, with a
specified method, cannot be rendered N
nonhazardous through dilution alone.
The Agency believes, therefore, that it
has accurately analyzed the impact of
today's rule.
Quantity of Affected Waste. Today's
rule affects approximately 277 million
gallons of waste per year as shown in
Table VI-1. An additional 44 million
gallons (per year) of multisource
leachate may also be affected by today's
rule.
TABLE VM.THtRO THIRD RULE
QUANTITY BY WASTE TYPE
tin minion gallons per year]
Ignitabte (D001), corrosive (D002J,
EP toxic wastes (DC04-O016) and
mixtures .
Listed wastes
Mixtures of wastes
CBI wastos
VoL
42
122
2
32
79
277
Per-
cent
15
44
1
12
28
100
Characteristic wastes constitute the
largest volume of wastes covered by the
final rule. In addition to the 59 percent
identified as D001-D016, the waste
mixtures category is dominated by
characteristic wastes. Table VI-2 gives
the volumes of the most affected
characteristic wastes.
TABLE Vl-2.PREDOMINANT
CHARACTERISTIC WASTES BY VOLUME
[in rrallran gaDons per year 3
DG08 (EP Tcnuc for lead) . -
D007 (EP Toxic (or chromium)
D002 (Corrosive)
DO01 (Ignitabte)
Manures of D00 and D008 _ -
D006 (Cadmium)
D003 (Reactrve) .,
53
41
17
17
9
8
7
Affected Facilities. A total of 110
waste management facilities and nearly
1.700 waste generators are affected by
today's final rule. Table VI-3 provides a
breakdown of affected facilities and
their volumes managed.
TABIE \ft-3.THIRD THIRD RULE
VOLUMES BV FACILITY TYPE
[in mMion flsfions per year]
Fadities
Commerciaf Facilities
Non-Commercial
Facilities 1
Generators ...«.».»..
Total
Vol-
ume
212
65
NA
277
Per-
cent
77
23
NA
tco
No. Of
facili-
ties
37
73
1,686
1,796
The affected facilities represent a
wide variety of industries in 22 major
industrial groups. 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 commercial process
waste, which accounts for 77 percent of
the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following SIC groups:
Electric. Gas, & Sanitary Services
(SIC 49) 43 percent
Services Not Elsewhere Classified
(SIC 89) 8 percent
Chemicals & Allied Products (SIC
28)
CBI Facilities.-
. 7 percent
. 32 percent
The volume of noncommercial process
waste, which accounts for 23 percent of
the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following Standard Industrial
Code (SIC) groups:
Non-classifiable Establishments (SIC
99). 52 percent
Primary Metals Industries (SIC 33J...13 per-
cent
Petroleum Refining & Related
Industries (SIC 29) 10 percent
Chemicals & Allied Products (SIC
28) 6 percent
CBI Facilities:
16 percent
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,
approximately half of the waste volume
covered by the final rule is currently
managed in landfills. Landfills are also
the most prevalent baseline practice,
occurring at just over one half of the
affected facilities.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55." No. 106 / Friday. June1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI-4.THIRD-THIRD RULE
BASELINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
[in mlBon gattons per year]
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22681
Another way to look at the potential
for ecological effects is to consider the
proximity of land disposal facilities to ,
waterbodies. A recent Agency study 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 fo their proximity to waterbodies.26
Wastes removed from some of these
sites may be subject to the treatment
standards promulgated in this rule.
Thus, the final rule reduces ecological
risk associated with Third Third wastes
managed at these sites.
3. Costs .
The final rule results in an annual
incremental cost of approximately $353
million under the Subtitle D scenario
and $440 million under the Subtitle C
scenario, and affects over 1,700 facilities
hi 22 industrial sectors. Table Vl-5
summarizes the estimated incremental
costs associated with today's final rule
by waste type.
TABLE Vl-5.THIRD THIRD RULE
VOLUMES AND INCREMENTAL COST
f Million galtons/yr and midion S/yrJ
Waste type
D001, D002. D003
D004-D016
Listed waste
CBI facilities
Total _ _
Vol-
ume
42
122
2
32
79
277
Cost (in dollars)
Subtitle
D
$61
123
15
93
61
S353
Subtitle
C
$67
166
15
102
90
S440
As expected, based on volumes, the
largest incremental cost is attributed to
the management of DC08 (lead) waste.
Although the listed wastes are a small
volume and have the lowest total cost,
expensive treatment technologies such
as incineration result hi a much higher
cost per volume treated. Conversely, the
corrosive wastes and mixtures with
corrosive wastes are relatively
inexpensive to neutralize, resulting in a
low cost per volume treated.
Five characteristic wastes contribute
about 45 percent of the incremental cost
of the rule as shown in table VI-6. EP
toxic wastes for lead (D003) and
ignitable wastes (D001) are the two
single wastes that incnr the most
incremental cost.
TABLE VT-6.WASTES INCURRING THE
MOST INCREMENTAL COST
On miHiotv dollars/year]
Waste stream
D008
DOOt
D007
D009
D002....
Costs
Subtitle
57
46
34
te
16
a
12
It
6
SuMttte
85
47
38
t7
16
12
12
It
9
The cost of treating D002 corrosive
wastes attributed to the final rale may
be overestimated by as much as $5
million because some of these wastes
may be treated due to the California list
Land Disposal Restrictions rule (52 FR
25760). That rule established a
performance standard prohibiting land
disposal of wastes with a pH less than 2.
while the final rule establishes a
technology-based standard of
deactivation (i.e., neutralization). The
Agency does not have data on how
facilities are meeting the California List
standard. Without specific data about
the post-California List practices, the
entire cost of neutralizing DQ02 acidic
wastes were attributed to this final rule.
4. Economic Impacts
Tables VI7 and VI-8 summarize the
cost and economic impact of the final
rule under subtitle D and subtitle C,
respectively. Compliance costs are the .
tax-adjusted revenue requirements
needed to fund the incremental costs
discussed above. Significantly affected
facilities are those that either need to
increase costs by more than 5 percent or
their compliance costs exceed 5 percent
of their cash from operations.
TABLE VI-7.SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACILITYSUB-
TITLE D
*» Sun\iiary of Ecological Risks. Assessment
Methods, and Risk Management Decision ia
Superfund and RCR.1 (EPA-230-03-8S-046I June
1989
Economic
impact
Compliance
cost
(SMil)
Affected
facs.
Significantly
affected
Estimated
closures
Affected
industry
groups
Noncom-
mercial
24
73
3
0
12
Com
329
37
NA
NA
9
Gener-
ator
235
1,686
429
14
16
Total
259
1.796
432
14
22
TABLE VI-8.SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACILITYSus-
TrrLEC
Economic
impact
Compliance
cost
<$MU>
Affected
fats.
Sigrtfficaritly
affected
Estimated
closures
Affected
industry
groups
Noncom-
mercial
30
73
4
0
12
Com
41O
37
NA
iA
8
Gener-
ator
298
T.68S
552
14
t6
Total
320
1,796
556
14
22
The economic analysis estimates that
the final rule does not have a significant
effect on industry. The effects of the
. final rule are distributed over a wide
range of industries in 22 major industrial
groups rather than concentrated in a few
industries.
Generators are the type of facilities
that incur the largest economic impact
The analysis estimates that 91 percent
of the compliance cost are borne by
generators under both subtitle C and
subtitle D scenarios. Also, 33 percent of
the affected generators are significantly
affected under subtitle C scenario, and
25 percent are significantly affected
under subtitle D scenario.
The analysis estimates that 14
facilities would close as a result of the
final rule. By comparison, the First Third
rule was estimated to result in almost
200 closures. These 14 potential closures
represent less than 4 percent of the 429
significantly affected generators under
subtitle D scenario and less than 3
percent of the 552 significantly affected
generators under subtitle C scenario.
The TSDR survey identified only 2
small businesses that currently land
dispose Third Third waste. Neither is
significantly affected under the final
rule.
B. tl.-*y 'tinLory Flexibility Analysis
Surface Disposed Waste
Pursuant fo the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
Agency is required to publish a notice of
ruiemaking, 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 final 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 final rule on small
businesses is underestimated. However,
the Agency would not expect the
conclusions of the small business
analysis to change significantly if the
goneratordata 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
final rule's effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
The economic analysis identified only
2 small businesses affected by the final
rule. Neither of the 2 would be . .
significantly affected. The Administrator
therefore certifies that part 268 does 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 Infected Wastes
The Agency has completed a separate
regulatory impact analysis for
underground injected wastes affected by
today's final rule. The completed R1A
document. Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Proposed Hazardous Waste Disposal
Restrictions For Class I Injection of
Third Thirds List Wastes, is available in
the public docket for the final rule.
There are 65 injection facilities, of the
total number of Class I injection
facilities, injecting approximately 6
billion gallons of Third Third wastes
annually, including over 4.7 billion
gallons of characteristic wastes. These
Class I hazardous injection facilities are
required to either treat wastes, or file
"no migration" petitions as outlined in
40 CFR part 148 (See 53 FR 28118
preamble for a more thorough discussion
of the no migration petition review
process). The additional facilities
affected by today's rulemaking
substantially contribute to overall
compliance costs already incurred by
Class I injection well owners and .
operators managing hazardous wastes
regulated by previous rulemaking.
The Agency analyzed costs and
benefits for-, today's rule by 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 26,1988 final rule (53
FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking. ,
An analysis was performed to assess
the economic effect of associated -
compliance costs for the additional.
volumes of injected wastes attributable
to today's final rule.
Total compliance costs for injected
wastes are estimated at $54 million
annually. Alternative treatment costs
are estimated at $53.7 .million annually.
and no migration petition costs are
annualized at $0.3 million. The RIA
estimates that 17 faculties will
eventually treat their wastes, and
therefore be significantly affected
economically by today's final rule. All of
these costs will be incurred by Class I
hazardous injection well owners and
operators.
The benefits to human health and the
environment in the RIA are generally
defined as the reduced human health
risk resulting from fewer instances of
ground-water contamination. In general.
potential health risks from Class I
hazardous waste injection wells are
extremely low. However, the RIA
references a few isolated cases where
risks to human health and the
environment may be greater, but are still
too low to quantify. These cases involve
possible grout seal failure around the
protective casing of an injection well,
and the occurrence of unplugged bore
holes around the injection well site. Of
studies conducted to describe Class I
well problems, only six wells, or less
than two percent of all Class I wells.
were reported to have experienced
malfunctions that contributed to any
contamination of the surface or an
underground source of drinking water.
No health-related problems attributed to
Class I injection were reported.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Underground Injection Wastes
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
entities of injection wells that would be
affected by part 148 of today's final rule.
The Administrator therefore certifies
that part 148 and 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 formed RFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
All information collection '" '..
requirements in this final rule were
promulgated in previous land disposal
restrictions rulemakings (including those
for the Underground Injection Control
. Program) and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) at that
time. Since there are no new information
collection requirements being .
promulgated today, an Information
Collection Request has not been
prepared.
F. Review of Supporting Documents
The primary source of information on .
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by this rule was
EPA's 1986 "National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities" (the
TSDR Survey). The average quantity of
waste contributed by generator facilities
was obtained from EPA's "National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated under RCRA in
1981" (April 1984).
Waste stream characterization data
and engineering costs of waste
management were based on the
following EPA documents:
"Characterization of Waste Streams
Listed in 40 CFR Section 261 Waste
Profiles," Vols. I and II (August 1985);
"Characterization of Constituents
from Selected Waste Streams Listed in
40 CFR Section 261." Vols. I and II
(August 1985);
RCRA background and listing
documents for 40 CFR Section 261;
RCRA Section 3007 industry studies;
"RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model,
Appendix A: Waste Stream Data Base"
(March 1984);
Source assessment documents for
various industries; and
"1986-1987 Survey of Selected Firms
in the Commercial Hazardous Waste
Management Industry: Final Report"
(March 1988).
Financial information for the
economic impact analysis was obtained
from the 1982 Census of Manufacturers
and 1984 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers. Producer price indices
were used to restate 1984 dollars in 1990
terms.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 148,261,
262,264,265,268,270,271, and 302
Administrative practice arid
procedure. Confidential business
information. Designated facility,
Environmental protection. Hazardous
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22683
materials, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Labeling,
Manifests, Packaging and containers,
Penalties, Recycling, Reportable .
Quantities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and ...
disposal, Water pollution control, Water
supply. .
Dated: May a, 1990.
F. Henry Habicht,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 148HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.
2. Section 148.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 148.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*****
(d) Wastes that are hazardous only
because they exhibit a hazardous
characteristic, and which are otherwise
prohibited under this part, are not
prohibited if the wastes:
(1) Are disposed into a nonhazardous
or hazardous injection well defined
under 40 CFR 144.6(a); and
(2) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste
identified in subpart C of part 261 at the
point of injection.
3. Section 148.14 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), (f). and
(g) as paragraphs (e), (g), (h), and (j); by
revising the introductory text of newly
redesignated paragraph (j); and by
adding new paragraphs (d), (f), and (i) to
read as follows:
§ 148.14 Waste specific prohibitionsfirst
third wastes.
*****
(d) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number F006
(wastewaters) and F019; the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K004, K008,
K015 (nonwastewaters), K017, K021
(wastewaters), K022 (wastewaters),
K031, K035, K046 (reactive
nonwastewaters and all wastewaters),
K060 (wastewaters), K061
{wastewaters), K069 (calcium sulfate
nonwastewaters and all wastewaters),
K073, K083, K084, K085, K086 (all but
solvent washes), K101 (high arsenic
nonwastewaters), K102 (high arsenic
nonwastewaters), and K106; and the
wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261.33
as EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
POOl, P004, POOS, P010, P011, P012, P015,
P01B, P018, P020, P036. P037, P048, P050.
P058, P059, P068, P069, P070, P081, P082,
. P084, P087, P092, P102, P105, P108, P110,
P115, P120, P122, P123, U007, U009, U010,
U012, U016, U018, U019, U022, U029,
U031, U036, U037, U041, U043, U044,
U046, U050, U051, U053, U061, U063,
U064, U066, U067, U074, U077, U078,
U086, U089, U103, U105, U108, U115,
U122, U124, U129, U130, U133, U134,
U137, U151, U154, U155, U157, U158,
U159, U171, U177, U180, U185, U188,
U192, U200, U209, U210, U211, U219,
U220, U226, U227, U228, U237, U238,
U248, and U249 are prohibited from
underground injection at off-site
injection facilities.
*****
(f) Effective November 8,1990, the
wastes specified in paragraph (d) of this
section are prohibited from underground
injection at on-site injection facilities.
*****
(i) Effective May 8,1992, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 and 261.33 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers K011
(wastewaters), K013 (wastewaters), and
K014 are prohibited from underground
injection.
(j) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (i) of this section do not apply:
*****
4. Section 148.15 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as
paragraphs (e) and (g); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (g); and by adding new
paragraphs (d) and (f) to read as
follows:
§ 148.15 Waste specific prohibitions-
second third wastes.
*****
(d) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K025
(wastewaters), K029 (wastewaters),
K041, K042, K095 (wastewaters), K096
(wastewaters), K097, K098, and K105;
and the wastes specified in 40 CFR part
261.33 as P002, POOS, P007, P008, P014,
P026, P027, P049, P054, P057. P060, P066,
P067, P072, P107, P112, P113, P114, U002,
U003, U005, U008, U011, U014, U015,
U020, U021, U023, U025, U026, U032,
U035, U047, U049, U057, U059, U060,
U062, U070, U073, U080, U083, U092,
U093, U094, U095, U097, U098, U099,
U101, U106, U109, U110, Ulll, U114,
U116, U119, U127, U128, U131, U135,
U138, U140, U142, U143, U144, U146, .
U147, U149, U150, U161, U162, U163,
U164, U165. U168, U169, U170, U172.
U173, U174, U176. U178, U179, U189,
U193. U196, U203, U205, U206, U208,
U213. U214, U215, U216, U217, U218,
U239, and TJ244 are prohibited from
underground injection at off-site .
injection facilities.
*****
(f) Effective November 8,1990, the
wastes specified in paragraph (d) of this.
section are prohibited from underground
injection at on-site injection facilities.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through {f} of this section do not apply:
*****
5. Section 148.16 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (g); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (g); and by adding new
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to read as
follows:
§ 148.16 Waste specific prohibitions-
third third wastes.
*****
(c) Effective August 8,1990, the
wastes identified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number F039
(multi-source leachate); the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K002, K003,
K005 (wastewaters). K006, K007
(wastewaters), K023, K026, K032, K033,
K034, K093, K094 and KlOO
(wastewaters); the wates specified in 40
CFR 261.33 as P006, P009, P017, P022,
P023, P024, P028, P031, P033, P034, P038,
P042, P045, P046, P047. P051, P056, POM,
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, U038,
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, U126, U132, U136, U139,
U141, U145, U148, U152, U153. U156,
U160, U166, U167, U181, U182, U183,
U184, U186, U187, U191, U194, U197,
U201, U202, U204, U207, U222, U225,
U234, U236, U240, U243, and U247; and
the wastes identified in 40 CFR 261.21,
261.23 or 261.24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as D001,
D004, D005, D006, D008, D009
(wastewaters), D010, D011, D012, D013,
D014, D015, D016, D017 are prohibited
from underground injection at off-site
injection facilities.
(d) Effective August 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.
(e) Effective November 8,1990, the
wastes specified in paragraph (c) of this
section are prohibited from underground
-------
22684
PBderal JRegfeter / Vol. 55. Mo. 106 / Friday. |une 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Injection at Jin-site injection facilities.
These effective dates do not apply to fhe
wastes Bated in 40 CER148 J2[b} which
are pronlbltedlmm underground
injection on August 8, isaa
ff) Effective May 8.1992, the wastes
IdenUEedin40 CFR 261.22, .261.23,01
281-24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as D002
twastewaters and nonwastewaters),
D003{wa3tewaters and
ncmwastewatera), B007 Iwastewaters
and nonwastewaters], and D009
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
underground injection. These effective
dates do no apply to the wastes listed in
40 CFR 148.12(b) which are prohibited
from underground injection on August 6,
1990.
tg) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (fj of this section do not apply:
PART 261IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42U.S.C. 6905.6912(a). 692L
6922, and B93a
Subpart-CCharacteristics of
Hazardous Waste
2. In § 261.20. paragraph [b] is revised
to read as follows:
§ 261.20 General.
*
(b) A hazardous waste which is
identified by a characteristic in this
subpart is assigned every EPA
Hazardous Waste Number that is
applicable as set forth in this subpart.
This number must be in complying with
the notification requirements of section
3010 of the Act and all applicable
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under parts 262 through
265.268. and 270 of this chapter.
*
3. In § 261.21, paragraph (b] is revised
to read as follows:
§ 26121 Characteristic of IgnttabHity.
«*
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of D001.
4. In S 261.22, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 26122 Characteristic of corroshrtly.
»«
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of D002.
5. In § 261.23. paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§26123 Characteristic of reactivity.
*****
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of reactivity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of D003.
6. In § 26L24, paragraph {b}
introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
§26124 TorfcttycharacterisBc.
****
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of toxicUy has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number specified in
Table I which corresponds to the toxic
contaminant causing it to be hazardous.
Subpart DLists of Hazardous Wastes
7. Section 261.31 is amended by
adding the following waste code in
alphanumeric order.
§261.31 Hazardous wastes from non-
specific sources.
Industry
and EPA
hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
F039 Leachate resulting from (T).
the treatment, storage.
or disposal of wastes
-------
Federal Renter / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22685
Subpart BGeneral Facility Standards
2. In §'264.13, the comment following
Paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows: : - -:
§264.13 General waste analysis.
(2)* * *
[Comment: For example, the facility's
records of analyses 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 faculty may arrange for the generator of
the hazardous waste to supply part of the
information required by paragraph (a)(l) of
this section, except as othewise specified in
40 CFR 268.7 (b) and (c). 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 KSurface Impoundments
3. The introductory text of § 264.229 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.229 Special requirements for
Ignltable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed in a surface impoundment,
unless the waste and impoundment
satisfy all applicable requirements of 40
CFR part 268, and:
Subpart LWaste Piles
4. The introductory text of § 264.256 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.256 Special requirements for
ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be place in a waste pile unless the waste
and waste pile satisfy all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, and:
Subpart MLand Treatment
5. The introductory text of § 264.281 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.281 Special requirements for
ignitable or reactive waste.
