Friday
April 12, 1991
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 261, 268, and 271
Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric
Arc Furnace Dust (K061); Proposed Rule
Printed on flecycfetf Paper
-------
15020
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 1991 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,268, and 271
(FRL-3909-8)
Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric
Arc Furnace Dust (K061) •
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed ride.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today proposing
treatment standards under the land
disposal restrictions program for wastes
identified as K061 (electric arc furnace
dust) that are nonwastewaters and
contain equal to or greater than 15%
total zinc (i.e., high zinc subcategory);
determined at the point of initial
generation. In the First Third rule (53 FR
31162, August 17,1988), EPA determined
that high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR) represents the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) for these wastes, but
established a treatment standard of "no
land disposal" based upon the Agency's
belief that it lacked authority to regulate
the slag residues from the HTMR
process as K061 wastes. In a June 26,
1990 decision, the District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals (API v. EPA,
900 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1990)) invalidated
the treatment standard of "no land
disposal" and held that EPA is not
jurisdictionally barred from
promulgating a treatment standard for
the slag. The court remanded the case to
EPA to determine whether to establish a
treatment standard for slag residue from
HTMR; the Court did not dispute that
HTMR represents BDAT for these
wastes. Today's action proposes
treatment standards for K081
nonwastewaters in the high zinc
subcategory based on the analysis of
nonwastewater residues from HTMR
processes. The Agency is also proposing
to delist HTMR nonwastewater
residues, such as slag, if they satisfy
certain conditions, provided they do not
exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics.
DATE: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before (May 13,
1991). Because of the pending lapse of
the existing treatment standard, the
Agency will not be able to extend the
comment period.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket F-91-
K61P-FFFF, room 2427,401M Street
SW.. Washington, DC 204SO. The docket
Is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.. Monday
through Friday, except on Federal
holidays. Its phone number is (202) 475-
9327. An appointment must be made to
examine the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 {toll
free), (703) 920-9810 locally. For general
information on the proposed rule,
contact Robert Burchard, Office of .Solid
Waste (OS-322W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW..
Washington DC 20460, (703) 308-8434.
For information on the proposed BDAT
treatment standard, contact Laura
Lopez. Office of Solid Waste (OS-
322W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington
DC 20460, (703) 308-8434.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION!
Outline
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
B. Proposed Rule
U. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. History of K061 Treatment Standards
B. Proposed Treatment Standards for K061
Nonwastewaters in the High Zinc
Subcategory
C. Delisting of HTMR Nonwastewater
Residues
D. Capacity Determinations
03. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
C. State Implementation
IV. Regulatory Impact
A. Executive Order 12291
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted on November 8,1984.
prohibit the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes. HSWA requires the
Agency to set "* * * levels or methods
of treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and'
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized" {RCRA
section 3004(m)(l), 42 U.S'.C. 6924{m)(lJ).
Wastes that meet the treatment
standards established by EPA are not
prohibited and may be land disposed. In
addition, a hazardous waste that does
not meet the treatment standard may be
land disposed provided the "no
migration" demonstration specified in
KCRA section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l) and
fg){5) is made. (See 55 FR 22526 for a
.more detailed discussion of the no
migration demonstration.)
For the purposes of the restrictions,
HSWA defines land disposal to include,
but not be limited to, any placement of
such hazardous waste hi a landfill,
surface impoundment, waste pile, land
ireatment facility, salt dome formation,
salt bed formation, or underground mine
or cave (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.
6924(k)). HSWA also defines land
disposal to include underground
injection wells; therefore, disposal of
hazardous wastes in injection wells is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
The land disposal restrictions are
effective when promulgated, unless the
Administrator grants a national capacity
variance from the otherwise-applicable
date and establishes a different date'
(not to exceed two years) 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. (See 55 FR
22526 for a more detailed discussion on
national capacity and case-by-case
extensions.)
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. Proposed Rule
Today's notice proposes treatment
standards for K061 nonwastewaters in
the high zinc subcategory, i.e., those
wastes containing equal to or greater
than 15% total zinc, at the point of initial
generation. (K061 wastes are defined in
40 CFR 261.32 as "Emission control
dust/sludge from the primary production
of steel in electric furnaces".) Wastes in
..this subcategory currently are subject to
an interim standard based upon the
performance of stabilization. However,
the interim standard will lapse on
-------
Federal Kegbter / Vol. 56, No. 71 / Friday. AprU 12. 1991 / 'Proposed Rules
15021
August 8,1991, at which time the waste
may no longer.be land disposed unless a
treatment standard is in place.
