40206
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 1990 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Parts 180, 38S,«nd «8
[OPP-300215A; FRL-3S01-*]
•EthyleneBlsdithfocarlMinstes;
Additional Comment Period for
Reduction «nd Revocation of
Totonmcee and Food/Feed Additive
Regulations for Mancozeb, tlaneb,
Uatiram, end Zineb
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; Addition to
comment period.
SUMMARY: On May 16,1990, EPA issued
proposed rules to reduce and/or .revoke
tolerances and Iood7feed additive
regulations for maacozeb, Gsaneb,
metiram, and zineb. In response to
several international requests, EPA is
reopening the comment period to allow
an additional 90-day period for public
comment {or all commodities cited In the
May 16 document
DATES: Written comments, identified by
the document control number, OPP-
300215A, must be received on or •before
December 31,1890.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments '
to: Public Docket and freedom of
Information Section, Field Operations
Division IM7506C], Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M St., SW., Washington, DC
29469. In person, deliver comments to:
Rm. 248, Crystal MeM #2,1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. Telephone
number: J703}557^2a05.
information AtdxEutted an my
comment concerning this document may
be claimed «onfideao'al by marking any
or all parts -of that information as
"Confidential Business Information**
(CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth In 96 CFR part 2.- A
copy of a -comment or parts of a
comment-widen-do not contain CBI must
be submitted for inclusion in -the public
record. Information not narked GBI may
be publicly disclosed fay EPA wi&ont
prior notice to Ihe submitter. "lite EBDCs
public docket, which contains *il-non-
CBI written comments, will be available
for public inspection and copying in Rm.
246 at the Virginia address given .above,
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATIOW CONTACT: By
mail: Kathleen Martin, Review Manager,
Special Review Branch. Special Review
and Reregistration Division {H7508C*),
Office of Pesticide Programs {Crystal
Station 1), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M St., EW., Weshragtan, DC
20460. Office location and telephone
namhen 2805 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,
Third Floor, Arlington, VA 22202,
telephone tf03)-308-*035.
SUPPLEMENTARY WFORMATIOM: In the
Federal Register of May 16,1990 (55 FR
20416), EPA issued a proposed rule to {1}
reduce and/or revoke tolerances for
residues -of the fungicides mancozeo,
maneb, and metiram in-or on 36 raw
agricultural •commodities -covered by 45
pesticide registrations; (2) revoke
mancozeb food/feed additive
regulations for fcran, floor, and nulled
feed fractions of barley, oats, and *ye in
processed foods and animal feed; and
(3) revoke tolerances for residues of the
fungicide zineb in or on eH raw
agricultural conanodiSea. The document
proposed effective dates of tolerance
action by crop, with die caveat that
actual dates would depend «pon the
timing of EPA's Final Determination on
the EBDC's and fhe .period different
commodities would take to clear
chaanels^of •trade. The May 16, t990
Federal Register proposal provided for a
.90-day public comment period, -to -dose
on August 14,1990.
In the Federal Register of August 22, '
1990 (55 FR 34288), EPA issued a
document to -correct several technical
errors in the May 16,1990 proposal. Ice
pvbHc comBseBt period for conunadifies
affected by Ac corrections was
extended to August 28,3998. : •-.--;
Several foreign governments or groups
have requested that EPA allow
additional time to comment en the May
16,1990 proposal. These requests are
noted in the public docket and are
summarized oefow. r - •- ; ;:-.• " •
The embassies of CohnnWjJ';"•"'''"•.;;,
Honduras, and Mexico wish additional
time to provide their views on ihe
impacts whlcn fhey believe EBDC ....
tolerance leducSoBS and/or xevocafions
would have on their oountries'
agriculture, economy, and trade
interests, and {hey .have .stated Jhal the
August 14.199D deadliBe Bade feeejgn
comment Hnpracticaok. The government
of the Federal Republic dt Geanany kas
suggested {hat (hey befieva a Icade
barrier could ensue if the UnSed States
were to reduce and/or revoke EBDCTB
tolerances more strictly iban fhe .