The owner or operator must not apply
ignitable or reactive waste to the
treatment zone unless the waste and the
treatment zone meet all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, and:
Subpart MLandfills
6. In § 264.312. paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (b) are revised to
read as follows:
§264.312 Special requirements for
Ignltable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, and in § 264.316,
ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed in a landfill, unless the waste
and landfill meet all applicable
requirements of part 268, and:
*****
(b) Except for prohibited wastes
which remain subject to treatment
standards in subpart D of part 268,
ignitable wastes hi containers may be
landfilled without meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, provided that the wastes are
disposed of in such a way that they are
protected from any material or
conditions which may cause them to
ignite. At a minimum, ignitable wastes
must be disposed of in non-leaking
containers which are carefully handled
and placed so as to avoid heat, sparks,
rupture, or any other condition that
might cause ignition of the wastes; must
be covered daily with soil or other non:
combustible material to minimize the
potential for ignition of the wastes; and
must not be disposed of in cells that
contain or will contain other wastes
which may generate heat sufficient to
cause ignition of the waste.
7. In § 264.316, paragraph (f) is added
to read as follows:
§ 264.316 Disposal of small containers of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
« * * *
(f) Such disposal is in compliance with
the requirements of Part 268. Persons .
who incinerate lab packs according to
the requirements in 40 CFR 268.42(c)(l)
may use fiber drums in place of metal
outer containers. Such fiber drums must
meet the DOT specifications in 49 CFR
173.12 and be overpacked according to
the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section.
PART 265INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
6925, and 6935.
Subpart AGeneral
2. Section 265.1(e) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 265.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
* * * * *
(e) The requirements of this part apply
to owners or operators of all facilities
which treat store or dispose of
hazardous waste referred to in 40 CFR
part 268, and the 40 CFR part 268
standards are considered material
conditions or requirements of the part
265 interim status standards.
Subpart BGeneral Facility Standards
3. The comment at the end of
paragraph (a) of § 265.13 is revised to
read as follows:
§ 265.13 General waste analysis.
(a)***
(2) * * *
Comment: for example, the facility's
records of analyses 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 of the
information required by paragraph (a)(l) of
this section, except as otherwise specified in
40 CFR 268.7 (b) and (c). 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 KSurface Impoundments
4. 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 and impoundment
satisfy all applicable requirements of 40
CFR part 268, and:
Subpart LWaste Piles
5. Paragraph (a) introductory text of
§ 265.256 is revised to read as follows:
§ 265.256 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
(a] Ignitable or reactive waste must
not be placed in a pile unless the waste
and pile satisfy all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, and:
Subpart MLand Treatment
6. The introductory text of § 265.281 is
revised to read as follows:
-------
§265.281 Special requlrements-for
ignltable or reactive waste.
Tie uwner nr operator must not apply
Ignitabletir reactive waste to the
treatment zone tniless title Yraste and
treatmcntTOTie -meet all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268. an*
* ''* -*
Subpart NLairdrtHs
7. 'Paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (b) of § 265.312 are revised to read
as follows:
5 265.312 Special requirements lor
Iflnltable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
[b) of this section, and in § 265.316.
ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed hi a landfill, tmless the waste
and landfill meets all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, an*
. « *
(b) Except for prohibited wastes
which remain subject to treatment
standards in aubpart D of part 268,
ignitable -wastes in containers may be
landfilled without meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
necllon. provided that the wastes are
disposed of in such a way that they are
protected from any material or
conditions which may cause them to
Jgnite. At a minimum, ignitable wastes
must be disposed of in non-leaking
containers which are carefully handled
and placed so as to avoid heat, sparks,
rupture, or any other condition that
might cause ignition of the wastes; must
be covered daily with soil or other non-
combustible material to minimize the
potential for ignition of the wastes; and
must not be disposed of in cells that
contain or will contain other wastes
which may generate heat sufficient to
cause ignition of the waste.
8. In § 265.316. paragraph [f) is added
to read as follows:
§ 265.316 Disposal of small containers of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
» « * *
(f) Such disposal is in compliance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 268.
Persons who incinerate lab packs
according to the requirements in 40 CFR
268.42(cHl) may use fiber drums in place
of metal outer containers. Such fiber
drums must meet the DOT specifications
in 49 CFR 173.12 and be overpacked
according to the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
PART 268LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Subpart AGeneral
2. In §268.1, paragraph (c)(3) is added,
and paragraph tc)[S) is removed, to read
as follows:
§268.1 Itepose, scope, and appHcabHRy.
(3) Wastes feat are hazardous only
because they exhibit aliazardous
characteristic, andwnich are otherwise
prohibited from land disposal under this
part, are not prohibited from land
disposal if the wastes:
(i) Are disposed into a nonhazardons
or hazardous injection well as defined in
40 CFR 144.8(a3; and
(ii) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste at the
point of injection.
« * * * *
3. Section 268.2 is revised to read as
follows:
§268.2 Definitions applicable In this part
When used in this part the following
terms have the meanings given below.
{a) Halogenated organic compounds
or HOCs means those compounds
having a carbon-halogen bond which are
listed under appendix HI to this part.
(b) Hazardous constituent or
constituents means those constituents
listed in appendix VIH to part 261 of this
chapter.
(c) Land disposal means placement in
or on the land and includes, but is not
limited to. placement in a landfill
surface impoundment waste pile,
injection well, land treatment facility.
salt dome formation, salt bed formation,
underground mine or cave, or placement
in a concrete vault or bunker intended
for disposal purposes.
(d) Nonwastevraters are wastes that
do not meet the criteria for wastewaters
in paragraph (g)(6) of this section.
(e) Polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs
are halogenated organic compounds
defined in accordance with 40 CFR
761.3.
(f) Wastewaters are wastes that
contain less than 1% by weight total
organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1%
by weight total suspended solids (TSS),
with the following exceptions:
(1) FOOl, F002. F003. F004, F005
solvent-water mixtures that contain less
than 1% by weight TOC or less than 1%
by weight total FOOl. F002. F003, F004,
F005 solvent constituents listed in
§268.41, Table CCWE.
(2) K011, K013, K014 wastewaters {as
generated) that contain less than 5% by
weight TOC and less than 1% by weight
TSS.
(3) KlO3<3itdK104 wastetvaters
contain less than 4% by weight TOC and
less than 1% by weight TSS.
(g) Inorganic Solid Debris are
nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.5 mm
standard sieve that require cutting, or
crushing and grinding in mechanical
sizing equipment prior to stabilization,
limited to the following inorganic «r
metal materials:
tl) Metal slags [eiflier dross or scoria).
(2) Classified slag.
(3) Glass.
(4J Concrete (excluding cementitious
or pozzolanic stabilized hazardous
wastes}.
(5) Masonry and refractory bricks.
(6) Metal cans, containers, drums, or
tanks.
(7) Metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps,
valves, appliances, wr industrial
equipment.
(8) Scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR
.
4. Section 268.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, no generator,
transporter, handler, or owner or
operator of a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility shall in any way dilute
a restricted waste or the residual from
treatment of a restricted waste as a
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with subpart D of
this part, to circumvent the effective
date of a prohibition in subpart C of this
part, to otherwise avoid a prohibition in
subpart C of this part, or to circumvent a
land disposal prohibition imposed by
RCRA section 3004.
(b) Dilution of wastes that are
hazardous only because they exhibit a
characteristic in a treatment system
which treats wastes subsequently
discharged to a water of the United
States pursuant to a permit issued under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) or which treats wastes for
purposes of pretreatment requirements
under section 307 of the CWA is not
impermissible dilution for purposes of
this section unless a method has been
specified as the treatment standard in
§268.42.
5. In §268.7, paragraphs (a)(l)(iij,
(a)(2)(i)(B), (a)[3)(ii), and MM are
revised; new paragraphs (a)(7j, (a)lBJ.
and (a)(9) are added; paragraph (b)(4)[ii)
is revised; the certification in paragraph
(b)(5)(i) is revised; new paragraph
(b)(5)[iii) is added; paragraph [b}(7] is
removed and paragraph (b)(8) is
redesignated as paragraph (b)(7); the
-------
Federal Register j VOL 55. *3o. M6 ^ Priday, |ime 1. 3fl90 / Sales .and Ssgulatioas 22SB7
introductory text io paragraph i(cj «
revi
are remorarl. to lead as follows:
§2687 iMaslfi-analyaisandiecordkeeplna.
(a) ---
(1) «,!.*;.--:.:
(ii)The corcesponding -treatment . .
standards for wastes f001-JK005,J5Q39.
and wastes prohibited jpursuant Jo
§ 268.32.or RCEASectkai 3Q04(dJ.
Treatment standards lor aH other
restricted wastes -may %& referenced by
including on the notification ike
subcategory of fhe waste, the
treatabifily.groupIsD-of ihe wasielsj, and
the CERsfictiopIs) and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in 5 268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in'Table
1 of §268.42 (e^TNON. WETOX) also
must be listed on the -notification.
(2)
standards ander Subpart D of this part,
the generator must. develop and follow a
written -waste analysis plan -which
describes the procedures the genera tor
(B) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, E039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§26832 or RCRA Section 3004{d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
subcategory of the waste, the
treatability groupfs) of the waste(s), and
the CFR sections) and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in §268.42. the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 § 263.42 (e.g.. INCLN, IVETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-FOQ5, F039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 26832 or RCRA section 3004{d).
Treatment standards forsll other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
subcategory oTthe waste, the
treatability group{s3 of the waste(s). and
the CFR section{s3 and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in §268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of § 26S.42 (e.g~ JNCJN. WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
(4) If a generator is managing a
prohibited waste in tanks or containers
regulated under 40 CFR 26234. and is
treating such waste in such ranks or
containers to meet applicable treatment
treatment standards. The plan must be
kept en-site in the generator's records,
and ihe following requirements must .-be
met:
(i) Ine waste analysis plan must be
based en .a detailed chemical and
physical .analysis trf a -representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s) being
treated, and contain .all information
necessary to treat the wastefs) in
accordance with AE requirements nf
this Earl, ancroding the selected testing
frequency.
i(ii) Such plan must lie .filed with Ihe
EPA Regional Administrator (or bis
designated representative) or State
authorized to implement Part 268
requirements a minimum of 30 days
prior to the treatment activity, with
delivery verified.
(iii) Wastes shipped off-site pursuant
to this paragraph must comply with the
notification requirements of 5268.7{a)(2).
* * * * »
(7) If a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains wastes identified in
Appendix IV of this part and wishes to
use the alternative treatment standard
under § 268.42, with each shipment of
waste the generator must submit a
notice to the treatment facility m
accordance with paragraph (a)(l) of this
section. The generator must also comply
with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(5) and (aj(6) of this section, and must
submit the following certification, which
must be signed by an authorized
representative:
I certify -under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste and that the lab pack contains
only the wastes specified in appendix IV to
part 268 or solid wastes not subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 261. 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 organic wastes
specified in Appendix V of this Part and
wishes to use the alternate treatment
standards under §268.42, with each
shipment of waste the generator must
submit a notice to the treatment facility
in accordance with paragraph ta](l) of
this section. The generator also must
comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a){5) and {a}{6) of this
section, and must submit the following
certification which must be signed by an
authorized representative:
I certify under penalty of law that!
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and testing
or throughknowledge of the waste and thai
the lab pack contains only .organic waste
specified in Appendix V to Part 2B8 ur soEd
wastes not subject to TegriterJon-nnfler<40
CFR Part 261. I^maware that Jiierezre
significant penalties or submitting a Salse
certification. 4nf3uding*tfae possibility of-fine
or imprisonment
X9) Small quantity genBrators -with
tolling Hgreenreats pursuant to 30 "CFR
262^0{e) mustcomply with the
applicable -notification and certification
requirements of paragraph {a) of this
section for die initial shipment of ihe
waste subject to flie agreement Such
generators nrast retain-on-site a copy «tf
the notification and certification,
together -with the tolling agreement for
at least three .years after termination or
expiration of the agreement The fhree-
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.
(4) * * *
(ii) The corresponding Jreatment
standards for wastes FB01-F005, P039.
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 268.32 or RCRA Section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
subcategory of the waste, the
treatability group(s) of the waste(s), and
the CFR section(s] and paragraphs
where the treatment -standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in §268.42, Ihe applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of 1268.42 (eg.. DSfCTN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification,
(5)
.(0 * * *
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining this information. I believe that the
treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly so as to comply with the
performance levels specified in 40 CFR part
268, subpart D, and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 26O32 or
RCRA section 3004(4) -without impermissible
dilution of the prohibited waste. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility ol fine and imprisonment
« * * * *
(iii) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste pursuant to §268.43, if
compliance with the treatment
standards in subpart D of this part is
-------
22688
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
based in part or in whole on the
analytical detection limit alternative
specified in §Z68.43(c), the certification
also must state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining this information, I believe that the
nonwastewater organic constituents have
been treated by incineration in units operated
in accordance with 40 CFR part 264, subpart
O) or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or by
combustion in fuel substitution units
operating in accordance with applicable
technical requirements, and I have been
unable to detect the nonwastewater organic
constituents despite having used best good
faith efforts to analyze for such constituents.
I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting a false certification.
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment
« * *
(c) Except where the owner or
operator is disposing of any waste that
is a recyclable material used in a
manner constituting disposal pursuant
to 40 CFR 266.20(b), the owner or
operator of any land disposal facility
disposing any waste subject to
restrictions under this part must:
* *
6. Paragraph (a) of §268.8 is revised to
read as follows:
§268.8 Landfill and surface Impoundment
disposal restrictions.
(a) Prior to May 8.1990, wastes which
are otherwise prohibited from land
disposal under §268.33(f) of this part
may be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment which is in compliance
with the requirements of § 268.5(h)(2)
provided that the requirements of this
section are met. As of May 8,1990. this
section is no longer in effect.
*****
7. Section 268.9 is added to subpart A
to read as follows:
§268.9 Spccla! rules regarding wastes that
exhibit a characteristic.
(a) The initial generator of a solid
waste must determine each waste code
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
standards under subpart D of this part.
For purposes of part 268, the waste will
carry a waste code designation for any
applicable listing under 40 CFR part 261.
subpart D, and also one or more waste
code designations under 40 CFR part
261, subpart C where the waste exhibits
the relevant characteristic.
(b) Where a prohibited waste is both
listed under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D
and exhibits a characteristic under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, the treatment
standard for the waste code listed hi 40
CFR part 261, subpart D will operate in
lieu of the standard for the waste code
under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C,
provided that the treatment standard for
the listed waste includes a treatment
standard for the constituent that causes
the waste to exhibit the characteristic.
Otherwise, the waste must meet the
treatment standards for all applicable
listed and characteristic waste codes.
(c) In addition to any applicable
standards determined from the initial
point of generation, no prohibited waste
which exhibits a characteristic under 40
CFR part 261. subpart C may be land
disposed unless the waste complies with
the treatment standards under subpart D
of this part.
(d) Wastes that exhibit a
characteristic are also subject to § 268.7
requirements, except that once the
waste is no longer hazardous, for each
shipment of such wastes to a subtitle D
facility the initial generator or the
treatment facility need not send a
§ 268.7 notification to such facility. In
such circumstances, a notification and
certification must be sent to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
(or his delegated representative) or State
authorized to implement part 268
requirements.
(1) The notification must include the
following information:
(i) The name and address of the
subtitle D facility receiving the waste
shipment;
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including the
applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s) and treatability group(s);
(iii) The treatment standards
applicable to the waste at the initial
point of generation.
(2) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the language found in
§268.7(b)(5)(i).
Subpart CProhibitions on Land
Disposal
8. Section 268.35 is added to read as
follows:
§ 268.35 Waste specific prohibitions-
Third Third wastes.
(a) Effective August 8,1990, the
following wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F006 (wastewaters), F019. and
F039 (wastewaters): the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers 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); K048
(wastewaters); K049 (wastewaters);
K050 (wastewaters); K051
(wastewaters); K052 (wastewaters);
K060 (wastewaters); K061
(wastewaters); K069 (wastewaters);
K073; K083 (wastewaters); K084
(wastewaters); K085; K095
(wastewaters); K096 (wastewaters);
K097; K098; KlOO (wastewaters); K101
(wastewaters); K102 (wastewaters);
K105; and K106 (wastewaters); the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers P001;
P002; POOS; P004; POOS; P006; P007; POOS;
P009; P010 (wastewaters); P011
(wastewaters); P012 (wastewaters);
P014; P015; P016; P017; P018
(wastewaters); P020; P022; P023; P024;
P027; P028; P031; P033; P034; P036
(wastewaters); P037; P038
(wastewaters); P042; P045; P046; P047;
P048; P049; P050; P051; P054; P056; P057;
P058; P059; P060; P064; P065
(wastewaters); P066; P067; P068; P069;
P070; P072; P073; P075; P076; P077; P078;
P081; P082; P084; P088; P092
(wastewaters); P093; P095; P096; P101;
P102; Pi03; P105; P108; P109; P110; P112;
P113; P114; P115; P116; P118; P119; P120;
P122; and P123; and the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers 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; U076; U077;
U078; U079; U080; U081: U082; U083;
U084; U085; U086; U089; U090; U091;
U092; U093; U094; U095; U096; U097;
U098; U099; U101; U103; U105; U106;
U108; U109; U110; Ulll: U112; U113;
U114; U115; U116; U117; U118; U119:
U120 (wastewaters); U121; U122; U123;
U124; U125; U126; U127; U128; U129;
U130; U131; U132; U133: U134; U135;
U136 (wastewaters); U137; U138; U140;
U141; U142; U143; U144; U145; U146;
U147; U148; U149; U150; U151
(wastewaters); U152; U153; U154; U155;
U156; U157; U158; U159; U160; U161;
U162; U163; U164; U165; U166; U167;
U168; U169; U170; U171; U172; U173;
U174; U176; U177; U178; U179; U180;
U181; U182; U183; U184; U185; U186;
U187: U188: U189: U191; U192; U193;
-------
Federal ftegratef / Vol. 55, No. 106 ,/ Friday, June 1. 3390 / Rules and ReguJatJons
226B9
U194: U196; U197; U200; U201; U202;
U203; U204; U205; U206; U207; U208;
U209; £7210; U211; U213; U244; U21S;
U2!B;iU2!7: U233; H219; U220; JJ2Z2;
U225: tJ228; U227; U228; U234; 13236;
U237;-U236; U299;-U249; U243; 1J244;
U246; U247-TJ248; U249; andlhe
following wastes identified as
hazardous based on-a characteristic -
alone: DD01; D002, DOTJ3. D004
(wastewalers), D005,B006;.D007;D008
(except for lead materials stored before
secondary smelting), D009
(wastewalers), D010, D011,O012, B013.
DOW, D01S, D016, and 0017 are
prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective November 8,1990, the
following wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers K048 (nonwaslewatersj, KD49
(nonwastewaters), K050
(nonwastewaters), K051
(nonwastewaters), andK052
(nonwaslewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal.
(c) Effective May«, 1992. the following
waste specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F039
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers K031 (nonwastewaters);
K084 (nonwastewaters); K101
(nonwastewaters); K102
(nonwastewaters); K106
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers P010 {nonwastewaters);
P011 (nonwastewaters]; P012
(nonwastewaters); P036
(nonwastewaters); P038
(nonwastewaters); P065
(nonwastewaters); P087
(nonwastewaters); and P092
(nonwastewaters); the "wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers U136
(nonwastewaters); and LJ151
(nonwastewaters); and the following
wastes identified as hazardous based on
a characteristic alone: D004
{nonwastewaters); D008 (lead materials
stored -before secondary smelting); and
D009 (nonwastewaters); inorganic solids
debris as defined in 40 CFR 268.2(a)[7)
(which also applies to chromium
refractory bricks carrying the EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K048-JC052);
and RCRA hazardous wastes that
contain naturally occurring radioactive
materials are prohibited from land
disposal. .
(d) Effective May 8,1992. hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.12 that are
mixed radioactive/hazardous wastes
are prohibited from land disposal.
(e) Effective May 8.1992, the wastes
specified in this section having a
treatment standard in subpartD of this
part basp.d on incineration, mercury
contaminated soil or debris, are
prohibited from land disposal.
-ff) Between May fi, 1S90 and August-8,
1990, the wastes included in paragraph
-{a} may-be-disposed -of in fc-hmdfiH -or
surface impoundment-only if such unit is
.in nrnnpliannp with frhpTprpiirpmpntg
specified in % 268,5{h}[23.
fg) Between May 8,1990 and
"November B, 1990, wastes included in
paragraph (b) of this section may lie
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment -only if such unit -is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in S ^68.5(h3(23.