The Agency is proposing to establish
concentration-based treatment
standards for K081 nonwastewaters in
the high zinc subcategory based on the
analysis of nonwastewater residues
from the HTMR processes. (While these
residues have been commonlypreferred
to as slag, there is some question
whether all nonwastewater residues
from HTMR processes are technically
defined as slag. Slag is generally
considered a residue from a thermal
process in which metals have been in a.
molten mixture. Since this does not
necessarily occur in all HTMR
processes, the nonwastewater residues
would not technically be slags.} The
Agency is further proposing that the
nonwastewater residues from the HTMR
process be delisted from the hazardous
waste regulations if they satisfy certain
conditions. Moreover, the Agency is
proposing to establish concentration-
based treatment standards for K061
nonwastewaters that are not only high
in zinc, but also high in nickel and/or
chromium (i.e., containing greater than
1.5% total chromium and nickel at the
point of initial generation). Since these
wastes are typically recovered for their
chromium/nickel content rather than .
their zinc content, and since the
residuals from this recovery process are
expected to achieve a different level of
performance for chromium and nickel,
the Agency is also proposing to
establish an additional subcategory of
high zinc K061 nonwastewaters, and to
propose treatment standards for it. This
subcategory would consist of high zinc
KC61 nonwastewaters that contain
greater than or equal to 1.5% total nickel
and chromium. EPA is proposing to
reserve the concentration-based .
treatment standards for nickel and
chromium in this subcategory;
additional data on the performance of
this technology are currently being
gathered and treatment standards for
nickel and chromium may, thus, be
developed.
II. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. History ofKOBl Treatment Standards
EPA first promulgated treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of
K061 as .part of the First Third final
regulation on August 6,1988 (53 FR
31162-31164, August 17,1988]. The
Agency defined two subcategories for
nonwastewater forms of K061: the low
zinc subcategory (less than 15% total
zinc) and the high zinc subcategory
(equal to or greater than 15% total zinc).
The treatment standard for the low zinc
subcategory was ibased on the
performance of stabilization. For the
high zinc subcategory, the final standard
was expressed as "no land disposal"
based on the determination that high
temperature metals recovery represents
BDAT (53 FR 31221). Due to a shortage
in high temperature metals recovery
capacity, an .interim numerical standard
based on the performance of
stabilization was established until
August 1990.
In the proposed Third Third rule (54
FR 48456-48457), the Agency requested
comments on extending the existing
interim standard of stabilization for
another year. The Agency had
information indicating that while there
was insufficient high temperature metals
recovery capacity at the time of
proposal, industry was developing this
treatment capacity. Because of the
capacity shortage, the Agency decided:
to extend the interim standard for one
additional year.
The Agency also proposed in the
Third Third rule to amend the existing
treatment standard for the high zinc
subcategory K061 wastes to be
resmelting hi high temperature metal
recovery furnace. However, EPA
decided not to amend the existing
standard in the final rule, as the metals
recovery standard was under review by
a panel of the District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals (API v. EPA,
No. 88-1606). In a June 26,1990 decision,
the Court remanded the issue to EPA for
further consideration.
Although EPA determined in the First
Third rulemaking that high temperature
metals recovery was BDAT for treating
high zinc K061 hazardous wastes, the
Agency concluded that it probably
lacked the authority to establish any
treatment standards for the slag
residues resulting from the metals
reclamation process. As the Agency
explained in the First Third proposed
rule, the furnaces used for metals
reclamation "are normally * * *
essential components of industrial
processes, and when they are actually
burning secondary materials for
material recovery can be involved in the
very act of production, an activity
normally beyond the Agency's RCRA
authority." (53 FR at 11753.)
Consequently, the Agency did not
consider the K081 to be a "solid waste"
within the meaning of RCRA subtitle C
once it entered a reclamation furnace
' where it functioned as, and was similar
to, ordinary raw materials customarily
processed in the industrial furnace. Slag
derived from the .reclamation process
would not .be derived from treating a
hazardous waste, and therefore the slag
would not be hazardous by virtue of the
derived-from-rule. For purposes of the
•land disposal restrictions program,
therefore, the slag would not .be covered
by the prohibition for Kt»l waste. The
treatment standard of"no land
disposal" reflected EPA's belief that
residues from HTMR no longer carry the
K061 waste code, so that no K061 waste
is being disposed.
In its June 1990 decision, the Court
found it equally plausible'that the K061
remained discarded throughout the
waste treatment process and that slag
residues from the process could still be
classified as KCJ61 (906 F.2d at 740-741).