European Community, aad It Itas ' - • •
requested additional fime In order to _.
pro vide inrbrmation on this point
Additionally, tne Detegafion-oTlhe
pose negative impacts OH the Canada- .
U.S. apple trade and has requested
additional fime to prepare comment
detailing its views on possible impacts
of the proposed roles.
EPA «nderatanos tint some foreign
interests may have had some difficulty
meeting the original deadline to
comment
-------
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 1990 / Proposed Rules
40207
All Vhiee companies submitted a
petition to EPA under 40 CFR 268.44,
which allows facilities to petition EPA
for a variance from the application LDR
treatment standards. A facility
submitting such a petition believes that
their waste is more difficult to treat than
the wastes that EPA considered in
developing the treatment standards.
After a comprehensive review of the
petition submitted by Craftsman,
Northwestern, and CyanoKEM, EPA
believes that, with regard to cyanides,
their wastes are more difficult to treat
than the wastes EPA considered in
.establishing amenable and total cyanide
standards for F006, F011, and F012
•wastes.
DATES: EPA is requesting comments on
today's proposed decision. Comments
will be accepted until October 10,1990.
Comments postmarked after the close of
the comment period will be stamped
"late".
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your
comments to EPA. Two copies should be
sent to the Docket Clerk, Office of Solid
Waste (OS-350), VS. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. A third copy
should be sent to Richard Kinch, Chief,
Waste Treatment Branch (OS-322). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC. Identify
your comments at the top with the
regulatory docket number: F-90-TLVP-
FFFFF.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this
proposed rule is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and is
available for viewing from 9 a jn. to 4
p jn., Monday through Friday, except for
federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 475-9327. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory document at
no cost Additional copies cost $0.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-
9346, or at (202) 382-3000. For technical
information concerning this notice,
please contact Monica Chatmon-
McEaddy, Office of Solid Waste (OS-
322), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 475-7243.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A, Authority
Under Section 3004(m) of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste .
Amendments of 1984 (HS WA), EPA is
required to set levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized." EPA
has interpreted this language to
authorize treatment standards based on
the performance of best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT). This
interpretation was sustained by die D.C.
Circuit in HWTC vs. EPA, 888 F.2d 355
(D.C. Circuit 1989). The Agency has
recognized that there may be wastes
that cannot be treated to levels specified
in the rules, due to the fact that the
wastes are in a form that is substantially
more difficult to treat than those the
Agency evaluated in establishing the ..
treatment standard. (51FR 40576,
November 7.1986.) For such wastes,
EPA has established a treatability x
variance (Section 268.44), which if
granted becomes the treatment standard
for this waste,. w,i?.<:-:!ii&:-..-!•.-• ..*,;....•.? •
B. Facility Operation and Process
The Craftsman Plating and Tinning
Corporation is an electroplating firm
located in Chicago, Illinois. The facility
performs plating of various ferrous
parts, approximately 50 percent of the
electroplating is performed using
cyanide based solutions. The treatment
system used at this facility consists of
alkaline chlorination for destruction of
amenable cyanides, and chemical
precipitation and filtration for treatment
of various toxic metals.
Northwestern Plating Works is an
electroplating firm located in Chicago,
Illinois. The facility performs plating of
various ferrous parts, approximately 80
percent of the electroplating is / _-
performed using cyanide based > ' •
solutions. The treatment system used at
this facility consists of alkaline
chlorination for destruction of amenable'
cyanides, addition of ferrous sulfate to
aid in the removal of the complex iron
cyanides before the clarification step, ••- ,
and chemical precipitation and filtration
for treatment of various toxic metals.
The filtered solids are classified as EOOB
and are the subject of the petition ,
submitted by Northwestern. This is the
same technology used by EPA as the •
• basis for the BDAT treatment standard
for cyanides in F006 wastes. The filtered .
solids are classified as F006 and are the
subject of the petitions submitted by -
Craftsman and Northwestern.' ^; ^ ,t;_.: „
CyanoKEM, Inc. is a hazardous waste
treatment facility located in Detroit, .,
Michigan. The facility specializes in the
treatment of high concentration cyanide '
wastes including cyanide based heat
treating wastes. They receive , ,.,y_ ;; ;r, i
approximately 10,000 gallons per year of
heat treating wastes. The treatment
system used at this facility consists of
alkaline chlorination, chemical
precipitation and filtration.