4h) .Between May 8.1990, and May 8,
1992, wastes included In paragraphs (c),
fd), and f.ej -of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment-only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268;5[hH23-
(i) The requirements of paragraphs (a),
Ib), (c), [d], and (e) of fliis section do not
apply if:
<1) The wastes meet the applicable
startdards specified in subpart D of this
part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
'the petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under
1 268.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with
respect to these wastes covered by the
extension.
(j) To determine whether a hazardous
waste listed in § 268.10, 268.11, and
268.12 exceeds the applicable treatment
standards specified in § § 268.41 and
. .268.43, the initial generator must test &
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 D
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of part
268 are applicable, except as otherwise
specified,
8. Section 268.40 is amended by
revising paragraphs (aj and (c) to read
as follows:
§ 26S.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
$ 268.41 may be land disposed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
.residue of the waste developed using the
test method in appendix I of this par1
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of § 268.41 ior^ny
hazardous (constituent listed in Table
-CCWE for 4hat waste, -with-the following
^exceptions D004, D008, K031, K084,
K1O1.K1O2. Pmn, Pmi, Pm?,, POSR. Pnag,
end U13& Wastes D004, J3008, JC031,
K084, KlttU KM2. f»010, PG11, *"012,«J38.
P038. and Ul36may be land disposed
only if an extract of the waste or ,af the
"treatment naaidup of the waste
developed using -either the test method
in Appendix I of this part -or the test
method in appendix II of part 261 does
not exceed the value shown hi Table
CCW of § 268.41 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for
that waste.
*****
(c) Except as otherwise specified in
§ 268.43(c), a restricted waste identified
in § 268.43 may be land disposed only if
the constituent concentrations in the
waste or treatment residue of the waste
do not exceed the value shown in Table
CCW of | 268.43 for any hazardous
constituents listed in Table CCW for
that waste.
10. Section 268.41 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and Table
CCWEConstituent Concentrations hi
Waste Extract, to read as follows:
§ 268/41 Treatment standards expressed
as concentrations in waste extract
(a) Table CCWE identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
-of their -associated constituents which
may not be exceeded by the extract of a
waste or waste treatment residual
developed using the test method hi
Appendix I of this part for the allowable
land disposal of such wastes, with the
exception of wastes D004, D008, K031,
K084, K101, K102, P010, P011. P012, P038,
.P038, and U136. Table CCWE identifies
the restricted wastes D004, D008, K031,
K084. K101. K102. P010, P011, P012, P038,
P038. and U136 and the concentrations
of their associated constituents which
may not be exceeded by the extract of a
waste or waste treatment residual
developed using the test method hi
Appendix I of this part or appendix n of
40 CFR part 261 for the allowable land
disposal of such wastes. (Appendix II of
this part provides Agency guidance on
treatment methods that have been.
shown to achieve the Table CCWE
levels for the respective wastes.
Appendix n of this part is not a
regulatory requirement but is provided
to assist generators and owners/
operators in their selection of
appropriate treatment methods.)-
Compliance with these concentrations is
required based upon grab samples.
-------
22690
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCWE. CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Waste code
DOM -.
D005 : : :
pOOft ., .. , ,, , ,
D007
D008-
D008 (Low Mercury Subcatogory
toss than 260 mg/kg Mercury).
D010 -. .
D011
F001-F005 scant solvents.
F003 j u,,..,.. t-i,r
CAA7 ,,_-
FOOA i.m,,
PQQ£ ^,
F0194, . ,..,.,.,
F020-F023 «nd F026-F028 dfoxin
contaisng wastes.*.
See also
Table COW In 266.43
Table CCW in 268.43_ -4
Tabte CCW in 268.43... -. - -
Table CCW in 268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43 ...
Tabte 2 fn 268.42 and Table CCW In
268.43.
Table CCW In 268.43
Table 2 in 268.42 and Table CCW In
268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Tabte CCW In 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Tabte CCW in 268 43 ~-.~
Table CCW In 268.43
Regulated hazardous constituent
3arium i
Cadmium ~ ~
Chromium (Total) ;
Mercury « ««.«.....». «
Seisnium
Silver .....__.._. ...........
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride .
Chlorobenzene ..
Cresols (and cresylte acid)
Cydohexanone _
,2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl acetate. .............................
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ether ..._.._ ..........................
sobutanol
dethanol
lethylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
retrachtoroethylene
fOl U OTIS ........... m ...... r«T» .«*«««
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1 .1 .2-Trichloro-1 ,2,2-Tetrifluorethane
rrichloroethylene
Tnchlorofiuoromethane
Dhromkim (Total)
_68Cl .- ~ .~ un.ij........nr»n -
Chromium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Cadmium .... ..
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel -
Stiver
Cadmium
Chromium (Tola!)
Njckel
Cadmium _...._
Chromium (Tojall...,
ticket
Chromium (Total)
HxCDD-All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-diox
ins.
HxCDF-AII Hexachlorodibenzofurans..
PeCDD-AII Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins.
PeCDF-AII Pentachlorodibenzofurans.
TCDD-AII Tetrachlorodlbenzo-p-diox
ins.
TCDF-AII Tetrachlorodibenzofurans....
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4.6-Trichlorophenol
CAS' number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
67-64-1
71-36-3
75-15-0
56-23-5
08-90-7
108-94-1
95-50-1
141-78-6
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-83-1
67-56-1
75-9-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
9S-95-3
110-86-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
76-13-1
79-01-6
75-69-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-47-32
95-95-4
88-06-2
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
5.0
.05
0.05
0.15
2.82
0.125
0.65
0.05
0.05
0.05
5.0
0.25
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.66
1.12
0.079
1.12
1.05
1.05
0.062
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<0.05 ppm
<0.05 ppm
Non-
wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
5.0#
00
.0
5.0
0.20
5.7
5.0
0.59
5.0
4.81
0.96
0.05
0.75
0.75
0.125
0.75
0.053
0.75
5.0
0.75
0.96
0.75
0.33
0.125
0.33
0.05
0.33
0.41
0.96
0.091
0.96
0.15
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
5.2
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1ppb
<1 ppb
<0.05 ppm
<0.05 ppm
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22691
TABLE CCWE.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACTContinued
Waste code
. . . .-_. , ' . . .
F039 . . - - ~
.
K001.- . .. ....
K002 . -~...~~ -"
K003
K004 » ~
KQ05 wt ....-. WW.»_H«.
K006 (anhydrous)
K006 (hydrated)
K006 «-
K022 .... ~«»
K03 1 -
K048.... ....- ....«-.
K051
KO61 {Low Zinc Subcategory less
than 1 5% Total Zinc).
K069 (Calcium SuHate Subcategory) ...
K071 (Low Mercury Subcategory
Jess than 16 mg/kg Mercury).
K083 - -
jf 1 Qo
K106 (Low Mercury Subcategory
less than 260 mg/kg Mercury resi-
. dues from RMERC).
less than 260 mg/kg Mercury tha
are not residues from RMERC).
' See also
able CCW in 268.43.
able CCW m 268.43 «.«-- ..«-,.-«.
i
'
-. . , ,.-
Table CCW in 268 43
Table CCW in 268 43 ^ ^
Table CCW in 268.43 .
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table 2 in 268.42 and Table CCW m
268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table 2 in 268.42 and Table CCW in
268.43.
268.43.
Regulated hazardous constituent '
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
PontachlorophGnol ...._.... ;.;.»,.,
Chromium (Total) :
Lead i
Nictol -
Antimony ....-i-i
farflim '" . T
Lead ,...
Nickel i -
agft ^ ,.,,.
Chromium (Total)
Lead , .
Chromium (Total)
Load ..-
Chromium (Total) .n......
Lead
Chromium (Total)
Lead .- . ..
Chromium (Total)
.ead i I... i
Chromium (Total)
Chromium (Total) . .
Lead ~
Chromium (Total)
Lead ,
Cr*omium (Total)
Nickel
Arsenic
Lead _ _ .
Chromium (Total)
Nickel _.___ .,-, -
Chrortwm (Total) .
Nickel
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Nickel
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Cfldmiurn
Chromium (Total)....,
Lead
Chromium (Total)
Cadmium . .
Uftfdstv -« .««....-
fVit?l ****« J ...».... .....~...... ~ .
Nickel -
Chromium (Total)
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Arsenic « -~
Arsenic ...... ,
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
58-90-2
87-86-5
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-47r32
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-36-0
744O-47-32
7440-02-2
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
744O-*7-32
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/0
.23#
52
X32
0.073
0.021
0.088
5.6#
0.18
1.7
0.20
1.7
0.20
1.7
0.20
1.7
0.20
1.7
0.20
0.14
5.2
0.24
0.32
0.094
0.37
0.14
0.24
0.025
0.088
5.6#
0.094
0.37
0.51
0.066
5.2
051
5.6#
5.6#
0.20
0.025
-------
22692 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 f Friday.. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCWE.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACTContinued
Wast* cod*
KMfi .-
1 : Sfid-al3Q
Table COW _
, Regulated hazardous constituent
Nickel . - ..-
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
7440-02-0
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/0
NA
Non-
wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
0.32
#Tnme freatment standard* hava been based on EP Leachate analysts but this does not preclude the use of TCLP analysis.
*Th«** waste eod«s,ar* not subcategorized into wastewaters and nonwastewatare.
NANalAppScabte.
TABLE CCWECONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR WASTE EXTRACTS
Waste codo
P010 -
P011
P012
P013
P036
P038
P065 (Low Mercury Subcata-
gory test than 260 mg/kg
Mercury-residues from
RMERC).
P06S (Low Mtrcury Subcate-
oory te«« th«n 260 mg/kg
Mercury-incinerator resi-
dues (and ar* not residues
from RMEHCJ).
P092 (Low Mercury Subcata-
gofy k»s ttian 260 mg/kg
Mercury residues from
RMERC).
P092 (Low Mercury Subcate-
Bory lost than 260 mg/kp,
Mercury-Incinerator re»-
daos (end are not residues
from RMERC)).
P103
P't04 . _
P110
P 1 1 4 .
U032
U051
U136
U144 -
U145...
U14S
U151 (Low Mercury Subcate-
, gory toss than 260 mg/kg
Mercury residues from
RMERC).
01 5t (Low Mercury Subcate-
gory less man 260 mg'kg
; Mercury that are not resi-
dues from R.M2RC),
U204
U2OT -
See also
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW hi 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW- in 268.43._
Table CCW in 268.43 ... ..
Table CCW in 268.43
Table 2 in 268.42 and Table
CCW hi 268.43.
Table 2 In 268.42 and Table
CCW in 268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43
Tabla CCW in 268 43 ,,
Table 2 In 268.42 and Table
CCW in 268.43.
Table 2 in 268.42 and Tabla
CCW in 268.43.
Table CCW in 268 43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 260.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW n 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43 -
Table CCW m 268.43 and in
Table 2 in 268.42.
Table CCW in 268.43 and
Table 2 in 263.42.
TabJe CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Commercial chemical name
Arsenic acid. .-.
Arsenic pentoxide __~
Arsenic trioxide ._.
Dfehtorophenylarsine .....
Dtettiylareme
Mercury fulminate
Mercury fulminate.. ~
Nickel carbonyl ... .
Nickel cyanitte -,-,
Phcnyt mercury acetate
Potassium stiver cyanide
Selenourea
Silver cyanide
Tetraottiyl lead
Thallium setenrte
Calcium chromate.. .._...
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate
Mercury *.....
Mercury
Selenium dioxide
Selenium sulfide
Regulated hazardous
constituent
Arsenic ...
ArSflnfe M.TUr
Arsenic ...
Arsenic .« . ........
Arsenic _
Mercury
Mercury
NicM , --,--
NickeL. ... -.
MOTCUfY . .-... . «
Mercury,
SHver
S^tenium , n
l_ead .....
Selenium
Chromium (Total)
Log'l
Load i I.
Lead
1 AB^
Mercury ".
Mercury ...
Selenium
Selenium _.___.....
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-02-0
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7440-22-4
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7439-92-1
7782-49-2
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-38-2
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7782-49-2
7782-49-2
Wastewaters
concentration
. (mg/l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
: 5.6
5.6
5.6
52
5.6
5.6
0.20
0.025
0.32
0.32
0.20
0.025
0.072
5.7
0.072
0.51
5.7
0.094
0.51
5.6
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.20
0.025
5.7
5.7
These treatmom standards have been based on EP Leachate analysis but this does not preclude the use of TCLP analysis.
*Thosa waste codes are not subcalegorced mto wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
NANot Applicable.
Section 288.42 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(a)(2). by removing paragraphs (a)(3)
and (a)(4), by revising paragraph (b),
and by adding paragraphs (c), (d), and
(c) to read as follows:
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
(a) The following wastes in
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this
section and in Table 2 and Table 3 of
this section must be treated using the
technology or technologies specified in
paragraphs (a](l) and (a)(2) and Table 1
of this section.
*****
(2) NonKquid hazardous wastes
containing halogenated organic :
compounds (HOCs) in total
concentration greater than or-equal to
1,000 mg/kg and liquid HOC-containing.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22693
wastes that are prohibited under
§ 26B.32(e)(l) of this part must be
incinerated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart
O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O. These
treatment standards do not apply where
the waste is subject to a part 268,
subpart C treatment standard for
specific HOC (such as a hazardous
waste chlorinated solvent for which a
treatment standard is established under
§ 268.41(a)j.
TABLE 1.TECHNOLOGY COOES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASSO STANDARDS
Technology
code
Description.of technology-based standard
ADGAS
AMLGM
BiODG .
CARBN
CHCXD
CHRED
DEACT
FSUBS
HLVIT
IMERC.
INC1N
LLEXT
MACRO
NEUTR
NLDBR
PRECP
RBERY
RCGAS
RCORR
RLEAD
RMERC
RMETL
RORGS
RTHRN
Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing or reacting media (i.e.. solid or liquid)venting can be accomplished through physical release utilizing
values/piping; physical penetration of the container; and/or penetration through detonation. .
Amalgamation of .liquid, elemental mercury contaminated with radioactive materials utilizing inorganic reagents such as copper, zinc, nickel, gold, and
sulfur that result in a nonliquid. semi-solid amalgam and thereby -reducing potential emissions of elemental mercury vapors to' the air.
Bbdegradation of organics or non-metallic inorganics (i.e.. degradable inorganics that contain the elements of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sulfur) in units
operated under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions such that a surrogate compound or indicator parameter has been substantially reduced in
concentration in the residuals (e.g., Total Organic Carbon can often be used as an indicator parameter for the btedegradation of many organic
constituents that cannot be directly analyzed in wastewater residues).
Carbon adsorption (granulated or powdered) of non-metallic inorganics, organo-metallics. and/or organic constituents, operated such that a surrogate
compound or indicator parameter has not undergone breakthrough (e.g., Total Organic Carbon can often be used as an indicator parameter for the
adsorption of many organic constituents that cannot be directly analyzed in wastewater residues). Breakthrough occurs when the careen has,
become saturated with the constituent (or indicator parameter) and substantial change in adsorption rate associated with that constituent occurs.
Chemical or electrolytic oxidation utilizing the following oxidation reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations or reagents: (1) Hypochiorite (e.g.
bleach); (2) chlorine; (3) chlorine dioxide; (4) ozone or UV (ultraviolet light) assisted ozone; (5) peroxides; (6) persutfaies; (7) perchlorates; (8)
permangantes; and/or (9) other oxidizing reagents of equivalent efficiency, performed in units operated such that a surrogate compound or indicator
parameter has been substantially reduced in concentration in the residuals (e.g.. Total Organic Carbon'can often be used as an indicator parameter
for the oxidation of marry organic constituents that cannot be directly analyzed in wastewater residues). Chemical oxidation specifically includes what
is commonly referred to as alkaline chlorination.
Chemical reduction utilizing the following reducing reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations of reagents: (1) Sulfur dioxide; (2) sodium, potassium,
or alkali salts of sulfites, bisutfites. metabisulfrtes, and polyethylene gtycols (e.g,, NaPEG and KPEG); (3) sodium hydrosulfide; (4) ferrous salts; and/
or (5) other reducing reagents of equivalent efficiency, performed in units operated such that a surrogate compound or indicator parameter has been
substantially reduced in concentration in the residuals (e.g.. Total Organic Halogens can often be used as an indicator parameter for the reduction of
many halogenated organic constituents that cannot be directly analyzed in wastewater residues). Chemical reduction is commonly used for the
reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent state.
Deacbvation to remove the hazardous characteristics of a waste due to its Ignitability. corrosivity. and/or reactivity.
Fuel substitution in units operated in accordance with applicable technical operating requirements.
Vitrification of high level mixed radioactive wastes in units in compliance with all applicable radioactive protection requirements under control of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Incineration of wastes containing organics and mercury in units operated in accordance with the technical operating requirements of 40 CFR part 264.
subpart O and 40 CFR part 265. subpart O. All wastewater and nonwastewater residues derived from this process must then comply with the
corresponding treatment standards per waste code with consideration of any applicable subcategories (e.g.. High or Low Mercury Subcategories).
Incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical operating requirements of 40 CFR part 264. subpart O and 40 CFR part 265. subpart O.
Liquid-liquid extraction (often referred to as solvent extraction) of organics from liquid wastes into an immiscible solvent for which the hazardous
constituents have a greater solvent affinity, resulting in an extract high in organics that must undergo either incineration, reuse as a fuel, or other
recovery/reuse and a raffcnate (extracted liquid waste) proportionately tow in organics that must undergo further treatment as specified in the
standard.
Macroencapsulation with surface coating materials such as polymeric organics (e.g. resins and plastics) or with a jacket of inert inorganic materials to
substantially reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media. Macroencapsulabon specifically does net include any material that would be
classified as a tank or container according to 40 CFR 260.10.
Neutralization with the following reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations of reagents: (1) Acids: (2) bases: or (3) water (including wastewaters)
resulting in a pH greater than 2 but less than 12.5 as measured in the aqueous residuals.
No land disposal based on recycling.
Chemical precipitation of metals and other inorganics as insoluble precipitates of oxides, hydroxides, carbonates, suffides. sulfates. chlorides, flourides,
or phosphates. The following reagents (or waste reagents) are typically used alone or in combination: (1) Lime (Le., containing oxides and/or
hydroxides of calcium and/or magnesium; (2) caustic (i.e.. sodium and/or potassium hydroxides: (3)- soda ash (i.e., sodium carbonate): (4) sodium
sulfxja; (5) ferric sultate or ferric chloride; (6) alum; or (7) sodium sulfate. Additional ficculating, coagulation, or similar reagents/processes that
enhance sludge dewatermg characteristics are not precluded from use.
Thermal recovery of Be-yliium.
Recovery/reuse of compressed gases including techniques such as reprocessing of the gases for reuse/resale; filtering/adsorption of impurities;
remixing for direct reuse of resale: and use of the gas as a fuel source.
Recovery of acids or bases utSzing one or more of the following recovery technologies: (1) Distillation (i.e., thermal concentration); (2) ion exchange:
(3) resin or solid adsorption; (4) reverse osmosis: and/or (5) incineration for the recovery of acidNote: this does not preclude the use of othe*
physical phase separation or concentration techniques such as decantaton. filtration (including ultrafiltration), and centrifugation. whan used in
conjunction with the above listed recovery technologies.
Thermal recovery of lead in secondary lead smelters.
Retorting or roasting in a thermal processing unit capable of volatilizing mercury and subsequently condensing the volatilized mercury for recovery. The
retorting or roasting unit (or facility) must be subject to one or more of the following: (a) A National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for mercury: (b) a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or a Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standard for mercury
imposed pursuant to a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit; or (c) a state permrt that establishes emission limitations (within meaning
of Section 302 of the Clean Air Act) for mercury. All wastewater and nonwastewater residues derived from this process must then comply with the
corresponding treatment standards per waste code with consideration of any applicable subcategories (e.g.. High or Low Mercury Subcategories).
Recovery ot metals cr inorganics utilizing one or more of the following direct physical/removal technologies: (1) Ion exchange; (2) resin or solid (i.e..
zeolites) aosorption; (3) reverse osmosis; (4) chelation/sotvent extraction; (5; freeze crystalization; (6) ultrafiltration; and/or 6 simple precipitation (i.e.,
crystalization)Note: this does not preclude the use of other physical phase separation or concentration techniques such as decollation, filtration
(including ultrafiltration), and centrifugation, when used in conjunction with the above listed recovery technologies.