According to the Court, the delivery of
K061 waste to a metals reclamation
facility is part of a mandatory waste
treatment plan specified by EPA, and
that EPA can still consider it a solid
waste under RCRA. Id. Therefore, the
Court held that EPA must reconsider its"
basis for declining to establish a
treatment standards for K061 slag.
Unless and until the Agency should
issue a different interpretation, the slag
remains classified as aK061 hazardous
waste by virtue of the derived-from-mle.
Id. and 56 FR at 7144 {Feb. 21,1991).
In this proposal, the Agency is not
dealing with the complicated issues of
when secondary material might or might
not be solid wastes. EPA prefers to
address this issue in a comprehensive
fashion. In this proceeding, EPA is
acting to close the prospective
regulatory gap created by the absence of
a treatment standard for nonwastewater
residues from processing K061 wastes in
the high zinc subcategory which could
occur when the interim standard lapses
in August. 1991.
B. Proposed Treatment Standards for
K061 Nonwastewaters in the High Zinc
Subcategory
1. Background on the Development of
HTMR as BDAT
In the Land Disposal Restrictions-final
rule for First Third wastes (53 FR at
31162 (August 17,1988)). EPA
determined that zinc -could be recovered
on a -routine basis from K061 wastes
containing equal to or greater than 15%
total zinc utilizing a technology
identified as high temperature metal
recovery (HTMR). Several HTMR
systems exist including rotary kilns,
flame reactors, electric furnaces, plasma
arc furnaces, slag reactors, and rotary
hearth furnace/electric fernance
combinations or industrial furnaces {as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10 (6), (7), and
(12)). Although HTMR technologies can
recover ainc from some K061 wastes
containing less than 15% total zinc, EPA
-------
15022
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 71 /•; Friday, April 12. 1991 /Proposed Rules
determined that the 1595 level
represented a reasonable cutoff
concentration for the routine recovery of
zinc. Therefore, EPA established this
level as the cutoff concentration for
distinguishing between two
subcategories for K061 wastes identified
simply as the high zinc subcategory and
the low zinc subcategory.
EPA also determined that pozzolanic
or cementitious stabilization was an
applicable treatment technology that
could achieve a reduction in the
mobility of the metal constituents in
KOG1 wastes. In fact, EPA determined
that these stabilization processes
represent the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) for K081
wastes in the low zinc subcategory and
promulgated concentration-based
treatment standards for wastes in this
subcategory. While these stabilization
processes are also technically
applicable to wastes in the high zinc
subcategory, EPA determined that
HTMR represented BDAT for these
wastes. In the June 26,1990 decision, the
Court did not dispute that HTMR
represents BDAT for these wastes.
2. Proposed Concentration-based
Standards for KOG1 High Zinc
Subcategory
For the First Third rule, EPA has two
sets of TCLP data on the nonwastewater '
residues resulting from two different
HTMR processes that were recovering
zinc from K061 wastes in the high zinc
subcategory. At that time, EPA chose
not to establish concentration-based
treatment standards based on these
data. One of these HTMR processes
consists of a series of Waelz kilns (a
Waelz kiln is a type of rotary kiln),
while the other was a plasma arc
furnace.
In September, 1990, additional TCLP
data on residues from the recovery of
zinc from K001 wastes in the high zinc
subcategory (low in nickel and
chromium) were submitted to the
Agency by Horsehead Resource
Development Company (HRD). This
system uses a series of 'Waelz kilns,
generating an iron-rich residue and a
crude zinc oxide residue from the first
kiln. The iron-rich nonwastewater
residue (which EPA referred to as slag
in the First Third rule) has been
typically used as road aggregate, and
the crude zinc oxide is sent to a second
kiln for further separation and refining.
Based on the TCLP data from HRD for
these iron-rich residues and the two sets
of TCLP data submitted for the First
Third rule, the Agency developed the
concentration-based treatment
standards that are proposed today.
While the Agency previously regulated
only four metals in stabilized K061 , •
wastes, the Agency reconsidered its
selection and number of regulated
metals in today's proposed standards;
therefore, standards have been
developed for 14 BDAT list metal
constituents. In HTMR processes, the
partitioning of metals into products and/
or residues is highly dependent, at least
in part, upon parameters such as the
operating temperature of the various
heat zones, composition of metals and '
other elements in the feed, zone
residence times, flow rates and
oxidation/reduction conditions. There
also appears to be an inherent
metallurgical interdependence between
certain metals, based on their atomic
structure. Such things have led the
Agency to the preliminary conclusion
that all nonhazardous as well as
hazardous metal-bearing materials,
placed into the HTMR processes co.uld
affect the ultimate composition and
teachability of metals from the HTMR
nonwastewater residues. Thus, Agency
is proposing to regulate 14 BDAT list '.•
metals as a means of helping to ensure,
that the HTMR processes, when used to
treat K061 wastes, are well-designed
and well-operated (i.e., Truly. BDAT) .
with due consideration of all feed
materials. (EPA is proposing a treatment
standard for zinc even though zinc is not
listed on 'appendix VIII, to ensure proper
process operation. Since zinc is the
principal metal being recovered, the
treatment standard should maximize
zinc recovery and hence process
efficiency and residue immobility.)