Additionally, the facility has a
redissolving system for solubilizing
cyanides found in nonwastewaters. The
heat treating wastes that CyanoKEM
receives are classified as Foil and F012;
hi addition, their treatment of Foil
wastes generates a residual that falls
under the definition of F012 wastes.
C. Summary of Petitions
As noted above, Craftsman's and
Northwestern's treatment system for
wastewater generates a residual
material that falls under EPA's
definition of F006 and which is subject
to the land disposal restriction
standards for F006 nonwastewaters. The
specific standard of concern for both
faculties is the total cyanide standard of
590 mg/kg as measured by SW-846 ;;
methods 9010 or 9012 using a 10 grain ~
sample size and a distillation time of
one hour and fifteen minutes.
Craftsman's and Northwestern's '
positions are that their F006 waste is
more difficult to treat than the waste
EPA considered hi developing the
treatment standard for total cyanide in
F006 wastes. Specifically, they point to
the fact that then1 waste contains . ' '*
substantial amounts of ferro- '' ""'"'' ,
ferricyanides (complex iron cyanides)
and that these types of cyanides may
not l>e treated by the technology that ''.'
EPA used as the basis for the standard
(see 54 FR 26610. June 23,1989). , "^''
As noted above, Foil and F012 wastes,
are treated at the CyanoKEM facility. ,.,,.
CyanoKEM contends that they are ... - .
unable to achieve the BDAT standards
for total and amenable cyanides in these
wastes and, as such, is requesting a •
treatment variance. The BDAT , .
standards for total and amenable "
cyanide in Foil and F012 wastes are lip
mg/kg and 9.1 mg/kg, respectively. '•••,-,
CyanoKEM is requesting alternative
standards of 590 mg/kg for total cyanide
and .30 mg/kg for amenable cyanide.
CyanoKEM's position is that their Foil/
F012 wastes are more difficult to treat
than the waste EPA considered in
developing the treatment standard for
total cyanide in F011/F012 • • - -
nonwastewater. CyanoKEM goes on to
say that the F011 and F012 wastes
received by their facility areaimilar to
the F006-F009 electroplating wastes for
which EPA has established higher -.,-.,:
cyanide standards. The treatment data
submitted by CyanoKEM show that they
can achieve the F006-F009 standards, / .
-------
-------
40208
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 191 / Tueaday, October 2, 1990 / Proposed Rules
but cannot currently comply with the
Foil and F012 BOAT standards.
II. Basis for Determination
A, Site-Specific Conditions
Under 40 CFR 268.44. EPA allows
facilities to apply for a site-specific
variance in cases where a waste is
generated under conditions specific to
only one facility and the waste can not
be treated to the specified standard for
that waste even though well-operated
treatment of the type used to establish
the treatment standard is utilized to
treat the waste.
EPA has reviewed the petition
submitted by both Craftsman and
Northwestern and believes that, as
requested, a site-specific variance is
warranted with respect to the total
cyanide standard for both facilities.
Specifically, EPA believes that the cause
of the high concentrations of complex
iron cyanides at these facilities can be
attributed to site-specific electroplating
formulations and operations. Such site-
specific conditions would include the
type of ferrous parts being plated (e.g.,
whether or not the parts are irregularly
shaped), the type and concentration of
chemical additives, the bath
temperature, the pH of the cyanide bath,
the condition of ferrous parts the plating
thickness, the duration of the plating
process, current density, and other
process factors. Similarly, the Agency
believes that an appropriate alternative
treatment standard for total cyanide
would only reflect the site-specific
processing condition at Craftsman and
Northwestern.