Recovery of organics utilizing one or more of the following technologies: (1) Distillation; (2) thin film evaporation; (3) steam stripping; (4) carbon
adsorption; (5) critical fluid extraction; (6) liquid-liquid extraction; (7) precipitation/crystallization (including freeze crystallization): or (8) chemical phase
separation techniques (I.e.. addition of acids, bases, demulsifiers, or similar chemicals): Note: This dees not preclude the use of other physical phase
separation techniques such as decantation, filtration (including ultrafiltration). and centrifugation. when used in conjunction with the above listed
recovery technologies.
Thermal recovery of metals or inorganics from nonwastewaters in units defined in 40 CFR 260.10. paragraphs (1). (6). (7). (11). and (12). undsr the
definition of "industrial furnaces".
-------
TachnoSogy
code
SSTRP
WETOX
WTRRX
Description of technology-based standard
HIT^.:^ITJ«_iWa.rf«5i I*K Draehide the addition ot reagents (e.g., iron salts, site
(1) Portland cement;, or (2) lime/pozzotens (e.g.. fly ash and
asmerang m i« ura H"»~f v-~"", --_ ,-_ rt-. combinations of reaoents: (1) Portland cement or (z> ume^poziomiK. »«>.«.. » ^- ~~
organcs thai must unaergo either indnerabon, .«»«. - ,
treatment aa specified in the standard. -..rroaata comoound or indicator parameter has been substantially reduced in concentration
l^'S^oS^^
.K. .n.k~»rf m u^sfflwfltflr rasiduesl. chemicals with precautionary controls for protection, of. workers from potential
emissions of toxic/ignitable levels of gases released during the reaction.
«««
9 A^^TbyaN=^^ ZSKSSSZSSi &SSSV&* i* « ^ ** "«>" *» « w 10Howea ^ ' -"
"**"' *!?i?P!!;S« ix^Xvnniintv^ «LTth the Btanda"*
SaS^^can beussd for compliance with tha standard.
TABLE 2.TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE
Wests
cooo
. -
D001
D001
D001
D001
D001
0001
D002
D002
DQ03
D003
D003
DOC3
cxjoe
owa
D303
DX»
D012
D013
0014
DOtS
DC15
D017
F005
See also
|
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
Ignrteble LkpikJs based on 261.21(a)(1)
Wastewaters.
(gnitable Lkprids based on 261.21(a)(1) Low
TOO IgnitaWe Liquids Subcategory Less than
10% total organic carbon.
Ignitabto Liquids based on 261.21(a)(1} High
TOC tgrtitaWe Liquids Subcategory Greater
than or equal to 10% total organic carbon.
Ignrtable compressed gases based on
261.21(a)(3).
IgnitaWe reactives 261.2l(a)(2)
Oxidcers based on 261.21(a)(4)
Acid subcategory based on 2St.22(a)(1)
Alkaline subcategory based on 261.22{a)(1)
Other corrosh/es based on 261.22(a)(2)
Reactive sulfkJes based on 2o:.Z3ta)taj
.
, .,,-
Table CCWE In 268.41
and Table CCWm
253.43.
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Tabla CCW in
269.43.
Table CCW in 268.43
Tabla CCW In 268.43.._
T»Wa CCW in 268.43_
Table CC// in 268.43_
Table CCW in 26a43
Tabla CCW in 268.43
Tabte CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
2C3.43.
Explosives based on 2S1.23(a) (6). m. ana w
Water reactives based on 261.23(a) (2), (3). and
(4).
Ctr.0f reactives based on 261.23(a)(1)
Cadmium containing banenes
Lead acid batteries (Note: Trus standard only
applies to lead acd batteries tnat are idenlihed
as RCRA riazardous wastes and that are not
e»cludad eisc*here from regulation under the
land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR 266 o
exempted under other EPA regulators (see 40
CFR 260,80).).
Mercury. (High Mercury Subcategory greater
than or equal to 260 mg/kg total Mercury-
contains mercury and organtcs (and are no
Incinerator residues)).
Mercury: (High Mercury Subcategory greater
than or equal to 260 mg/kg total Mercury
norganics (Including Incinerator residues and
residues from RMERC)).
^fxjnn . ««
? * n
n * c Tp ,_-
2-Nitropropane
3AS No. tor
regulated
hazardous
constituents
A
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
72-20-8
58-89-9
72-43-5
8001-35-1
94-75-7
93-72-1
79-46-9
Wastewaters
EACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
NA
DEACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIOD6; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
WETOX; or INCIN
BIODG; or INCIN
CHOXD; BIODG: or INCJN
CHOXD: or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft) CARBN,
or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
A.
DEACT.
SUBS; RORGS; ot
INCIN.
DEACT".
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
RTHRM.
RLEAD.
IMERC; or RMEHC.
RMERC.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
INCI^
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22695
TABLE 2.TECHNOUOGY-BASEO STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODEContinued
Waste .
code
F005 ..'.;
F024
K025
K026
K027
K039
K044
K045
K047
K061
K069
K106
K113
K114
K115
K116
P001
P002
P003
POQ5
P006
P007
POOS
P009
P014
P015
P016
P017
P018
PC22
P023
P026
P027
P028
See also
TabteCCWE in 268.41 !
. andTaaeCCWin
268.0. I
TabteCCWE in 268.41
and Table CC Win
268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43..
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
266.43.
,
Table CCW in 268.43.
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
2-ahmiycttifBVT4.^nw ' ....,
Distillation bottoms from the induction of nitro-
benzene by the nitration of benzene.
Snipping still tails from the production of methyl
ethyl pyridines.
Centrifuge and distillation residues from toluene
diisocyanate production.
Fftar cake from the filtration of dtetnylpriosphoro-
dithioc acid in the production of phorate.
Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufac-
turing and processing of explosives.
Spent carbon torn the treatment of wastewater
containing explosives.
Emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces (High
Zinc Subcategory greater than or equal to
15% total Zinc).
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary
lead smelting: Non-Calcium Sutfate Subcatego-
ry-
Wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury
cell process in chlorine production: (High Mer-
cury Subcategory-greater than or equal to 260
mg/kg total mercury).
Condensed liquid light ends from the purification
of toiuenediamine in the production of toluene-
diamine via hydrogenation of dinitrotoluene.
Vicinals from the purification of toluenediame in
the production of toiuenediamine via hydrogen-
ation of dinitrotoluene.
Heavy ends from the purification of toluenediame
in the production of toiuenediamine via hydro-
genation of dinitrotoluene.
Organic condensate fr6m the solvent recovery
column in the production of toluene diisocyan-
ate via phosgenation of toiuenediamine.
Warfarin ( >0.3%) '.
Ally! alcohol
Aluminum phosphide... .. _
*>-AminvWthyl CMsoxaTOlol
4-Aminopyridine ...... ......_........
Thiophenol (Benzene thtol)
Beryllium dust
Bis(chlorometny!)6trier... _
Bromoacetons ,,,^,,,
Brucine -
Chloroacetatdehyde _ -
3-Chloropropioretrile
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
110-80-5
NA
MA ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81-81-2
591-08-2
107-02-8
107-18-6
20859-73-8
2763-9S-4
504-24-5
131-74-8
108-98-5
7440-41-7
542-88-1
598-31-2
357-57-3
75-15-0
107-20-0
5344-82-1
542-76-7
100-44-7'
Technology code
Wastewaters
BIODG: or INCtN
INCIN
LLEXT ft) SSTRP fb CARBN; or
INCIN
INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN . '
CARBN; or INCIN
DEACT
OEACT
DEACT
NA
NA
NA
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
Of INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN ' , '
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN:
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCtN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
NLDBR.
RLEAD.
RMERC.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
CHOXD; CHRED; or
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
RMETL; or RTHRM.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
JNCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
-------
TABLE 2. TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE Continued
Wasto
cod*
P034
P040
P041
P042 '
P043
QflAA
P045
P046
pftlT
P049
p/vu
P056
P057
P053*
P062
PO&4
P065
P06S
P066
P057
P068
P069
P070
P072
P075
P076
P078
P061
P082
P084
P085
P037
P088
P092
P092
P093
P09S
P096
Sea also
_
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
Tablo CCWE In 268.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
|
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
Cyanogen ._._.~. - __»~ -.-- ~
Cyanogen chloride .
2-CydohexyM,6-dinHrophenol
0,0-Diethyl 0-pyrazinyl phosphorothfoate
Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate ,
Eplnephrine....
Kisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP)
alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
4.6-Dinitroo-cresol salts
2,4-Dithiobiuret
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt..-
Hexaethyltetraphosphate
Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester.
Mercury fulminate: (High Mercury Subcategory
greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg total Mer-
curyeither incinerator residues or residues
from RMERC).
Mercury fulminate: (All nonwastewaters that are
not incinerator residues from RMERC: regard-
less of Mercury Content).
2-Methyiaziridine
"""
Tablo CCW in 268.43
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Tabte CCW in
268.43.
Tabte CCWE in 258.41
and Table CCW in
263.43.
CAS No. for
regulated -
hazardous
constituents
460-19-5
506-77-4
131-89-5 '
297-97-2
311-45-5
51-43-4 "
55-91-4-
60-51-5
39196-18-4
122-09-8
534-52-1
541-53-7
151-56-4
7782-41-4
640-19-7
62-74-8
757-58-4
624-83-9
628-86-4
628-86-4
16752-77-5
75-55-8
60-34-4
75-86-5
Aldicarb: -116-06-3
1-Naphthyl-2-thiourea : - 86-88-4
(Nicotine and salts ~ - 54-11-5*
MHri_ .-_,,, 10102-43-9
Nitroglycerin
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Endothall..- -. --.
Phenyl mercury acetate: (High Mercury Subcate-
gory greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg tola
Mercury either incinerator resdues or resi
dues from RMERC).
Phenyl mercury acetate: (All nonwastewaters tha
are not incinerator residues and are not resi-
dues from RMERC: regardless of Mercury Con
tent).
J 10102-44-0
. 55-63-0
. 62-75-9
. 4549-40-0
. 152-16-9
. 20816-12-0
.. 145-73-3
62-38-4
62-38-4
.. 103-85-5
... 75-44-5
... 7803-51-2
Technology code
Wastewaters
CHOXD; WETOX; or INCIN <
CHOXD; WETOX; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN .
NA
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
ADGAS
ADGAS
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
3HOXD; WETOX; or
INCIN.
DHOXD; WETOX; or
INCIN.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
ADGAS fb NEUTR.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
RMERC.
IMERC.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
ADGAS.
ADGAS.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
RMETU or RTHRM.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
RMERC.
IMERC; or RMERC.
INCIN.
INCIN.
CHOXD; CHRED; or
INCIN. '
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 199Q / Rules and Regulations 22697
TABLE 2.TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODEContinued
Waste
code
P108
PI 09
P112
P113
P115
P116
P118
P119
P120
P122
U001
.U003
U006
U007
U008
U010
U011
U014
U015
U016
U017
U020
U021
U023
U026
U033
U034
U035
U038
U041
U042
U046
U049
U053
U055
U056
UC57
U058
U059
U062
U064
-,
Seeateo
able CCW in 268.43
able CCW hi 268.43
able CCW in 268.43
able CCW in 268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43.
Propargyi alcohol.. »
Sodium azide _ ......._.___
Strychnine and salts... ...............-....... -
Totraettiyldithiopyropnosphate
Tetranftromethane - ................... ....
Thtosemtcarbazide .
TricWoromethanethiol .. «
Ammonium vanadate . «»»
Vanadium pentoxide -
Zinc Phosphide <<10%)
Acetaldehyde
Azaserine t - -
Benzal chloride
BenzenesulfonyJ chloride .. ... ...
Benzotrichloride .
CWomaphazin _« - ..-»«»«
1 -Chloro-2«3-epoxypropane (Epichlorohydnn) -..
Cyclophosphamide
Diallate
1 ,2,7.8-Dibenzopyrene
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
107-19-7
26628-22-8
57-24-9*
3689-24-5
509-14-8
1314-32-5
7446-18-6
79-19-6
75-70-7
7803-55-6
1314-62-1
1314-84-7
75-07-0
75-05-8
75-36-5
79-06-1
79-10-7
50-07-7
61-82-5
492-80-8
115-02-6
225-51-4
98-87-3
98-09-9
92-87-5
98-07-7
494-03-1
353-50-4
75-87-6
305-03-3
510-15-6
j 106-S9-8
110-75-8
107-30-2
3165-93-3
4170-30-3
. 98-82-8
. 110-82-7
. 108-94-1
. 50-18-0
. 20830-81-3
. 2303-16-4
. 189-55-9
" Technology code
Wastewaters
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODGtorlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
NA
MA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
NA
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
{WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft) CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN,
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
NA
CARBN; or INC1N
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
' orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD; '
CHRED; or INCIN.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
CHRED; or INCIN.
RTHRM; or STABL.
RTHRM; or STABL.
TNC1N.
NCIN.
STABL.
STABL,
CHOXD; CHRED; or
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS: or INCIN.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
_ .^^^i^ _ _ .
TABLE 2. TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCR A WASTE CODE Continued
Wasta
coda
i i " -
U085
U066
U087
U089
I1OOO
(1032
U093
IIAQ4
iinae
U095
U097
U093
U099
U103
U109
U110
U113
U114
U115
U116
U119
U122
U123
U124
U125
U126
U132
U133
U134
U135
U143
U147
U148
U149
U150
Sea also
,
.
Tabte CCW in 268.43
..
_
"
T8b!0 CCW in 268.43
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ', '
cis-1,4-Dicriloro-2-butene .' -
trans-1 ,4-Dich!oro-2-t>utene
1 ,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
N N-Diethylhydrazine
0.0-Diethyl S-methytdithtopnosphate
Dtethyl sfilbestrol -.
Dihydrosafrote
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethylamine
p-Dimsthyteminoazobenzene
7.1 2-Dimethyl benz(a)anthracene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine ,
a,a-DimethyI benzyl hydroperoxide
Dimethylcarbomyl chloride - -
1.1-Dimethylhydrazine
1 2-Dimethylhydrazine. « .................
Dimethyl sulfate
1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
Dipropylamine -
Ethyl actylate -
Ethylene bis-dithiocarbamic acid
Ethylene oxide- -
Ethyleno thiourea -
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Formaldehyde
Glycidaldehyde -. .-
. Hexachlorophenene
Hydrogen Flouride -
Hydrogen Sulfide -
Lasiocarpine -
Maloic hydrazide....« -
Ma!ononrtri!e. .
Maft>hatan _..
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
91-94-1
1476-11-5
1464-53-5
1615-80-1
3288-S&-2
56-53-1
94-58-6
119-SO-4
124-40-3
621-90-9
57-97-6
119-93-7
80-15-9
79-44-7
57-14-7
540-73-8
77-78-1
122-66-7
142-84-7
140-88-5
111-54-6
75-21-8
96-45-7
62-50-0
50-00-0
64-18-6
110-00-9
98-0.1-1
765-34-4
70-30-4
302-01-2
7664-39-3
. 7783-06-4
.. 303-34-4
.. 108-31-6
.. 123-33-1
.. 109-77-3
.. 148-82-3
Technology code
Wastewaters
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
OflNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WEJOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
NA
CHOXD; CHRED, or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN
or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
NCIN.
NCIN
NCIN:
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;.
CHRED; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN. !
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
CHOXD; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
ADGAS fb NEUTR; or
NEUTR.
CHOXD; CHRED; or
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. .1990 / Rules and Regulations
22699
'...-' TABLE 2. TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE Continued
. ...Waste .
:" code
0151
U153
U154
U156
-U160
U163
U164
U166
U167
U168
U171
U173
U176
1)1^7
U178
U182
U184
U186
U189
U191
U193
U194
U197
U200
U201
U202
U206
U213
U214
U215
U216
U217
U218
U219
U221
U222
U223
U234
U236
U237
U238
--" See also " ;
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in '
268.43.
- :._ .
».«.«....»».»«.«».».».«..«»«'.
Table CCW in 268.43.:
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43.
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
. . '>
Mercury. ' (High Mercury Subcategory greater
than or equal to 260 rng/kg total Mercury). ' ;
Methane thtol , :-,.'. ,,,,.,'
Methane! . - ,....t-~ - ^~
Methyl chlorocarbonate.. ' .
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide...».......».«M»H.M».»wt
N-Methyl Nf-nitro N-Nitrosoguanidine . .__._'__
Methylthiouracil . ',
1 4-Naphthoquinone .................
1*Naphthiyamine .«.»«»..«» ..... «.«....«».«» «..»».
2-Naphthlyamine . ^ .... ...... ...r-, ..,....,,,
g-ftlftfQpfx>pafw? ,
N-Nitroso-di-n-ethanolamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethyiurea .. ~ !_..___.
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-NHroso^N-rnethylurethane . ,.,,,,
ParaWehyde.~.~ ..~. . ~.~..~ i.... .-"-~. - -
Perrtachloroflttiarw '.
1 3-Pentadtene , ,
2-Picoline
1,3-Propane sultone . .
n-PropylaminQ .,
p-BsnTOouinons
Reserpine ..................... i. -^. .--,!--., *, ,.......,,....._.,...,
Resorcinol ».._... .....
Saccharin and salts.-...
Streptozatocin ___,, ,_,,,,
Tetrahydrofuran . .
Thallium (1) acetate _m. ,-...,..1-1, -..,,,.,.,,. ,,,..,........,,..,.,.
Thallium (1) carbonate
Thallium (1) chloride
Thallium (1) nitrate .____.
Thioacetamide ......_...«.«.««......»».»».»....».»«»..«..
Thiourpa , ^ L... ^ ..,.... ,.,,, ...
Tolu^nftdiamtrw
o-Toluidine hydrochloride ~
Toluene diisocyanate - ... . ......
sym-Trinitrobenzene
Trypan Blue - . . «.«..
Uracil mustard
Ethyl caibamate..___.. . ,,.,,.,,,;,,,,,-,,,-,
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous'
constituents
7439-97-«
74-93-1
67-5&r1
79-22-1
1338-23-4
70-25-7
56-04-2
130-15-4 .
134-32-7
91-59-8
79-46-9
1116-54-7
759-73-9
684-93-5
615-53-2
123-63-7
76-01-7
504-60-9
1314-8O-3
109-06-8
1120-71-4
107-10-8
106-51-4
50-55-5
108-46-3
81-07-2*
18883-66-4
109-99-9
563-68-8
6533-73-9
7791-12-0
10102-45-1
62-55-5
62-56-6
25376-45-8
636-21-5
26471-62-5
99-35-4
72-57-1
66-75-1
51-79-6
Technology code
Wastewaters
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) tb CARBN;
.orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft) CARBN;
orlNCIN '
CHOXD; CHRED; - CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
' or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN '
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
NA
NA
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or JNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
Nonwastewaters
RMERC.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN. '_ '
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN. .
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCtN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
CHOXD; CHRED; or
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
RTHRM; or STABL.
RTHRM; or STABL
RTHRM; or STABL
RTHRM; or STABL
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN. ,
INCIN.
-------
Waste
coda
U240
U244 '
U248
U248
U249
Soatteo
Waste descriptions and/of treatment subeategory
a4-Dichlorophenoxyaoetie (salts and esters).
Cyanogen bromide
Warfarin (greater than or equal to 3%) :
Zinc Phosphide «10%)
1 ;
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
94-75-7*
137-26-8
506-68-3
81-81-2
1314-84-7
Wastewaters
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
ortNON
CHOXD. WETOX; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
ortNCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
rNCIN.'
INCIN.
CHOXD; WETOX; or
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
CHOXD; CHHED; or
INCIN.
'"is not categorized as wastewater or nonwastewater forms.
NA^o'lAppHcabte.
TABLE 3.-TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS FOR SPEC.F.C RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS MtXED WASTE
Waste coda
D008.,,
DG09,...«.
O009-
MM ......
0310,,,,
D011,,
U151
1
HH«
«.*««
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
Radioactiva High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
RadtoSctiva High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
RadSictiva High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
Ra*MCtive High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
toSShtn High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
*SS^i***M*<^^
^^SSSSS^Ss^^^^
RjSeartva H,gn Level Wastas Generated During the Reprocess.ng of Fuel Hods Subcate-
Elarnental mercury contaminated with radioactive materials
KySort cortiiNnaUKi w:th Marcury Radioactve Matenals &*KafO°^~S^-r^
Ridwacbve Htoh Lave! Wastes Generated Dunng the Raprocessmg of Fuel Rods Subcate-
RScBve H^h Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
Rad^nva rtgh Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
Mefcwy- Elemental mercury contaminated with radioacbve materials
-CAS Number
NA .