EPA has reviewed the petition
submitted by CyanoKEM and believes
that, as requested, a site-specific
variance is warranted with respect to
the amenable and total CYANIDE
standards. Specifically, EPA believes
that CyanoKEM is the only facility that
treats F011/F012 wastes generated in a
manner that results in these wastes
. containing high concentrations of
cyanide and iron, a potential complexing
agent
B. Alternative Treatment Standard for
Cyanides
EPA's technical rationale for
proposing approval of a BDAT treatment
variance for Craftsman focuses
primarily on the Agency's belief that
complex iron cyanides are not easily
treated using the BDAT technology of
alkaline chlorination. Consistent with
this position, EPA believes that by
examining the concentration of
amenable cyanides (i.e., cyanides not
complexed with iron) in the treated
wastes, both wastewater and
nonwastewater, a determination can be
made regarding whether a facility has
properly designed and is properly
operating their alkaline chlorination
system, i.e. by reducing the amenable
cyanides in the waste, proper
destruction of the cyanides has been
performed by alkaline chlorination.
Craftsman Plating is reducing
amenable cyanides from 300 ppm in the
effluent to less than 1 ppm in the
effluent wastewater and the sludge. This
substantial reduction indicates that the
alkaline chlorination treatment system
is being operated properly. EPA is,
therefore, using the concentration of
amenable cyanides in the F006 wastes
as the principal determinant of whether
a variance is warranted for total ••
cyanide and, if so, the appropriate ' .
alternative treatment concentration.
EPA also sought additional means of
assuring that Craftsman's treatment
system is being operated properly. On
November 16,1089, the Agency
conducted an engineering site visit at
Craftsman Plating. The Agency
observed that the treatment system was
well operated due to the fact that
concentration of the amenable cyanide
were reduced significantly. In fact, the
electroplating wastewater generated by
the facility contained concentration of
amenable cyanide greater than 300 ppm
and was reduced to Jess than 1 ppm by
the treatment system. In addition,
treatment was conducted in afford with
normal design and operating ' '• *""-;.;.: • '
parameters. The F006 wastes generated
from the treatment system is 30% solid
with a concentration of total cyanides
ranging from 600-1000 ppm.
In the case of Craftsman, there is one
data point that shows both total and
amenable cyanide concentrations for •
their F006 waste. These concentrations
are 1,160 mg/kg for total and <1.0 mg/kg
for amenable cyanides, respectively.
Using these data and accounting " *'
variability in the amount of complex
iron cyanides that will be generated, • -
EPA has determined that an appropriate
alternative total cyanide standard for
the Craftsman facility located in ' f?;; ^
Chicago, Illinois is 3,100 mg/kg. The! : ;
calculation of the treatment standard
• can be found in the Proposed ;; ^V :." --;-r.
Background Document for this site- •.
specific treatability variance. The '•• •-''
alternative treatment standard is • %"".-; •
derived by using a variability factor of •/•".
2.8 times the concentration of total .-;;•„.-^
cyanides in the waste. In a similar -••?'"<*-
manner, EPA's technical rationale for
proposing approval of a BDAT treatment
variance for Northwestern focuses
primarily on the Agency's belief that
complex iron cyanides are not easily
treated using the BDAT technology of
alkaline chlorination. Northwestern
Plating is reducing the amenable
cyanides to less than 1 ppm in the
effluent wastewater and the sludge. EPA
is, therefore, using their findings on the
concentration of amenable cyanides in
the F006 wastes as the principal
determinant of whether a variance is
warranted for total cyanide and, if so,
the appropriate alternative treatment
concentration. Therefore, by reducing
the amenable cyanides in the waste
proper destruction of the cyanides has
been performed by alkaline chlorination.
On November 16,1989, the Agency
conducted an engineering site visit at
Northwestern Plating. The Agency
observed that the treatment system was
well operated due to the fact that the
concentration of amenable cyanide was
reduced significantly. In fact, the
electroplating wastewater generated by
the facility contained amenable
cyanides greater than 200 ppm. As
mentioned before, the cyanide -• - .-
concentration in the effluent was
reduced to less than 1 ppm. The F006
generated from the treatment system is
33% solids with a concentration of total
•cyanides ranging from 700-1000 ppm.
Based on these observations, the .
Agency concluded that the facility was
well operated.