UA ^ «.»..-
NA-
NA._-
NA
7439-92-1
NA
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
NA
NA
NA.
7439-97-6
Techno
Wastewaters
\|A ._ ......
NA
NA
NA -
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ogy cooe
Nonwastewaters
HLVIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
MACRO
HLVIT
AMLGM
INCIN
HLVIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
AMLGM
NANot AppkablB,
(b) Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a
measure of performance equivalent to
that achievable by methods specified in
paragraphs (a), (c). and (d) of this
section. The applicant must submit
information demonstrating that his
treatment method is in compliance with
federal, state, and local requirements
and is protective of human health and
the environment. On the basis of such
information and any other available
information, the Administrator may
approve the use of the alternative
treatment method if he finds that the
alternative treatment method provides a
measure of performance equivalent to
that achieved by methods specified in
paragraphs (a), (c). and (d) of this
section. Any approval must be stated in
writing and may contain such provisions
and conditions as the Administrator
deems appropriate. The person to whom
such approval is issued must comply
with all limitations contained in such a
determination.
(c) As an alternative to the otherwise
applicable subpart D treatment
standards, lab packs are eligible for
land disposal provided the following
requirements are met:
(1) The lab packs comply with the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 264.316
and 40 CFR 265.316;
(2) All hazardous wastes contained in
such lab packs are specified in appendix
IV or appendix V to part 268;
(3] The lab packs are incinera.ted in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 264, subpart O or 40 CFR part
265. subpart O; and
(4) Any incinerator residues from lab
packs containing D004. D005, D006,
D007. D008, D010, and D011 are treated
in compliance with the applicable
treatment standards specified for such
wastes in subpart D of this parl.
(d) Radioactive hazardous mixed
wastes with treatment standards
specified in Table 3 of this section are
not subject to any treatment standards
specified in § 268.41, § 268.43, or Table 2
of this section. Radioactive hazardous
mixed wastes not subject to treatment
standards in Table 3 of this section
remain subject to all applicable
treatment standards specified in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22701
§ 268.41, § 268.43, and Table 2 of this
. section.
12. Section 268.43 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and Table
CCWConstituent Concentrations in
Wastes, and by adding paragraph (c) to
read as'follows: ..-.-.
§268.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentrations.
(a) Table GCW identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous
constituents which may not be exceeded
by the waste or treatment residual (not
an extract of such waste or residual) for
the allowable land disposal of such
waste or residual. Compliance with
these concentrations is required based
upon grab samples, unless otherwise
noted in the following Table CCW.
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
Waste code
D003 (Reactive cyanides subcatego-
ly based on 261.23(a)<5».
P005 . ....__......_.. ~
0006..... ........... _..._._._._.
0010 - -
O01 2 ..- »»...»»... «
OQ1 3 ............... .- _.
O014 ._......._........- .'.
D01 5 .-.
D016
D01 7 .
F001-F005 spent solvents
ceutical industry wastewater sub-
category).
F006
F007
FO08
FQ09
F010
F011
F012
FO'9
F024
See also
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268 41 ...
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table 2 in 268.42
Table 2 in 268.42 !
Table 2 in 268.42
Table 2 in 268.42
Table 2 in 268.42
Table 2 in 268.42
Table CCWE In 268.41 and Table 2
in 268.42.
Table CCWE in 268.41 _.
Table CCWE in 268 41 _
Table CCWE in 268.41 .. .
Table CCWE in 268.41 _ _.
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE In 268.41
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268.41 and Table 2
in 268.42 (Note: F024 organic
standards must be treated via in-
cineration (INCIN)).
Regulated hazardous constituent .
Cyanides (Total) ..»......._.
Cyanides (Amenable) . .
Arssnte ««
Barium .«««.«.««..»««...«.....«««.«.. ...
Cadmium ..»«»««.««.»»....«»....«»....»»»».
Chromium (Total) ...,
Lead . ~ .......
Mercury . . -j^n............!
Selenium '. ,,,,,,,,,,,
Silver
Lirtfter^iiiiiniiiiiiTn -Tn-IT
Methoxychlor ......................................
Toxaphene ...... ».»«.««....».».» .»....»».....
2 4-D
2,4,5-TP Silvex . .
1 pj ,2-Trichloroethane.............
Benzene ....«...».. .«...» .»..
Methytene chloride
Cyanides (Total)- ....._.....«.
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cadmium ..,, ,,..........,,... ,.-,
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cyanides (Total) .~
Lead . . ._ _
Nickel -
Cyanides (Total) ...
Cyanides (Amenable) .
Lead
Nickel
Cyanides (Total) -
Lead -
Nickel
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Chromium (Total) ...
Lead -
Nickel .... _ _ -..
Cyanides (Total) -
Chromium (Total) ...
Lead . _ -
Nickel
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
2-Chloro-1 .3-butadiene
3-Chloropropene ....
1.1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane .....
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dich!oropropene
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
720-20-8
58-69-9
72.43-5
8001-35-1
94-75-7
93-76-5
71-55-6
71-43-2
75-09-2
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
126-99-8
107-05-1
75-34-3
107-06-2
76-87-5
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
Wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
Reserved
0.66
5.0
100
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.20
1.0
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.030
0.070
0.44
1.2
0.86
1.6
0.32
0.040
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.2
0.86
032
0.28
0.28
0.014
0.014
' 0.014
0.014
"0.014
Notv
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
#590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.13
0.066
0.18
1.3
10.0
7.9
7.6
3.7
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
' 30
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
"590
«30
NA
0.28
*0.28
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
-------
Federal Resister / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTESContinued
Waste cod*
F025f!uorantriene ._. ...
Benzofluoranthene .'-
Benzo(g,h,!)perylene -
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bronodichloromethane
Bnxnomethane (methyl bromide) _.
4-Bromophenyt phenyl ether
n-Butyl alcohol .
Butyl benzyl phthatate _
2-sec-Butyt-4,6-dinitrophenol
Carbon disulfide
Chkxdane
p-Chtoroaniline
CNofodibromomethane
Chloroethane ...» .......... ..
bis(2-Chtoroethoxy) methane
bis(2-Chkxoethy!) ether
2-Chtoroethyl viiyl ether
Chloroform
bis(2-Chtoroisopropyl) ether
p-Chtoro-m-cresol -
Chtoromethane (Methyl chloride)
2-Chloronaphthatene . -
2-Chlorophenot
3-Chtoropropene
Chrysene «..«». I^M.-.L-T-. --,-,,
o-Cresol -
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
17-81-7
67-72-1,
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
67-66-3
07-06-2
75-35-4
75-9-2
56-23-5
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-01-4
67-66-3
75-9-2
56-23-5
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-01-4
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
67-64-1
208-96-8
63-32-9
75-05-8
96-86-2
53-96-3
107-13-1
309-00-2
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
71-43-2
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
106-47-8
108-90-7 -
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
111-91-1
111-44-4
67-66-3
39636-32-9
59-50-7
74-87-3
91-8-7'
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
95-48-7
Wastewaters
concentration
-------
Federal Register J Vol. 55. .No. 106 / 'Pja'day, June 3, 1390 / Rules ju*d JBegulatiaas 223S3
TABLE CCW.COHSTJTUENT CQNCENTRATJQNS ai WASTES-^Gontoued
(Waste «ode
See also
Regulated hazardous constituent
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
Wastewaters
concentration.
Non-
wasiewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
Creaol (m- and p-isomers)
Cyclohexanone
t2-Bibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethytene dibro-
znide).
t Oftiromometrtane -------------- .
2,^Dtohlorophenoxyacetic acid
D).
I tJ.p'-ODD.
I -pip'-DDD....
op'-DDE..-
(2,4-
108-194-1
96-t2-8
106493-4
74-95-3
94-75-7
3 JJ'-DDT .. .....-.,
3toenzo(a,h)anttiracene..
' nVDJchlorobenzene
53-19-0
72-54-8
3424-82-6
72-55-9
789-02-6
50-28-3
53-7D-3
541-73-1
o-ttehlorobenzene 95-5D-1
j>-1Sctilorobenzene 106-46-7
Diehtorodifluoromethane 75-78-8
1.1-Oichloroethane 75-3«-3
! 1,2-Dfchloroethane 107-06-2
' 1,1-Oichloroethylane ...... 75-35-4
1 1rans-1,2-Dichloroethene....
2,4-Dichlorophenol.... 120-83-2
2,6-Dichlorophenol 87-66-0
1 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5
cts-1.3-Dichloropropene.. 1006S-01-5
I *ans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6
Dieldiin 60-57-1
1 Oiettiyl phthalate 84-66-2
p^Oimethylaminoazobenzene 60-11-3
2,4-Djmethyi phenol 105-67-9
Oimetiyl phthatate 131-11-3
tH-n-birtyl phthalate 84-74-2
1,4-TJinitrobenzene 100-25-4
4,6-tHnitro-O-creso) 534-S2-1
2,4-Dkiitrophenol 51 -28-5
2.4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2
a.'&Oinitfotoluene 606-20-2
Oi-noctyl phthalate J 117-84-0 '
Onn-propylnitrosoamine 621-64-7
1.2-Dphenyl hydrazine
1,4-Doxane 123-91-1
298-04-4
Endosutian l._ _. 939-98-8
EndosuHan II 33213-6-5
&xto*utfan suttate 1-31-O7-8
7-20-H
tndrio aldehyde 7421-33-4
©hyt acetate.. 141-78-6
£myl cyanide..._
Ethyl benzene 100-41-4
dftyl ether 60-29-7
tw(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7
Hhyl methacrylate 97-63-2
Ethyteoe oxide 75-21-8
Faniptlur 52-85-7
f-tuoranthene 206-44-0
Ruorene 86-73-7
Fluorotrichtoromethane 75-69-4
Heptachlor _ 76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide. 1024-S7-3
Mexaohlorobenzene 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3
Mexaohlorocyctopentadiene 77-474
ttexachlorodibenzo-furans .
ttexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
ttexachtoroethane 67-72-1
Mexachloropropene 1888-^71-7
1ndeno(15,3.<,d)Dyrene 193-39-5
Jodomethane . 74-88-4
Isdbutanol 78-83-1
-tSOOVjil , . 465-73-6
tsosafrole . 120-58-1
Kepone 143-50-8
Methacrylonitrile _. 126-98-7
Wethapyrilene 1 81-80-5
0.77
ase
0.11
"0.028
"0.11
'0.72
'0.023
'0.023
0.031
'0.031
'0.0039
' 0.0039
'0.055
'0.036-
'0.088
'0.090
"0^3
'0.059
'0.21
'0.025
"0.054
'0.044
'0.044
0.85
0.036
' 0.036
"0.017
'0.20
'0.13
'0.036
'0.047
0.057
'0.32
0.28
'0.12
"0.32
'0.55
'0.017
'0.40
' 0.087
*0.12
'0.017
'0.023
'0.029
'0.029
' 0.0028
'0.025
'0.34
'0.24
' 0.057
'0.12
' 0.28
'0.14
"0.12
'0.017
0.068
0.059
"0.020
'0.0012
'0.016
' 0.055
0.055
' 0.057
"0.000063
'0.000063
'0.055
'0.035
'0.0055
0.019
5.6
' 0.021
* 0.081
0.0011
'0.24
'0.081
3.2
NA
15
15
15
10
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
8.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
7.2
7.2
7,2
33
33
14
14
18
18
18
0.13
28
NA
14
28
28
2.3
160
160
140
28
28
14
NA
170
6.2
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
"33
NA
6.0
160
28
160
NA
15
8.2
4.0
33
0.066
0.066
37
28
3.6
0.001
0.001
28
28
8.2
65
170
0.066
2.6
0.13
84
Hi
-------
22704
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABUE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTESContinued
Waste coda
.
. *
.
*
K001 -
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41 . ...
Regulated hazardous constituent
lethoxychlof ...........................
3-Methyicnolanthrene .. ._.
4,4-Methylene-bis-{2-chloroaniIine)
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyi ketone
/ethyl methacrylate
Methyl methansulfonate
/ethyl parathion.
2-Naphtylamine ... ...
>-Nitroaniline ......
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
4-Nttrophenol..... .....
N-Nitrosodiethylamine ...»»...«....
>l-Nitrosodimethylamine .
J-Nitrosomethylethylamine
>Wilitrosomotpholine ........
M-Nitrosopyrrolidine _.
'arathion _.. -..
'entachlorobenzene...
'entachlorodibenzo-furans
3entachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
'entachtoronitrobenzene .................
3entachlorophenol . ....
Phenacetin -~... -...
Phehanthrene
3henol..~ .......____.
Chorale .
Propanenitrile (ethyl cyanide)
Pronamide.... . ~
Pyrene ...............«.......«.«*..«.-...
Pyridine . .................... «..
Safrole . _....._.._..._
Silver (2.4.5-TP)
2,4,5-T _~ .
1 ,2,4,5,-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans ..
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins..._
2.3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinl.
1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2^-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2.3.4.6-Tetrachlorophenol
Toluene ............................... »««
Toxaphene .«.... ..~.~ ..-..«..«-..
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1.1 -Trichloroethane ~.
1 ,1 ^-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
1 .23-Trichtoropropane
1 .1 .2-Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro-ethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylene(s)
Cyanides (Amenable) - ...
Fluoride............ ....
SulfkJa _.. ........
Arsenic .
Cadmium
Chromium (Total) - -
Copper .........
Lead «.«..»..«.....« ~
Mercury!!"!
Nickel .-...-
Selenium ..............................
Silver .._._....._
Vanadium
Naphthalene
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
72-43-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-OO-0
91-20-3
91-59-6
1OO-01-6
98-95-3
99-55-8
100-02-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
024-16-3
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
56-38-2
608-93-5
....... .
.....«..»'.«»
82-68-8
87-86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
298-02-2
107-12-0
23950-58-5
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
95-94-3
..H..»«.H..t««»..
...
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
58-90-2
108-86-3
8001-35-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
95-95-4
B8-O6-2
96-18-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
..........
57-12-5
57-12-5
16964-48-8
8496-25-8
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-62-2
91-20-3
Wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
' .0.25
'0.0055
0.50
' 0.089
' 0.28
'0.14
0.14
'0.018
'0.014
'0.059
'0.52
' 0.028
'0.068
'0.32
'0.12
'0.40
'0.40
'0.40
'0.40
"0.40
'0.013
* 0.013
' 0.017
0.055
* 0.000035
'0.000063
' 0.055
' 0.089
'0.081
' 0.059
'0.039
'0.021
'0.24
' 0.093
0.067
'0.014
' 0.081
0.72
'0.72
' 0.055
'0.000063
'0.000063
' 0.000063
' 0.057
' 0.057
' 0.056
' 0.030
' 0.080
' 0.0095
'0.055
'0.054
'0.054
' 0.054
'0.18
'0.035
'0.85
' 0.057
'0.27
'0.32
'1.2
'0.86
*35
'14
'1.9
'5.0
"(2
' 0.82
'0.20
'0.37
'1.3
'0.28
'0.15
'0.55
0.82
'0.29
*0.042
0.031
Non-
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
0.18
15
35
33
36
*33
e160
NA
4.6
3.1
NA
28
6 14
28
*29
«28
NA
17
2.3
2.3
35
35
4.6
37
0.001
0.001
4.8
7.4
16
3.1
6.2
4.6
360
1.5
8.2
16
22
7.9
7.9
19
0.001
0.001
NA
42
42
5.6
37
28
1.3
19
5.6
5.6
5.6
37
37
28
28
33
28
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
-------
l?«jeral iRcgtstet y Vol. SS, No. 1
Table CCWF ,. '
Table CCWF in ?6fl 4e,., T f,r,.r-r-
vCy&nido (Total) ...^.__....-
moetonitrila .......... »..m«.........»...
Acrylonitrile .. .......
Aciyiamide ......................... ..........
©enzene _ i
Gyanids (Total) ... «
.Acetonitrile _ ............«......
jteiylonitrile . ............ . ........... ......
Acryfamkte ........m~..-.-
S*^n7e'^» . , ,
Cyanwte (Total) .-.,« - _
jAnttiracene
Benzal chloride........... .
Sum of Benzo(b)fiuoranthene and
>Benzo(k)fiuorantnene.
iPftenanthrene _. .
Toluene ..««...-....-....... ...
.Chromium (Total) ._ . .»«»,.......«.
t^ickel
»H?xflct>lorntrt?nzenf .,.,..,., t
***nra^hlnrnhiirArfifln*> '
rf^exachlorocyclopentadiene
fHcxachloroe thane . .«»««.».«»......»..'..
^tetractiloroothene.
1,S*Dict":toroproparH? ,
1 .P.-n-Tnrhloroprop^nfi
fl^p-f^l^n^ttytjpthfw
Chtoroethane
1.1-iOichloroethane ......
Mexachioroetnane .
Pentachloroethane ....
.1 ,i! .1 -Thchloroethane
Bis(2-ch!oroethyl)ether
Chloroform ... .....
p-D»chlorobenzene
1,2-iDtchloroethane. ..-.»..-._....._....
>FhK)rene ...,_..................
.Mciy^rhlnrnnthnnA
iNppnttlpl^nR _ , ,
jphenanthrene ....
.1^v4.5-Tetrachlocobfin2ene- t
T^traohllVO«th«'w
fl j>14-Trichlorobpnzen«
1 -H -Tr^hlrtrniathnnn ,'
H 4Dich!o''oflT'1flnf*
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
87-86-5
85-01-8
329-<00-<0
108-88-3
7439,92-.! .
7*50-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
74HO-47-32
7439-92-1
74KO-47-32
7489-92-1
.57-42-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1 .
7440-47-32
7489-S2-1
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
67-66-3
67-66-3
75-05-8
107-13-1
79-06-1
71-43-2
57-12-5
75-05-8
107-13-1
79^)6_1
7,t-43-2 i
57-12-5
75^05-8
107-13-1
79-(06-1
7.1-43-2
57-12-5
120-12-7
98-«7-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
85^01-8
108-88-3
7440-»7-32
7440-02-0
S18-.74-.1
£7-fi8-,3
77-47-4
67-72-1
127-18-4
78-S7-5
.96-18-4
.1.1.1-44-4
75-BO-3
75434-3
107-06-2
67-.72-1
87-68-3
67-.72-1
76-01-7
71-55-6
111-44-4
108-90-7
67^66-3
106-46-7
107-06-2
86-73-7
.67-32-3
-91-SO-.3
85^01-8
^5-34^1
127-13-4
12O^82-.1 i
J.1-J55-£
106-93-4
Wastewaters
OOTtoontAbon
i(mg/I)
0.031
0.031
03.028,
0.028
0.032
'0.037 1
'2.9
'34
'2.9
'3.4
'2.9
'3.4
'2.9
'3.4
'.0,74 .
'2.9
'.3,4.
'2.9
'.3,4.
'0.74
'2.9
'3.4
0.1
0.1
38
0.06
19
0.02
21
38
0.06
19
0-.02-
21
38
0.06
19
-O.02.
21
1.0
0.28
0.029
0.27
0.15
0.32
0.44
0.033
.O.OQ7 i
0.007 "
' 0.033
0.007
%@.0.85.
%@.0.85.
%@ 0.033.
0.007
0.007
0007
0.007
0033
*0007
0007
0.007
0007
"0006
0.007
0.008
0.007
0 007
.0.033 1
.0.007 .
0007
0.0.17
*-0.007 .
*.0i023 ,
'0.007 .
0.007
Non-
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
15
1.5
1.5
.28
33
NA
WA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1*)
NA
NA
NA
»NA
NA
NA
6jO
6.0
1.8
1.4
23
0.03
57
1.8
1.4
23
*0.03
57
1.8
1.4
23
-------
22706
Federal Register'/ Vol.' 55. No. 106 /FridayV|une'l.'i996 / Rules and 'Regulations
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTESContinued
Waste code
See also
Regulated hazardous constituent
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
Wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
NOTV
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
K021.
K022.
Table CCWE in 268.41.
Table CCWE in 268.41.,
K023.
K024.
K028.
Table CCWE in 268.41.
029,
K030.
K031,
K032,
K033,
KQ34.
K035,
TabteCCWE in 268.41.
K036
K037._
K038..
K040.
K041
K042..
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-6
Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4
Chloroform ~ 67-66-3
Carbon tetrachloride. 56-23-5
Antimony...... - 7440-36-0
Toluene 108-68-3
Acetophenone......... - 96-86-2
Diphenylamine '. 22-39-4
Diphenylnitrosamine 86-30-6
Sum of Diphenylamine and Diphenyl-
nitrosamine.
'henol..... -.... ' 108-95-2
Chromium (Total) 7440-47-32
Nickel 7440-02-0
Phthalic anhydride (measured as 85-44-9
Phthalic acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as 85-44-9
Phthalic acid).
1,1 -Dichloroethane 75-34-3
trans-1,2-Dichloroe thane
Hexachlorobutadiene - 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1
Pentachloroethane 76-01-7
1,1.1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-6
1.1.1 -Trichloethane 71 -55-6
1.1.2-Trichlorethane 79-00-5
Tetrachloroethylene _ 127-18-4
Cadmium 7440-43-9
Chromium (Total) 7440-47-32
Lead 7439-92-1
Nickel. 7440-O2-0
Chloroform 67-66-3
1.2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2
1.1 -Dichloroethylene 75-35-4
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6
Vinyl chloride _ 75-01-4
o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
p-Dichlorobercene 106-46-7
Hexachlorobutadiene- - -.. 87-68-3
Hexachlorobutadiene _ 67-72-1
Hexachloropropene 1888-71-7
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5
Pentachloroethane 76-01-7
1,2.4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
Tetrachloroethane 127-18-4
1.2.4-Tnchlorobenzene 120-82-1
Arsenic 7440-38-2
Hexachloropentadiene 77-47-4
Chlordane 57-74-9
Heptachlor 76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide.... 1024-57-3
Hexachkxocyclopentadiene 77-47-4
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Anthracene 120-12-7
Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
Chrysene 218-01-9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3
Fluoranthene _ 206-44-0
Ruorene 86-73-7
lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5
Cresols (m- and p-isomers) -
Naphthalene 91-20-3
o-cresol _ 95-48-7
Phenanthrene _ - 85-01-6
Phenol 108-95-2
Pyrene ~ - 129-00-0
Disulfoton 298-04-4
Disulfoton 298-04-4
Toluene _ '. 108-88-3
Phorate ~ 298-02-2
Phorate _ 298-02-2
Toxaphene _ 8001-35-1
1 ,2.4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
o-Dichlorobenzene I 95-50-1
* 0.007
0.007
'0.046
'0.057
0.60'
' 0.080
0.010
'0.52
'0.40
NA
0.039
0.35'
0.47
0.54
0.54
* 0.007
* 0.033
* 0.007
* 0.033
« 0.033
8 0.007
* 0.007
* 0.007
* 0.007
0.007
6.4
0.35
0.037
0.47
0.46
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.27
* 0.008
9 0.008
* 0.007
' 0.033
NA
NA
* 0.007
* 0.017
« 0.007
0.023
0.79
' 0.057
' 0.0033
0.012
'0.016
' 0.057
'0057
NA
NA
' 0.059
NA
' 0.059
NA
0.068
NA
NA
'0.77
' 0.059
'0.11
' 0.059
0.039
' 0.067
' 0.025
' 0.025
* 0.080
0.025
0.025
' 0.0095
' 0.055
0.088
5.6
60
6.2
6.2
NA
0.034
19
NA
NA
12
NA
NA
28
28
6.0
6.0
5.6
28
5.6
5.6
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
*6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
NA
NA
5.6
28
19
*28
5.6
*14
6.0
19
NA
"2.4
0.26
0.066
e Q.066
2.4
2.4
3.4
"3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
NA
3.4
NA
3.4
NA
8.2
*,0.1
0.1
*28
*0.1
O.I
2.6
4.4
4.4
-------
Register -} VoL 55. §Jo. t06 S Friday, ftrne H,. H99O / 'Rules -SIB&
C0wce
-------
-:. '22706
Hegster ;/:
No.-106>/ .Fi!idfly», }une 1. 1990 / tRules and ReguiationB
TABLE CCW. CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES Continued
Wtstacoda
See also
Regulated hazardous constituent
CAS No. lor
regulated
hazardous
constituent
Wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
Non-
wastewatera
concentration
(mg/kg)
K060.
K061.
K062.
KOG9.
'able CCWE in 268.41
in 268.42.
and Table 2
Table CCWE in 268.41
KC71.
K073.
Table CCWE in 268.41
in 268.42.
'able CCWE in'268.41..
and Table 2
>Oesol._..~~._
,4-Dimethytphenol..
thylbenzene ~_.
laphthalene ..
^nenanthrene
>henoU_
'oluene.
[ylenes..
Cyanides (Total)..
Chromium (Total).
Lead
lenzene .._
Benzo(a)pyrene...
Maphthalene.
Phenol.
Cyanides (Total)..
Cadmium..
Jhromium (Total).
Mickel
Chromium (Total).
Lead..
Mickel
Cadmium
06-44-5 ,
05-67-9
00-41-4
1-20-3
5-01-8
08-96-2
08-88-3
7-12-5
440-47-32
439-92-1
71r43-2
>0-32-8
91-20-3
08-95-2
57-12-5
'440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
'439^92-1
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
K083
Table CCWE in 268.41
K084..
KC3S,.
K066..,
Table CCWE in 268.41..
Lead - 7439-92-1
Mercury - 7439-97-8
Carbon tetrachloride _ 56-23-5
Chloroform 67-66-3
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1
Tetrachloroethene. 127-18-4
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6
Benzene.._ .' 71 -43-2
Aniline 62-53-3
Diphenylamine 22-39-4
Diphenylnitrosamine 86-30-6
Sum of Diphenylamine and Diphenyl-
nitrosamine.
Nitrobenzene - 98-95-3
Phenol 108-95-2
Cydohexanone . 108-94-1
Nickel 7440-02-0
Arsenic - 7440-38-2
Benzene ' 71 -43-2
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
o-Dichtorobenzene 95-50-1
m-Dichlorobenzene.... 541-73-1
p-Dichlorobenzene : .... 106-46-7
1.2.4-TrichlofObenzene 120-82-1
1,2.4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5
Hexachlorobenzene - 118-74-1
Aroclor 1016 12674-1.2
Arodor 1221 11104-28-2
Aroclor 1232 11141-16-5
Aroclor 1242 :.. 53469-21-9
Aroclor 1248. 12672-29-6
Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1
Arodor 1260 11096-82-5
Acetone 67-64-1
Acetophenone 96-86-2
Bis!2-ethythexyyphtha!a'.e 117-81-7
n-Butyl alcohol - 71-36-3
Butylbenzylphthalate 85-68-7
cyclohexanone .'. 108-94-1
1,2-Oichlorobenzene 95-50-1
Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2
Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2
Dt-ivoctyl phthalate 117-84-0
Ethyl acetate 141-78-6
Ethylbenzene - 100-41 -4
Methanol - 67-56-1
Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3
Methylene chloride 75-09-2
0.011
0.033
0.011
0.033
0.039
0.047
0.011
0.011
0.028
0.2
0.037
* 0.17
* 0.035
' 0.028
* 0.042.
1.9
1.61
0.32
0.51
0.44
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.6
0.51
0.030
'0.057
* 0.046
' 0.055
0.056
'0.054
*0.14
'0.81
'0.52
'0.40
NA
'0.068
0.039
0.36
0.47
0.79
0.14
' 0.057
' 0.088
0036
' 0.090
' 0.055
' 0.055
0.055
' 0.055
'0.013
'0.014
'0.013
'0.017
'0.013
'0.014
'0.014
0.28
0.010
"0.28
5.6
0.017
0.36
0.088
0.20
' 0.04
' 0.05"
0.01
0.34
o.os:
5.I
0.14
0.2
* 0.08:
6.2
NA
14
42
34
3.6
14
22
1.8
NA
NA
0.071
3.6
3.4
3.4
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.2
6.2
*30
6.2
'6.2
6.6
14
NA
NA
"14
14
«5.6
«30
NA
NA
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
*0.92
"0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
160
9.7
28
2.6
7.9
NA
6.2
28
28
«28
28
6 33
6.0
NA
33
36
33
-------
Federal Rebate* / Vol. 55. No." 10« / Friday. Tune 1. 199O '/ Rufes and Regulations 22709
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTESContinued
Wasteewte
KOS7 .
K098
K100
K102
K103
Seesfso
TabteCCWE to 268.4T
,, .._ ...... ...___
Table CCWE in 268.41
Regulated hazardous constituent
aphthalene
itrobenzene -.-
OlUOIlO . .. »J n 1 m H « HO .THTT *«**
.1,1-Trichloroethane . .
ytenes fTotalJ .....
Cyanides (Total)
jTTonnunT froteij .«.»«......«.«*
cenaphthatene
ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
laphthalene
"henanthrene.
.jad. . ..
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid).
,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachtoroethane
Tetrachtotwthftnft
texachlorosthane
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachlofoethane
1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroetnene
1 ,1 .2-Trichloroethane
rrichltx oetnene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
Pentachloroetnane
1 ,2.4-Tricrilof obenzene
Hexachlorocydopentadiene.
^hlordane . « .-
Hcptachlor
rteplachlor epoxide
Toxaphene . . .
2.4-Dichlor ophenoxyacetic acid ..
Hexachlorodibenzc-p-dioxirts '.
Hexachlorodibenzoturans
Pentachlorodibenzc-p-dioxins
Pontachlorodibenzofurans
Tetrachlorodibeozofufans
Cadmium 1
Chromium (Total)
Leed .-...-«
o-Nitroaniline ,
^pggry^* ...
Lmid ,
c-Nrtrophenot~ ..
Arritirre ,,,.,TT-
24 DrfHtrophttty?! -
Pnenol .__
Anrttne -«.-. .
2,4-Dinittophenot ___.__.
Phenof ,..«.. .
Cyanides (Total)
.. Benzene
C"Dit.hloKjbeRzeTO . ->
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
1-20-3
8-95-3
08-88-3
1-55-6
9-01-6
7-12-5
440-47-32
439-92-t
208-96-8
Tt-43-2
218-Ot-a
20&-44-O
93-39-5
1-20-3
5-01-8
08-88-3
439-92-1
85-44-9
5-44-9
630-20-6
9-34-6
27-18-4
9-00-5
79-01-6
67-72-1
76-OV-7
630^-20-6
79-34-6
27-18-4
79-00-5
79-01-6
541-73-1
76-01-7
120-82-1
77-47-4
57-74-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
8001-35-1
94-75-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
62-53-3
71-43-2
51-28-5
98-95-3
108-95-2
62-53-3
7V43-2
51-28-5
98-95-3
KJ8-95-2
57-12-5
71-43-2
108-90-7
95-50-t
Vastewaters
incentration
(mg/t) .
'0.059
"0.068
"0.080
'0.054
'0.054
032
1.9
0.32
0.037
0-028
OJJt*
»O02B
OQ2&
0026
*0.028
0.028
0.008
«O.OU
0.037
0.54
0.54
O057
0.057
0,056
0.054
O.054
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.057
0.056
OO54
0X54
0.036
0.055
0.055
'OK57
'0.0033
aootz
aoie
'0.0095
0.001
0.001
0.001
aoot
0.001
OUJOt
\Jo
0.32
asi
CX27
0.79
O24
0.17
0.082
ao2&
0.7!
0^4
0.17
0.082
* '45
0.1
0.6
O.07X
1.
4.
0.1
0.6
0.07
t.
2.
0.14
0.088
Non-
wastewaters
concentration
(mgAg)
3.1
14
28
5.6
5.6
28
1.5
NA
NA
3.4
0.071
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.65
0.07
NA
28
28
. «5.6
«5.6
6.0
6.0
5.6
«28
5.6
«5.6
5.6
6.0
6.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
19
2.4
* 0.066
0.066
«2.6
0.001
* 0.001
* 0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
NA
«14
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.e
6.C
s.e
5.e
«5.t
*s.e
e
«s.e
5-(
«5.(
«1.(
4.'
4.-
-------
22710
-Federal-Register7 -Vol. 55,: No. 106'/ VMfy, Jdne 1/1990 / Rules? taM flegufeftidns
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTESContinued
Waste coda
K105... ,..,-
1/4 4C
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41 and Table 2
hi 268.42.
Table CCWE in 268.41
Regulated hazardous constituent
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...-
2-Chlorophenol
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
106-46-7
95-95-4
88-06-2
95-57-8
108-95-2
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
Wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
0.090
0.18
0.035
0.044
0.039
0.030
0.47
Nort-
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
NA
NA
₯..-<,» rf,~(»Mc w thta ornanie constituent were established based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40
CFR Prt fswateStO oV ^SSaK^S^SSS^^SSS^nli&l substitution units operating in accordance wrth applicable technical requirements. A
facility may asrttycompliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR Section 268.7.
KSvzodS SW?W6)Me9ttod9oT6: sample size: 0.5-10: distillation time: one hour to one hour and fifteen minutes.
MA Not Applicable.
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
WMte
code
P004
P010
P011
P013
P020
PO5M
P022
PO91
P029
POM
POM
P037
P033
P039
P047
P048
P051
POS6
P059
P060
P063
P065
P071
P074
P077
P082
P089
P092
P004
P097
P098
P099
PlOt
P103
Commercial chemical name
Aldrin
Arsenic pentoxido _.-
Barium cyanide
2-sec-Butyt-4.6-dinttrophenol (Dinoseb)
Copper cyanide...-....... .. -
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes)...
Dioloriri... . - .
Disultoton
4 6-Dtnitro-o-cresol ,,,,,- ...............
2 4«D*nitrophonol~«~ .. - «
FHxxldo_ .
Hoplaenlcx
Isodrm ....._.. .
Hydrogen cyanide
Mercury fulminate.
Methyl paf£tt»on.»_..-.....~...-..-..~.
p-Nitroan&ne
N-Nitrosodimetnylamine
Parathton., .
Phenylmercury acetate
Phorato ._.......... ..-. _....-
rsiiipiiu. -- . - ."i
Potassium silver cyanide ~
Ethyt cyanide (Propanenrthle)
Selonoorea ._
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table 2 in 268 42 _ .
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268 41
"
~
Table 2 in 268.42
and Table 2 in 268.42.
Table CCWE in 268.41 .._
Table CCWE in 268.41...
Table 2 in 268.42
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table 2 in 268.42.
""" "
Table CCWE in 268.41....
'Tabl7ccwi in268.41 ....
Regulated hazardous constituent
*,
Arsenic
Arsenic _ -
Cyanides (Total) -
Cyanides (Amenable) ._
2-sec-Butyl-4.6-din'rtrophenol (Dinoseb)
Dyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable) _
Carbon disulfide
p-Chloroaniline
Cyanides (Total) -
Cyanides (Total)
Arsenic
Oeldrin _
Arsenic ... .
Disulfoton ...... -.
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2.4-Dinrtrophenol
Endosulfan 1 .. -
Endrin ~ .-.
Heptachlor epoxide -
Cyanides (Total) -
Methyl parathion
Nickel ~
Cyanides (Table) -
Njckel
p-Nitroaniline -....
N-Nitrosodtmemylamine «...
Parathion.....
Famphur
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Total) -
£j|ygf
. Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
. Selenium _
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
309-00-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
57-12-5
88-85-7
57-12-5
57-12-5
75-15-0 *
106-47-8
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-38-2
60-57-1
7740-38-2
298-04-4
534-52-1
51-28-5
939-98-8
33213-6-5
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
16964-48-8
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-97-6
298-00-0
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-02-0
100-01-6
62-75-9
56-38-2
7439-97-6
298-02-2
52-85-7
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
107-12-0
7782-49-2
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
'0.21
0.79
0.79
0.79
1.9
0.066
1.9
0.1
0.014
0.46
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.79
'0.017
0.79
0.017
'0.28
*0.12
'0.023
"0.029
0.029
0.0028
' 0.025
35
"00012
'0.016
' 0.021
1.9
0.10
0.030
0.025
0.44
1.9
0.10
0.44
' 0.028
'0.40
0.025
0.030
0.025
0.025
1.9
0.10
1:9
0.1
0.29
0.24
'10
Non-
wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/kg)
0.066
NA
NA
110
9 1
2.5
110
9.1
NA
16
110
9.1
110
9.1
NA
0.13
NA
0.1
160
160
* 0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
NA
0.066
0.066
0.066
110
9.1
NA
0.1
NA
110
9.1
NA
28
NA
0.1
NA
0.1
0.1
110
9.1
110
9.1
NA
*360
NA
-------
/ VoL SSj'No. -M6 / Friday^ fftftfe 1J1990 /-.Rules-aad-Rcgnlatiohs 22713
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS m WASTESContinued
Waste
code .
PI 04
P106
P1 10
P113
P114
P115
P119
P120
P121
P123
U002
U003
U004
U005
UOOS
rjoi2
UOtS '
UQt9
^Ifipp
U024
U025
U027
U028
U029
UC30
U031
U032
U036
U037
U038
U039
U042
U043
U044
U045
U047
U048
U050
U051
U052
U057
U060
UCC'
U063
U066
U067
U068
U06a
U070
U071
U072
U075
U076
(J077
J078
J079
J080
U081
U082
Commercial chemiotf name
IXmetfiyl (PB^ , , , , -
Thallfc oxide _
Thallium wlRnite _.._ -._
ThalHwn(l)9ulffrii» ,,,,,.,, -. ,- ,
Ammonia vana^atf? ................
Vanadium pentoxtds.- ............
Acfltonitrilfl
Aniline
Ben7(a)dnthraoonfl
Bis(2-chtoroothoxy)metriartfl
Bis(2-chloroethy1)ethef .
Bis{2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Ri^jj-otnyLioxyi) pthaiate ,
Calcitim chromatf? .
Uinyi rhl/M-irto
Chioromethane (Methyl chloride) . .. ...
j>-r2\jcr%7n(fi hlfmthrs-jana
1 2-D*bromo-3-chloroD''Opane . ...
12-Dibromo9mane (Ethylenedibromide) ...
Obronnor-J?thane , ...
O-pichloroh ettier
Bts(2-ethylhexyl) pthalate ...
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
4-Bromopnenyl phenyl ether
«-&rtyl alcohol
rhmminm (Tota!) , ,
Chtordane (fitpha and ganvca)
Chlorohflrvene
Chtpiyi^»i^ iln^i
p^t>fofcvfp-c^sol
P^hlrvmoth^l tanyl
Vinyl chlonrophftrK?l
Chry^flnp,,,.,,.,,,., , ,t ' , ,'. .
MapWtlatann
Pertfachlorophenol :
Phormnthrnne
Py*6fK» , . ..,,. ,, ,,..,
Toluene
Xylenes (Total) ^
Lead
Q-Cl(*Gft\
Ciesols (m- and p- isomers)
Cydohexanone
O4>'-DDD
pj>*43DD
OsD'-DDT
ptp'-nriT.,,,.,. ,,, , _,,,,, ,, Lll it
O p'-DDD
ptp'-DDD ..
O,p*'-DDE
p,p'-ODE
D*hfln7O(a,hjanthfacflfw. , ... ,
l,2-Dibromo-3-chtoropropane
1^-Dibromoethane (Ethyterse dtbromide).
Dtbromonethane
fvOichlorohonyflnfl,,,,,,,., . ,,
p-Otchlorobenzene
\ 1-D*chlortrKin«?
IjtJTirhlnrnBthylBfic
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Mpthytarv? Ch'onfj^
P^J^inhtornphflnol , ...
2.64)ir.htoronhanol
CAS NO. for
regulated
luzwiiuus
constituent
57_t2-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
57-12-5
57 12-S
7439-92-T
7440-28-0
7782-49-2
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-62-2
57-12-5
57-12-5 -
8001 -35-t
67-64-t
75-05-8
98-86-2
53-96-3
107-13-1
62-53-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
50-32-£
111_91_t
1 11-44-4
39633-32-9
117-81-7
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
7440-47-32
57-74-9
108-90-7
510-15-6
59-50-7
110-75-8
75-01-4
67-66-3
74-87-3
91-58-7
95-57-8
218-01-9
91-20-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
129-00-0-
108-88-3
7439-92-1
95-48-7
108-94-1
53-19-0
72-54-8
789-02-6
50-29-3
53-19-0
72-54-8
3424-82-6
72-S&-9
53-70-3
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
84-74-2
95-5&-1
541-73-1
104-46-7
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-O6-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
7S-09-2
120-83-2
87-65-0.
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
t-S
(LtO
0^9
tjB
O1O
&O40
*OLt4
1JO
at4
"28
'26
U*
o.to
"OJKB5
O2B
Ot7
OLOria
'0.058
*O^4
081
'0.059
'014
*CX06it
CL036
0.033
Q.OSS
Oi54
*0.1t
'0.055
5-6
OJ2
'00033
'ft.057
*o to
'0018
0057
'CL27
*O046
'0.19
'0055
'OJ044
'0059
cost
0.18
OJOSt
0028
0.028
OJ)32
0.037
att
'a??