Also, the treatment data submitted in
the petition contained one data point
that shows both total and amenable
cyanide concentrations for their F006
waste. The concentration of total - "
cyanide in the waste is 708 mg/kg. Using
these data and accounting for variability
in the amount of complex iron cyanides
that will be generated, EPA has ••..;., ...
determined that an appropriate • : * ^
alternative total cyanide standard for
the Northwestern facility located in
Chicago, Illinois is 2000 mg/kg.
The calculation of the treatment
standard can be found in the Proposed
Background Document. The alternative
treatment standard is derived by using a
variability factor of 2.8 times the
concentration of total cyanides in the
waste. .•-.-,;.-••>?;. -- ; • - . • ;•„ •
Also, Jhe Agency is requesting
additional treatment data from .
Craftsman Plating and Northwestern
Plating. Because of these data, the
Agency may promulgate different -
• alternative treatment standards as ..
proposed. • ..&&&£•.-..:*.r:•-zfff*&f-i>fKg?,;.-:••..
, EPA is also proposing to grant
alternative treatment standards for total
and amenable cyanide in the Foil and
F012 wastes treated at CyanoKEM's
facility in Detroit, Michigan.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to grant a
variance from the current standard of
110 mg/kg for total cyanide to 590 mg/kg
-------
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 1990 / Proposed Rules
it * •
40209
and a variance from 9.1 mg/kg for
amenable cyanide to 30 mg/kg. EPA's
review of CyanoKEM's waste
characterization data for F011 and F012
wastes confirms that their waste more
closely approximates the wastes treated
for development of the F006-F009
cyanide standards than the F01I/F012
wastes tested by EPA. The CyanoKEM
F011/F012 wastes have total cyanide
concentrations as high as 204,000 ppm
compared to 71,759 ppm for wastes used
to develop BDAT for F006-F009 and
22,700 ppm for wastes used as the basis
for current Foil and F012 standards.
Moreover, iron concentrations that,
when combined with cyanide, inhibit
cyanide treatment are much higher in
the F011/F012 wastes treated by
CyanoKEM than hi the F011/F012
wastes treated by EPA: over 46,000 ppm
of iron in the wastes at CyanoKEM
compared to 140 ppm estimated for the
EPA tested F011/F012 wastes. On the
other hand, iron concentrations in the
wastes used as the basis for F006-F009
were as high as 11,917 ppm.
The Agency conducted an engineering
site visit at the CyanoKEM facility on
January 23,1990. The primary purpose of
this visit was to review CyanoKEM's
records on Foil and F012 in order to be
sure that the wastes treated were
similar to the characteristics of F006
through F009. The second purpose of the
visit was to determine whether the
treatment system is well operated. A
copy of the engineering site visit report
'is in the administrative record for
today's proposed rule.
At the site, the Agency reviewed some
of the characterization sheets on Foil.
and F012. From the review, the Agency
determined that the characteristics of
Foil and F012 wastes (i.e;, cyanide and
iron concentration) treated by
CyanoKEM were similar to the F008
wastes. Also, based on observations of
the facility, the Agency concluded that
the treatment system was well operated.
For the above reasons, the Agency
believes that an alternative treatment
standard for Foil and F012 wastes
treated at CyanoKEM's facility is
warranted. EPA believes that the
available data supports a transfer of the
performance of alkaline chlorinatton
achieved for treatment of amenable and
total cyanides for F006-F009 wastes to
Foil and F012 wastes.
At this time, the Agency is soliciting
comments on the approach of
developing treatability groups for Foil
and F012 wastes based on the
concentration of metals (specifically
iron) and cyanides. In the Second Third
Final Land Disposal Restrictions Rule
(51FR 28611), the Agency promulgated
cyanide and metal treatment standards
for F011 and F012 wastes. The wastes
treated by the Agency contained total
cyanide concentration ranging up to
30,000 ppm and iron concentration
ranging up to 140 ppm. The treatment
standards for these wastes were based'
on the performance of electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination. Also, the Agency
concluded that Foil and F012 wastes
contained lower concentration of iron
than F006 wastes. Based on the iron
concentration of the Foil and F012
wastes treated by the Agency as
compared to the characterization data
provided in CyanoKEM's treatability
variance, these wastes are different
Treatment data shows that this
difference does impact the performance
of the treatment system. Therefore, the
Agency is soliciting comments on
establishing a treatability gnrarj for Foil
and F012 based on a low iron -;••--••-
concentration (Le. less than 140 ppm) to
achieve total and amenable cyanide
treatment standards of 110 mg/kg and
9.1 mg/kg, respectively; and a high iron ~
treatability group (i.e. greater than 140
ppm) to achieve total and amenable
cyanide treatment standards of 590 mg/
kg and 30 mg/kg, respectively.