036
0.023
0-023
"0.0039
"00039
'0-023
'0023
'0.031
'0.031
*0j055
'an
'0.026
*0 tl
OJ>4
'0.088
0036
"0090
'0.23
*&J)59
"0^1
"ao2&
0.054
> 0.069
*O044
»O.044
Non-
wajlJ»>«tef3
coocmtra-
tion (mg/kg)
tio
91
MA
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
9.1
13
*160
NA
97
140
84
14
8.2
36
82
72
7.2
72
28
*15
15
26
NA
*0.13
"57
NA
14
NA
33
56
33
56
57
82
15
7.4
*15
28
"33
NA
56
3.2
NA
0067
0.087
O067-
0.087
O087
*0n87
tt087
0.087
82
15
15
15
28
62
62
62
72
72
72
' ' «3
>33
* 33
14
».14
-------
-'22712 '''Federal Register / VdE<55. No." 106 / "Friday;' JunfcTl. "1990 7 Rul'es' toft fe^flkti
TABLE CCW.CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTESContinued
Wtsta
cod*
UQ93
UtOI
U130
Ut44
U155
U156
Ut7-4
Commercial chen&al name
1 4-Dioxano. ,....,...
Ethyl othor ...jr.......-....... ««-- -
Ethyl n>othacrytate»~.~~«".~ -.«.»..
TricWoromonofluof omethane »
1 infirm
HexacWorocyctopentadtane .
Hydrogon fluoride
lodomoUtane
tsobutyl alcohol- « ..-...
KOOOfVO ....r.rn-
Lead acetata
MorcufV ...«.
Mamapyraeoe. . »
Mothyf ethyl ketona.- -.«-....... ....
Metnyl tsobutyl ketone ~ ».
Methyt motnacrytale. .»
Naphttulooo «. .««. ... .«
4-Nitropbenol s«~~«~..~ «-... .
N-NrtrosodieUiylamine
5-Nrtro-o-toiuidino
Pentachlorobenzene .
Poniachioronitrobenzene
Phenol .___....-... ~~-.
Pnthalc aah>dnde (measured as Phtnal-
ica6dl.
Satroto t «
Se'.oruom dtoxx3e_.___
SslGnhjrn sulfide.. - ""*
1 .2.4.5-Totrachlorooenzene
1.1.1.2-Tetrachtoroethane
Carbon teuachloode ..«.« -
ThflHiumdl carbonate
1 .1 ,2-TifchJoro«thane -. -. ....
See also
Table 2 in 268.42 »~
.mi
..._..__.........
'abte 2 in 268.42
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41.....
Table CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table 2 in 268.42.
J.I..1 1TT1
Table 2 in 268.42
'
. ........
Table CCWE in 268.41 __
Table CCWE in 268.41...
Tablet in~268.42
Table 2 in 268.42
Table 2 in 268 42
Table 2 in 268.42
Regulated hazardous constituent
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cte-1 ,3-Dichloropropylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropylene
Diethyl phthalate
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene .
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ~-~
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Fluoranthene
TrichloromonofluoroTiethane
Hexachlorobenzene.....
Hexachlorobutadiene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
Hexachloroethane _
Fluoride
!ndeno(1 ,2,3-c.d)pyrene
lodomethane
Isosafrole . ~
Keoone ........._..-.......«...............
Lead
Lead
Methactylonrtrile _ _ -
3-Metnylcholanthrene -
4.4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniiine)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
^aphthalene _ -
2-Naphthylamine -
Nitrobenzene- -
4-NitropnenoI.~
n-Nitrosod'-n-fcdtylamme .
n-Nitrosodiethylamine._
n-Nitrosopipendine -
n-Nrtrosopyrrolidine.-
Pentachloro nitrobenzene -
Pnenacetin
Phenol .
Phthate anhydnde (measured as Pnthal-
ic acid).
Pronarrude. ~
Pyridine
Selenium _ _.
Selenium .
1.2,4.5-Tetrachlorobenzene
111 2-Tetrachloroethane ._ .
1 .1 ,22-Tetrachloroetriane
Tetrachloroethytene
Carbon tetrachloride
Thallium ........»«»...« .............
Thallium « «.- .
Thallium
Tribromomethane (Bromoform) ...
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
78-87-5
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
84-66-2
60-11-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
621-64-7
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
206-44-0
118-74-1
87-68-3
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
77-47-7
67-72-1
16964-48-8
7440-38-2
193-39-5
74-88-4
78-83-1
120-58-1
143-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
126-98-7
91-80-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
91-20-3
91-59-8
98-95-3
100-02-7
924-16-3
55-18-5
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-55-8
608-93-5
82-68-8
62^*4-2
108-95-2
85-44-9
23950-58-5
110-86-1
94-59-7
. 7782-49-2
. 7782-49-2
. 95-94-3
. 630-20-6
. 79-34-5
. 127-18-4
. 56-23-5
7440-28-0
. 7440-28-0
. 7440-26-0
. 7440-28-0
. 108-88-3
_ 75-25-2
. 71-55-6
. 79-00-5
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
«0.85
* 0.036
* 0.036
'0.54
»0.13
« 0.036
'0.54
0.32
» 0.55 .
'0.54
*0.12
0.40
»0.34
»0.12
'0.14
« 0.068
* 0.020
0.055
« 0.055
« 0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
« 0.057
1 0.055
35
0.79
« 0.0055
»0.19
5.6
0.081
0.0011
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.030
»0.24
0.081
* 0.0055
'0.50
0.28
0.14
0.14
! 0.059
' 0.52
* 0.068
»0.12
«0.40
"0.40
= 0.013
=0.013
"0.32
» 0.055
* 0.055
0.081
0.039
0.54
0.093
'0.014
0.081
1.0
1.0
* 0.055
0.057
0.057
« 0.056
* 0.057
»0.14
«0.14
«0.14
'0.14
' » 0.080
«0.63
« 0.054
0.054
Non-
wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/kg)
'18
'18
'18
'28
NA
'14
'28
' 140
28
28
'170
' 14
'33
'160
' 160
'8.2
'33
'37
'28
'0.066
'0.066
0.066
'0.066
'3.6
28
1 NA
NA
'6.2
65
' 170
'2.6
'0.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
. '84
1 1.5
1 15
35
36
33
'160
3.1
NA
1 14
29
1 17
23
'35
, '35
'28
'37
4.8
1 16
'6.2
'28
'1.5
' 16
'22
NA
NA
» 19
'42
'42
'5.6
'5.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
'28
'15
5.6
'5.6
-------
Federal Register ./> Vot -55, No. 106,/ ^Friday; June 1, -199O / Rules and RegnlafJons
'22733
TAKE COW.CONsnruEwr CONCENTRATIONS nt WASTESContfhuerl
Waste
code '
U228
U235
U239 '
U240 '
U243 '
U247
Commercial chemical name
TricfrloroothytanG'
Msr(2£-DtoOTiop(opyQ-pliosptiata
Xyifl~»15 .
?,4-DfoWnphflFK>xyaGfltie acid ......
M°thmyehtor.....,.,., ., ...
Seeabo . " '-
Ragirfated hazardous constituent .
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl)-phospriate
Xyfc»n»
1 4-f>eWo«'i?p*(w<»yac'?tw acM .....,
HexachloropropRm
M9l4W>'..'
CAS No. for
regutoted
tiazanfcws "
constituent
79-01-6
t26-72-7
94-75-7
188fr-7t 7
72-43-5
Wa*tewate«s
concentra-
tion (mo/r|
»GJ054
0-025
032
4)1.72
'(11)35
*O2S
Non-
wostewaters
eoncentra-
So»(mg/kg)
*56
1 0.10
'28
>10-
28
»0.18
' Treatment standards for this organic constituent were estabSshed based upon incineration in emits operated1 m accordance wRh the technica! requirements of 40
CFR Part 264 SubpartO or Part 265 SubpartO, or based upon combustion tn fuel substitution units operating in accordance «*th applicable technical requirements. A
facrliry may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR Section 268.7.
» Based on analysis of composite samples.
As analyzed using SW-846 Method 90tO; sample size; O5-10; dtsffltaSon time; one hour to one hour fifteen minutes,
NANot Applicable.
{c} Notwithstanding the prohibitions
specified in paragraph [a} of this section,
treatment and disposal facilities may
demonstrate (and certify pursuant to
§ 268.7(b][5)) compliance with the
treatment standards for organic
constituents specified in this section
provided the following conditions are
satisified:
(1) The treatment for the organic
constituents were established based on
incineration in units operated in
accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart
O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or
based on combustion in fuel substitution
units operating in accordance with
applicable technical requirements;
(2) The organic constituents have been
treated using the methods referenced in
paragraph (c)(l) of this section: and
(3) The treatment or disposal facility
has been unable to detect the organic
constituents despite using its best good-
faith efforts as defined by applicable
Agency guidance or standards. Until
such guidance or standards are
developed, such good-faith efforts may
be demonstrated where the treatment or
disposal facility has detected the
organic constituents at levels within an
order of multitude of the treatment
standard s;>t»~.ified in this section.
13. A[>pend:x IV is added to part 268
to lead as f*.-Lcws:
Appendix IVOrganometallic Lab
Fades
Hazardous wasie with the following
EPA waste codes may be placed in an
"organometallic" or "Appendix IV lab
pack:"
POQi. P002, P003, P004, POOS, P006, P007.
P008, P009.-P013, P014, P015, P016,
P017. P018, P020, P022, P023, P024,
P025, P026, P027, P028, P031, P034,
P036, P037, P038, P039, P040, P041,
F042, P043, P044, P045, P047, P048,
P049, POoO, P051, P054, POS6, P057,
P058, P059, P060, P062, P063, P064,
P065, P066, P067, P068, P069, P070,
P071, P072, POTS, P074, P075, P077.
P081, P082, P084, P085, P087, P088,
P089, P092, P093, P094, P095r P036,
P097, P098, P099, P101, P102, P103.
P104. P105, P108, P109, P110, P112,
P113, P114, P115, P116, P118, P119,
P120, P122. P123
U001, U002, U003, U004, U005, UOQ6,
U007, U008, U009, U010, UOH, U012,
U014, U015, U016, U017. U018, U019,
U020, U021, U022, U023, U024, U025,
U026. U027, U028, 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,
U053, UOS9, U060, U061, U062, U063.
U064, U066. U067, UC68, U069. U070,
UO'I, U072, U073, U074, U075, U076,
U077. U078, U079. U080, U081. U082.
U083, UOS4, U085, U086, U087, U088,
U089, UQ90. U091, U092, U093, U094,
U095. UOP6. U097, U098. U099, U101.
L'102. L'103 U105, U106, U107, U108,
U1C9, U110. Ulll, U112, U113. U114,
U115, U116, U117, U118, U119. U120,
U121. U122. L'123, U124, U125, U126,
U127, L"!C8, U123. U130, U131. U132,
U^33, U134, U135, U136, U137. U136,
' IJ137. U138. U139. U140, U141, U142,
U143, U144, U145, U146. U147,11148,
U149, U150, U152, U154, U153, U154,
U155, U156, U157, U153. U159, U160.
UI61. U162, U16-1, U165. U166. U167,
U168 U169, U170, U171. U172, U173,
U174. U176, U177, U178, U179, U180.
UI81. U182, U183. U184, U185, U186
U187. U188. U189, U190, U191, U192,
U193, U194, U196, U197. U200, U201,
U202, U203, U204, U205, U206, U207,
U208, U209, U210, U211, U213, U214,
U215, U216, U217, U218, U219, U220,
U221, U222, U223, U225, U226. U227,
U228, U234, U235, U236, U237, U238,
' U239, U240, U243, U244, U246, U247,
U248, U249, U328, U353, U359
FOOl, F002, FCC3, F004, F005, F006t F010;
FC20, F021, F023, F024, F026, F027,
F028
K001, K002, KOOS, K009, K010, KO1I,
K013, K014. KOI5, K016, K017, K018,
K019, K02a K021, K022, K023» K024,
K025, K026, K027, KQ28, K029, KQ30,'
K031, K032, K033, KQ34, K035, K036,
K037, K038. K039, K04O, K041, K042,
K043, K044, K045, K046, K047, K048,
K049, K050, K051, K052, K054. K060,
K061, K064, K065, K066, K069, K071,
K073, K083, K084, K085, K088, K087,
K093, K094, K095, K096, K097, K098,
K099, K101, K102, K103, K104, K1(B,
Kill, K112, K113, K114, K115, K116.
K117, K118, K123, K124. K125, K126.
K136
D001, D002. D003, D004, D005, D006,
D007, D008. D010. D011. D012. D013,
D014, D015, D016, D017
U032, U136. U144. U145, U146, U163,
U214, U215, U216, U217
14. Appendix V is added to part 268 to
read as follows:
Appendix VOrganic Lab Packs
Hazardous wastes with the following
EPA Hazardous Waste Code No. may be
placed hi an "organic" or "Appendix V:"
POOL P002, P003, P004, P005, P006, P007.
POOS, P009, P013, P014, P015, P016,
P017, P018, P020, P022, P023, P025,
P024. P026, P027, P028, P031, P034,
P036, P037, P038, P039, P040, P041. -
P042, P043, P044, P045, P046, P047,
P043, P049, P050, P051, P054, P057,
P058, P059, P060, P062, P063, P064,
P064, POC5, P066. P067, P068, P069,
P070, P071. P072, P073, P074, P075,
P077, P081, P082, POM. P085, P087,
P088. P089, P092. P093. PQ94. P095,
P096. P097, P098, P099, P101, P102,
P103, P104. P105, P108.-P109, PllQ,
Pill, P112, P113, P114, P115, P116.
P118, P119, P120. P122, P123
U001. U002, U003, U004, IJ005, U006,
U007, U008, U009, U010, U01L U012,
U014, U015, U016, U017, U018', UOI9,1
U020, U021, U022, U023, U024, U025,
U026, U027. U028, UQ29, U030, U031,
U033, UC34, U035. U036, U037, U038,
-------
, > 122714!! v..? - federal, Se^8tery»Voi5& Mo. tOB/iRiday. funel. 1990. /Rules and Regulations
SU039,U041,U042,U043,.U044,U045, .
U046, U047, U048, U049, U050, U051.
U052, U053, U6S5.«056, U057, JJ058,
U059. UoealJOei, U062»;U053,-UOB4,-i.
U068, U067, U06e.100e9,«J070, U071,
U872, U073. U074, U07S. U076, U077,
U078, U079, U080, U081, U082, U083.
U084, U085, U088, U087, U088, U089,
U090.U091,U092,U093,U094.U095. '
U096,.U097,U098,U099,U101,,IH02, '
U103, U105, U106, U107; U108, U109.
U110, UU1, U112, U113, U114. U115,
U116, U117, U118, U119. U120, U121,
U122, U123, U124, U125,1J126. U127,
U128, U129, U130, U131, U132, U133,
U135, U137, U138, U139. U140. U141.
U142, U143, U147, U148, U149, U150,
U153, U154, U155, U1S6, U157, U158,
U1S9, U160, U161, U162, U163, U164.
U1B5. U1B8, U167, U168 U169, U170,
U171, U172, U173, U174. U176, U177.
U178, U179. U180, U181. U182, U183,
U184. U185. U188 U187, U188, U189.
U190. U191. U192. U193, U194, U196,
U197, U200. U201. U202, U203. U205.
U206, U207, U208, U209. U210, U211.
U213, U214. U218, U219, U220, U221.
: U222, U223. U225. U226, U227. U228.
U234,'U235, U23B, U237, U238, U239,
'.. U240,U243,U244.U246.U247.U248.
-U249, U328, U353, U359
3W1. E002, F003, F004, F005, F010, F020.
FQ21. F023, F024, F026, F027, F028
:K001, K009, K010.K011.K013, K014,
K015.K018.K017.K01B.K019.K020. -
K021, K022, K023, K024, K025, K028.-
K027. K029..K030, K031, K032. K033.
; K034. K035, K036. K037. K038, K039,
K040. K041. K042, K043, K044. K045.
K046. K047, K048. K049. K050, K051.
K052, K054, K060, K065, K073. K083,
K084, K085, K086, K087, K093, K094,
K095. K096, K097, K098. K099, K101.
K102. K103, K104, K105, Kill, K112,
K113, K114, K115, K116, K117. K118.
K123, K124, K125, K126, K136
D001, D012, D013, D014. D015, D016.
D017
15. Appendix VI is added to part 268.
to read as follows:
Appendix VIRecommended
Technologies to Achieve Deactivation of
Characteristics in Section 268.42
The treatment«tandardfer many
subcategories of DCXXU33002, and D003
wastes as well as for K044, K045, and
K047 wastes is listed in 268.42 simply as
"Deactivation to remove the .
characteristics of ignitability, .
corrosivity, and reactivity". EPA has
determined that many technologies,
when used alone or in combination, can
achieve this standard. The following
appendix presents a partial list of these
technologies, utilizing the five letter
technology codes established in 40 CFR
268.42 Table 1. Use of these specific
technologies is not mandatory and does
not preclude direct reuse, recovery, and/
or the use of other pretreatment
technologies provided deactivation is
achieved and these alternative methods
are not performed in units designated as
land disposal.
Waste coda/subcategory
DOOJ Ignftablo Liquids based on 261.21(a)(1> Low TOG Nonwastewater Subcategory (containing 1% to <10%
TOO.
Nonwastewaters
flORGS
INGtN
WETOX _
CHOXD
BIODG .
n a. ... .
RCGAS
INCIN
FSUBS
ADGAS fb INCIN
ADGAS fb. (CHOXD; or CHRED)....
WTHRX
CHOXD - _...
CHRED
STABL
INCIN
CHHED
INCIN
RCORR... -
NEUTR
INCIN -
NEUTR
INCIN _
CHOXD _ _
CHRED . .
INCIN
STABL
INCIN _
WTRRX
CHOXD
CHRED
CHOXD . ~
CHRED
INCIN . . _.. . _
STABL _
INCIN
CHOXD
CHRED
JNCIfl
CHOXD .. ._
CHRED _ _
Wastewaters
n.a. '
RORGS
INCIN
WETOX
CHOXD
BIODG
n.a
n.a
CHRED
INCIN
NEUTR
INCIN
NEUTR
INCIN
CHOXD
CHRED
INCIN
n.a
CHOXD
CHRED
BIODG
INCIN
INCIN
CHOXD
CHRED
BIODG
CARBN
INCIN
CHOXD
CHRED
BIODG
CARBN
-------
'"' Federal Register 7" Vol. SB.'^Jo. 106 '/''Friday. June 1,' 1990 '/ Rules arid Regulations' ' f ' ? 22715
',.,':. . . ' ... '-'. . Waste code/subcategory , : , ' . . : ; .
K044 Wastewater treatment sludges from me manufacturing and processing of explosives. . ~~
. Nonwastewateos . , , .
CHOXD_.wv ' --'.'
CHRED.- ; ' "' _1 _
INCIN. ..:.-.'.; .' ;,,,:
rHnyrv , ; .: ' ' -
CHRED ;_^___u.
INCIN - ' '
1 ' : ' '. '
CHOXD .... ._ ; I ...... J u_
CHRED ' *« '
INCIN : . -~~
Wastewatecs
CHOXD .," .
CHRED .
BIODG
<^VRBN r
1NGTN
CHOXD :'..
CHRED
BIODG
CARBN
INCIN
CHOXD
CHRED-
BIODG
CARBN .
INCIN
Note: "n.a" stands for "not applicable"; "ft>." stands for "followed by".
16. Appendix VII is added to part 268,
to read as follows:
APPENDIX VII.EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
California Hst
California list ...
CsWonna list ...
California list.
Waste category
Liquid
hazardous
wastes.
including free
liquids
associated
with solid or
sludge.
containing
free cyanides
at
concentra-
tions greater
than or equal
to 1,000mg/l
Of certain
metals or
compounds of
these metals
greater than
or equal to
the prohibition
levels.
Liquid (aqueous)
hazardous
wastes having
a pH less
than or equal
to 2.
Dilute HOC
wastewaters,
defined as
HOC-waste
mixtures that
are primarily
water and
that contain
greater than
or equal to
1.000mg/l
but less than
10,000 mg/l.
Liquid
hazardous
waste
containing
PCBs greater
than or equal
to SOppm.
Effective date
July B, 1987.
July B. 1987
July 8. 19S7.
July 8. 1987.
. APPENDIX VII. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs Continued :
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
California list...
*
California list...
California list ...
D001
D002
D003
D004
DOM
D004
D005
Waste category
Other liquid and
non-liquid
hazardous
wastes
containing
HOCs in total
concentration
greater than
or equal to
I.OOOmg.
Soil and debris
HOCs not
from
CEHCLA/
RCRA
corrective
actons.
Soil and debris
HOCs from
CERCLA/
RCRA
corrective
actons.
All
All
All. . ..
Inorganic solid
debns.
Nonwastewater ...
Wastewater .7...
Inorganic solid
debris.
D005 \ All others
P006
D006
D007
D007
D008
D008
D008 .........
D009
D009
D009
D009 .
Inorganic solid
debns. .
All others
Inorganic solid
debris.
All others
Inorganic solid
debris.
Lead acid
batteries.
AH others
Inorganic solid
debris.
High mercury
non-
wastewater.
Low mercury
non-
wastewater.
All others
Effective date
Nov. B. 1988.
July 8. 1989.
Nov. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May8. 1992.
'MayS. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 6. 1992.
May 8, 1992.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
APPENDIX VII.EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
D010
D010
D011
D011
D012
D013
D0014
D0015
D0016
D0017
F001-F005 ......
F001-F005
F001-F005
F002 »
POOS'
F006
F006
F006
(cyanides).
F007
F008
F009
F010
F010
F011 -
F012....:
F019
F020
F020
F021
Waste category
Inorganic solid
debris.
All others
Inorganic solid
debris.
All others
All
All _..
All
All
All... _ ...
All.
All, except:
Small quantity
generators.
CERCLA/
RCRA
corrective
action, initial
generator's
solvent-water
mixtures.
solvent-
containing
sludges and
solids, and
non
CERCLA/
RCRA
corrective
action soils
with less than
1 percent
total solvent
constituents.
Soil and debris ....
All...
All
Wastewater
Nonwastewater ...
Nonwastewater ..
All
All ..
All
Soil and debris
All others
All
All
All ..
Soil and debris _.
All others
Soil and debris
Effective date '
May 8, 1992.
Aug. B, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. B. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8. 1986.
Nov. B. 1988.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1988.
July8, 1989.
JulyS, 1989.
July 8. 1989.
JulyB, 1989.
June 8. 1991.
June 8, 1989.
July 8, 1989.
July 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1988.
Nov. B. 1990.
-------
'22716 ' Federal Register' /'VoL 55 No. ICte /-frriday, Time 1. 19^0 /'Rules md Regulations
APPENDIX VII. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED INTTHE LDRs Continued,
[Coroprehwjtiv* UsO :
Wuiacoda
pn;>1
F022
F022
F023 -
F023
F02<4_
F024 (meUH).
FOZ4
(dtaxins/
furans).
F024 .-...
F025.. -.
F026,
F026__
F0g7i.i. in i
F027,
F02B m.. -,-,--
F028...... ._...,-
"039 ~ -~
F039__ .-.
K001................
K001 (lead/
orgu&s).
K001
K002
K003,...-.._.....
KC04 ,i.i..n.in.i
K005 *.....-.
KOOQ._~.....»~.
K007«
K006 ..-
K009,-,.... ..
K00d*«~~«»»»«>
K010,,. ,._!
K010.
K011 .
K011_. ....
ROM
K013.,
K010». ...
K013... .......
K01«,_ ..
KOH ..............
K014...,
K015.......-...
K015,,..,...., ......
K016,,....,..
KG16.... , _.,,,.
K017 ~~.~.
K018....-
K018,««,..,...,..
K019 . ...
KOI 9..........
K020.... ........
K020,,.,, .........
K021',,.. ,...,
K022,- .-,,. ,~
K022«_.,.,,..= ....
K022,,.. .,.,,.,
K023..... ......
K023.. ,.-
K024. ,_.
K924, .,..,,... ~,
KD25 *.-..,....-
K026..».»
K027- .
K027
K028, __..;.
K028
(metals),
K028.»
K029-,
K029
K029
i/rvut
Wasto category
AM others
Sod and debris-,.
All others
Sod and debris
AH others
Soil and dobris ...
Nonwastewater...
All............ «
All olhere ..
All .
Soil and debris
Ad othars
Soil and debris...
AH others.
Soil and dobris ....
AH others
Wss'.owaio*.-.......
Nonwastewater ._
Soil and debris....;
AH,.-, ..-.-..
Afl otba
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 199O / Rules and Regulations 22717
APPENDIX VII. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs Continued
. IComprehensive List]
Waste code
P058
P059
P060..
P069
P062...
P083
P064
P065
P06S
P065
P066 . - ...
P067. _.
P068
P069 _
P070
P071
P071 _ _
P072
P073 _..
F074
P075
P076
P077
P078
P081
P082
P084
Waste category
All _
All
All
Soil and debris....
AN others
AH
Al!
High mercury
non-
wastewater.
Low mercury
non-
wastewater.
Ali others !
All
All _
All _.
All... .
All
Soil anddebns....
All others
Ail
AH ..._ 1
All 1
Al!
All
AH
All
All I
All
All
POB5 - ! Soil and debris....
P065 j Aii others
P087 j Ail
P088 " ' AH
P089 J Soil and aotins....
P089 Al! nthorc
P092
P092
P092
P093
P093
PO94
POS4
P095
P0a5
High mercury
non-
wastewaler
Low mercury
non-
Ail others
Soil and debns ...
All ot*iers
Soil and debns ....
All o'hers
Soil and debris ....
Al! inhere
P096 ! All
PQS7
P097
Soil and debns ....
P098 Alt
P099 (siiven,...
P099
(cyanides)
P099
(cyanides'
silver).
F^OI
Wastewater
Wastewatef
Non«astewa:ef ...
Al!
P102 ' Al!
pi 03
P10-: (siiv/er)....
P104
(cyanides)
Pi 04
(cyanides/
silver).
PI05 __
P105
P108
P108
P109
P109
All _ _
Wasiewater
Wastewater
NoTwastewater ...
Alt
All
Soil and debris...
All others
Soil and debris ...
All others.
Effective date
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 6, 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. 8, 1S90.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1390.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1939
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990
June 8. 1991.
JuneB. 1989
May 8. 1992
May 8. 1992
Aug 8. 1990
May 8. 1992
Aug. 8. 1990
June 8, 1995
June 8. 1989.
May8. 1992
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1991
JuneS. 1989
June 8. 1989
Aug. 8. 1990
June 8. 1089
June 8. 1989
Aug. 8. 1990
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 19SO.
JuneS. 1989
June 6. 1989
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1989.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June B, 1991
! JuneS. 1989.
APPENDIX Vih EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
P110
P1 11
P111
P112
P113.... _.
P114
P115
P116 .
P1 16
P118
P118
F119
P120
PI21
p| 22
P123
U001
U002._
U003
U003
U004
UG05.. ._
U006
U006
U007
U007
Waste category
All ._ _.
Soil and debris
All others
Ail
All
All :
All
Soil and debris
All others
Soil and debris....
All others
All
All _
All . .
All
All
Ail
All _
Soil and debris
All others -
All
All .
Soil and debris....
All others
Soil and debris....
All others
U008 _. j All-
U009 ] All
UOIO
U010
U01 1
U011
Soil and debns....
All others
Soil and debris ....
AM nthors
U012 . All
U014
U014
U015
U015
U016
U017
U017
U018
Soil and debns ....
All others
Soil and debns ....
All others.....
All j
Soil and debns ....
All others-
All
U019 i All
UC20
U020
U021
U021
U022
Soil and debns....
Al! others
Soil and debris ....
All others
Al!
U323 ! All
U024 All
U025 J All
U026
U02S
U027
U028 1
U028
U029
U030
Soil and debris ....
All others
All
Soil and debris
Al! others
All
All
U031 .._ j All
U032
U033
U033
U034
U034
U035
uo35 ...-..
U036
All _
Soil and debns..-.
All others
Soil anddebns
All others
Soil and debns
All others
fin
U037 J All
U038
U038
U039
U041
U041
U042
U042
U043 ... .
Soil and debris
All others
All
Soil and debris ...
All others
Soil and debris ...
All others.-
All _
Effective date
Aug. 8, 1990.
Junes. 1991.
JuneS, 1939.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayB, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Junes, 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 19SO.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May S. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1S30.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayS. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 6, 1990.
MayS, 1992.
Aug 8. 1990.
May8. 1992
Aug. 6. 1990.
Aug. 8. 19SO.
MayS. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 19SO.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990
June B. 1991.
JuneB, 1989.
Aug 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990
Aug. 8. 1990
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayB. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990
MayB. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayS. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayS. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aua. 8. 1990.
APPENDIX VII. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs » Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
U044
U045
U046
U046
U047 . _
U048
U049
U049
U050
U051
U052.
U053 -
U055
UOS6 .. .
U057
U058
U058
U059
U059
U060
(J060
U061 ._
UOS1 ._..;
U062
U052
U063
U064
Waste category
All
All
Soil and debris....
All others
All .
All
Soil and debris....
All others
All
All
All
All
All
All
All ....
Soil and debris
All others
Soil and debris
All others
Soil and debris....
All others
Soil and debris....
All others
Soil and debris ....
All others
All
Al!
U086 i A!!
U067 All
U068
All
U069 _ ! Soil and debris ....
U069 All others
U070 All . ..
UC71
U072
All
All
UG73 Sol and debris....
U073 - I Al! others
U074
t<074.
U075
Soil and debns ....
All others
All
U076 All
U077 ( All
U078 ! All
U079 i All ,
U080 . ! All
U081 i AH
U082 All
U083 All
U084 ..._ All
U085
U086
U087-
U087
U088
U088
U089
All
All
Soil and debris....
All others..-
Soil and debris ....
All others
All
U090 i AIL. ..
UC91
U091
U092
U092
U093
U093
U094
Soil and Debris-
All others
Soil and debns ....
All others
Soil and debris....
All others
All
U095 i Soil and debris....
U095 All others
U096 I AIL. ..'
U097
U097
U098
U099
U101 .
U102
U102
U103 ... .
Soil and debris...
All others
All . .
All
Al!
Soil and debris
All others
All..;.
Effective date
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayB. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. B, 1990.
June 8, 1992.
June 8. 1989.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. B, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, '1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
JuneS. 1991.
JuneB. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May B. 1952.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 6, 1990
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. B. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 6. 1990
June 8. 1991
JuneS, 1989
June 8. 1991
June 8. 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990
MayS. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May &. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 199O
June 8. 1991
JuneB, 1989.
i Aua. 8. 1990.
-------
, JFederal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 /.Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX VU. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
.SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs Continued
(Comprehensive List]
Waste coda
utos.
U106__
U107
U107
U108.
U109__
U110
U110_
U111 ,
U112 ..
U113
U114-
U114
U115 .
U116
U116
U117-
U11B.
U11B
U110
U120
U121
U122
U123
U124
U125 ~
U126
U127
U120HHZ
U130
U130 -..
U131
U132
U133ZHL-.
U134
U135- ..
U136
U136__~ .
U137
U138.
U140_
U141
U142.
U143 -
U143
U144 _
U145 ~
U146
U147
U148
U148
U14B
U149
U150
U150
U151
U151
U1S1
U1S1
U152
U153
Wast* category
SoH »hd debris
1 others. -
II ,.,..--
II 1
SoB and debris
AH others
AH
Al!. -
n
Soil and debris-
All others.
n -
SoR and debris-
Alt othors
An
Son and debris
01 others
AH .
AH .-
AH.-
Art
All
AH .
Borland debris.-
All others
AH lu.. , -
SoH and debris
AH others
All.
AM
Wastowater
Nonwastewater.,
All
All. _..
AH
Soil and debns-
AU others
All . . .
All,, , -,-
AH,,
Effective date
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug.8, 1990.
June 8. 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1962.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug.8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayB. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
j Aug. 8. 1990.
I Aug. 8. 1990.
J May 8. 1992.
J Aug. 8, 1990.
1 Aug.8, 1990.
. Aug. 8. 1990.
J Aua. 8. 1990.
AB J Aug.8. 1990.
Soil and dobns| May 8. 1992.
AU Ofws 1 Aua. 8. 1990.
Sod and debris..
All others.
Sod and debris -
All others
J H»3h mercury
norv-
wastewater.
Lowmercury
non-
wastewatar.
_ Soil and debris.
_ AB others
_ A.1
J Soil and debris
J May 8. 1992.
1 Aug. 8. 1990.
J May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
May 8, 1992.
_ MayB. 1992.
_. Aug. 8. 1990.
_J Aug. 8, 1990.
J May 8. 1992.
APPENDIX VII. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRS < Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
U153_
U154
U1S5
U156 .
U156
U157
U158-
U159
U160
U161
U162
U163
U163.
U164
U164
U165
U166
U167
U167
U168
U168
U169
U170
U171
U171
U172
U173
U173
U174._.
U176
U177
U177
U178 -
U178
All others
All
All .-
Soil and debris-
All others
AU
All
All.
AR
SOB and debris
AH others
Soil and debris
All others
All _
Soil and debris
AH others
Son and debris
ATI others
AH
AH
SoB and debns
Alt others
Sob and debris
All others
Alt
Soil and debris
All others
SoB and debris
All others
SoH and debris
All others
U179 -J All
U180
U181
U182
U1B3
U184 -.
U184
U185
U186
U187
U189
U190
U190
U191
U191
U192
U193
U193
U194
U194
U196
U200
U200
U201
U202
U202
U203
U204
U205
U206
Ai'izzzir:
SoH and debris..
Alt OttMJfS- _..«**--
All
All
. Sort end debris-
J All others
. Soil and debns_
J All others
All
.! Soil and debris-
_ AU others
J Soi and debris _
_ AU others
1 All 1LII
J All
.. Soil and debris -
_ All others
_. Soil and debris.
_ All others
All
_ All
All
ftug.8, 1990.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug.8. 1990,
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990. '
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8. 1991.
June 8, 1989.
. May 8. 1992.
. Aug. 8, 1990.
. May 8, 1992.
. Aug. 8, 1990.
. May 8. 1992.
. Aug. 8. 1990.
.. Aug. 8. 1990.
. Aug. 8. 1990.
.. MayB, 1992.
_ Aug. 8, 1990.
_ Aug. 8. 1990.
.. May 8. 1992.
_ Aug. 8. 1930.
Aug. 8, 1990.
_ Aug.8. 1990.
J Aua. 8. 1990.
_ Soil and debrisl May 8, 1992.
APPENDIX VU. EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste cod* Waste category Effective date
U206
U207
U208
U209
U210
U211
U213
U214 -
U21S .
U216
U217
U218
U218 .
U219
U219
U220
U221
U221
U222
U222
U223
U223 , . -
U225-
U226
U227
U22B
U234
U234-
U235
U235
U236
U236
U237 _
1)237
U238
U240
U240
U243
U244
U244
U246
U247
U249
All others
All
Alt
All
All
AH
All...........
All ...
Soil and debris
All others
Soil and debris
All others
AH....
SoU and debris
AH others
Soi! and debris....
AU others...
So8 and debris-
All others.
AU ~
All - -
/in
All
Soil and debris
All others
SoU and debris
All others
All others
Soil and debris
All others
Soil and debris-
All others
All
Soil and debris
All others
All
Soil and debris
All others
AH "
Al!
All .....
All
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8,1990,
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 6. 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
May a. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1930.
May 8. 1982.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayB. 1992.
Aug. 6. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
This table does not include mixed radioactive
wastes (trom the First, Second, and Third Third
rules) which are receiving a national capacity vari-
ance until May 8. 1992 for all applicable treatment
'Standards are being promulgated for 1,1,2-trtch-
loroethane and 2-nHropropane tor wastewaters and
'Standards are being promulgated lor benzene
and 2-ethoxyethanol tor wastewaters and nort-
wastewaters. ..
'Treatment standards for nonwastewaters dis-
posed of after June 8, 1989. were promulgated June
8 1989
Treatment standards for nonwastewaters dis-
posed of alter August 17. 1938, were promulgated
May 2, 1989.
Note: This table is provided tor the convenience
of the reader.
17, Appendix Vffl is added to part 268,
to read as follows:
APPENDIX VIH-NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES Comprehensive List
F001-F005
AH spent F001-F005 solvent containing less than 1 percent
total F001-F005 solvent constituents.
August 8,1990.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22719
APPENDIX VIIINATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES Comprehensive ListContinued
Waste code
California list , _ _ ........,., .,.
California list;...,-.........................................
California Iist.HH»H..»M.»«.«».»....«......«....«..M ....«
D002*
D003 (cyanides)
D003 (sulfides) . ..
D003 (explosives, reactives):
D007 ..
Doo9 ;
D009 _
F011
F039
K009
K01 1
K011
K013 _.
K013
K014...
K016 (dilute)
K048
K049 . .
K050
K051 _
K052 _
K062 . .. _. _
K071 ..
«1 04
Waste category:
Liquid hazardous wastes including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge, containing free cyanides at concentra-
-tions greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/l, or containing
certain metals or compounds of these metals greater than or
equal to the prohibition levels.
Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less than or equal to 2
Hazardous wastes containing HOCs in total concentrations less
-than 10,000 mg/l but greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/l.
All. _. ._.
All
All
High Mercury Nonwastewater .. ;...._;
Low Mercury Nonwastewater.....
Wastewater...... ....H..................
Wastewater.. ...«.....«........«.........«..MW,.M,.«,
Nonwastewater .«.»...»...».«... ............. ...........
Wastewater... ...... .._ . «. .
Nonwastewater....... ...__.._........... ._............__....___
Wastewater ....... « » ». .
All ._ .
Aii. iZ.~L~ZI.lZ LZ~ZZZT ZL~"LZZZr~Z.
All
All....
All
All
All
Effective date
Augusts 1990
August 8, 1990.
August 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
MayS, 1992.
MayS 1992
May 8, 1992.
May 8 1992
May 8, 1992.
MayS 1992
June 8 1991
May 8, 1992.
June8, 1991.
June 8, 1991.
May 8, 1992.
June 8, 1991.
MayS 1992
May 8 1992
June 8, 1991.
August 8 1990
Augusts 1990
Augusts 1990 '
August 8 1990
Augusts 1990
Augusts 1990
Augusts 1990
August 8, 1990.
Wastes that are deep well disposed on-site receive a six-month variance, with restrictions effective in November 1990.
" * Deepwell injected 0002 liquids with a pH less than 2 must meet the California List treatment standards on August 8, 1990.
Note: This table is provided for the convenience of the reader.
PART 270EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924. 6925.
6927, 6939, and 6974.
Subpart DChanges to Permit
2. Section 270.42, appendix I is
amended by redesignating item B(l)(b)
as B(l)(c), and adding item B(l)(b) as
follows:
§ 270.42 Permit modification at the
request of the permittee.
APPENDIX I TO SECTION 270.42
CLASSIFICATION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION
Modification
Class
B. General Facility Standards
1.
b. To incorporate changes associat-
ed with F039 (multi-source leach-
ate) sampling or analysis methods
PART 271REQUIREMENTS 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, 6912(a). and 6926.
Subpart A-Requirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication in the Federal Register:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
*****
0) * * *
TABLE 1.REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
June 1, 1990
Title of regulation
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third wastes
Federal Register reference
rinsnrt paga n^imhArs] , ,,,, ,,,,,,, ,, ,
Effective date
May 8. 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 Scope.
m* * *
-------
Effective *
Itarft 1ft -T -
Self-implementing provision
Prohibition on land disposal of 3/3 of
feted wastes.
RCRA citation
3004(gX6)(C)
Federal Register reference
CJune 1. 1990 and page numbers of
this document]
PART 302DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 102 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980,42 U.S.C. 9602; sees. 311
and 501{a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
2. Section 302.4 is amended by adding
the following entry in alphabetical order
under the column "Hazardous
Substance" and adding as the first
footnote, footnote | to read as follows.
Footnotes 1* and 4 are republished.
§ 302.4 Designation of Hazardous
Substances.
Statutory
Final RQ
Hazardous Substance
Mote Source Leachata
CASRN
Regulatory Synonyms
«=RA
Number
Pounds
(Kg)
F039
1 (0.454)
t IndieatM tho statutory source as defined by 1.2,3, and 4 below.
'statutory source for designation of tWshazardous substance ur.^er CERCLA Is RCRA Section 3001.
, vpowid RQ is a CERClA statutory RQ.
(FR DQ&80-12023 Filed 5-31-90; 8:45 am]
BtUJHC CODE «5«0-SO-«I
------- |