C. Conditions for Total Cyanide
Variance
For both Craftsman and Northwestern
Plating, the total cyanide analysis must
be accompanied by an analysis for • .
amenable cyanide. Only in cases where
the amenable cyanide concentration is
in compliance with the current BDAT
standard of 30 mg/kg will the facilities
be allowed the variance. As indicated,
EPA is proposing a variance for total
cyanide only. Based on the information
in this record, both facilities are able to
comply with the amenable cyanide
standard, therefore the Agency is not
proposing to change the amenable
cyanide standard.
For CyanoKEM, the metal treatment
standards for Foil and F012
nonwastewaters and the cyanide and
metal treatment standards for the
• wastewaters must be met in order to
dispose of the waste. As indicated, EPA
is proposing a variance for amenable
and total cyanides only in Foil and F012
nonwastewaters treated at this facility.
Dated: September 17,1990.
Sylvia K. Lawrence, -••,..,.;, • •!
Director, Office of Solid Waste.., ... ,,,< _ . _ . ;
For the reasons set out in the -
preamble, title 40, chapter I, Part 268 of;
the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows; ,,
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL . . >
RESTRICTIONS , ?„;'
„ . _ , j. ., .. - j • i i- .,«* •?.'•—?':-r:^"ff.£yv *;? . *
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as .follows: . ..,.,. - .-.v.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. COOS, 6812(8), tBZL, and
,6924. „*.-:.
2. Section 268.44 is amended by ,rj
adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to -read
as follows; ..,__ :._.. •_", • .IC %;,-,;;•' -;/,V
§268.44 Variance from a treatment •'.- '• .
standard.
(m) [Reserved].
(n) The following facilities are
excluded from the treatment standard
under § 268.43 (a), Table CCW and are
subject to the following constituent
concentrations. ...-,... . - -
TABLE—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS
Facility name and address *
.Craftsman Plating and Tinning, Corp,
Chicago, IL , ,
Waste
Code
F006
-
Tnhte CCWP Jn ?«fm ,- -, . .
Cyanhtoii (To*y } •• : ' -'v'"",!., ;;i ;;"•;!-
Cyprdflaf (Amoiiflfjo) "i - ,~
{••arimiiim -,,,-,i „, , „• • • ••
r>fnmi>tTn
Iwtd ...... , „„„„,„.,„„„...
Ntetol ; ;..:
Wastewaters
(mjj/l)
". >-." -•'.•* t.2'
'*' ' " *086
— '.1«
.AQ4
0.040
0.44
Non-
wastewaters
concentration
(mg/kg)
.;':••>— ~*3l'too
NA
- NA
NA
-------
-------
40210
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 1990 / Proposed Rules
TABLE—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
Facility name and address '
Northwester- Plating Works, Inc., Chi-
cago, IL
CyanoKEM, Inc., Detroit, Ml
CyanoKEM Inc., Detroit, Ml
Waste
Code
F006
F011
F012
See also
Tabte CCWE in 268.41 .
Table CCW in 268 41 ~ . ..~ ..
Table CCW tn 268.41 ___
Regulated hazardous constituent
Cyanides (Total) «
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cadmium _„
Chromium.
L«ad . „_
•*eM „, -.,...,-„-,„„„-„„„.,
Cyanides (Total) _
Cyanides (Amenable) — __ — ^
Chromium (Total).__ . . _.._..
IMT) ,....,. _„.„_ .,„
Nickel
Cy*i
-------
------- |