Furthermore, the regualtion of these
metals under BDAT provides a means of
simplifying the delisting of these
residues. According to RCRA section
3001(f), in order to delist a waste, it must
be demonstrated that the waste is no
longer hazardous based on examination
of all toxic constituents that might
reasonably be expected to be present in
the waste. See section II.C. of today's
proposed rule for a further discussion on
the proposed delisting "of K061
nonwastewater residues from HTMR
processes.
The Agency is specifically soliciting
comment on the relationship of the
above issues to the regulation of all 14
metal constituents, including the
regulation of 14 metal constituents
rather, than the four. In addition, the
Agency is soliciting data on the
teachability of all toxic metals from
nonwastewaters residues generated by
high temperature metal recovery of K061
nonwastewaters in the high zinc
subcategory.
PROPOSED BQAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR K061 ,
CNonwastewaters-T-High Zinc Subcategory with less
than 1.5% chromium/nickel combinatri ].
Regulated constituent
Antimony _.:..........
Arsenic'. „ f . .
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total) : ;........
Lead ! ...1......
Mercury .„ „
Nickel .,
Silver i
Thallium
Vanadium.....: _ .-..:.
Zinc
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample,
TCLP
(nig/I)
1.0
0 028
•49
0 0031
0.027
0.065
0 37
0.0031
0.16
029
0.15
0.029
010
023
3. Reservation of Nickel and Chromium
Standards for K061 Wastes Containing
High Zinc arid High Chromium/Nickel
Most of the high zinc subcategory
K061 wastes are generated from the
manufacturing of carbon steel and
contain low concentrations of chromium
and nickel. However, certain K061
wastes generated from stainless and '
specialty steel manufacturing, besides
having a high zinc content, may alsq
contain recoverable levels of chromium
and nickel. The Agency is soliciting
comment on the possibility of
establishing standards for K061 based
on its origin, rather than its metal
content (e.g., K061 generated from
carbon steel manufacturing, K061.
generated from stainless steel
manufacturing, K061 generated from
specialty' steel manufacturing, etc.)-
Information submitted to EPA after
promulgation of the First Third rule
indicates that K061 nonwastewaters
(regardless of their zinc content)
containing equal to or greater than 1.5%
total nickel and chromium in
combination can be used tb produce a
remelt .alloy containing nickel,
chromium, and iron that can be,used as
a feedstock for stainless steel
production. When using this technology,
a zinc-rich portion of the waste can be
separated (usually captured in a
baghouse) and sent for further zinc
recovery in a different HTMR system.
The majority of the chromium and nickel
is partitioned into the remelt alloy.
The chromium/nickel HTMR recovery
process described above achieves a
different level of performance than the
HTMR processes designed to recover
only zinc. This is believed to be due to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 1991 ,/ Proposed Rides
15023
the differences in metal concentrations
of the feed materials [inparticular.
higher nickel and chromium) and .the
inherent differences in design of the
respective HTMR processes. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to establish a
separate set of treatment standards for
the K061 high zinc nonwastewaters that
contain recoverable levels of nickel and
chromium. EPA is proposing to reserve
the concentration-based standards for
nickel and chromium until additional
data are collected. The Agency is aware
of ongoing activities to collect
performance data for this nickel/
chromium recovery process when it is
used to treat K061 nonwastewaters in
the low zinc subcategory [that also
contain recoverable levels of chromium
and nickel), and anticipates developing
standards for these constituents based
on these tests. However, the Agency is
specifically soliciting data and comment
on the recovery of chromium and nickel
from K081 nonwastewaters in the high
zinc subcategory.
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR K061
[Nonwastewaters—High Zinc Subcategory with
equal to or greater than 1.5% chromium/nickel
combination]
Regulated constituent
Antimony.. :
Barium . .„
Beryllium .. .
Chromium (Total)
Lead ;
Mercury
Nickel !
Selenium ..
Silver \
Thallium „
Zinc ;
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
1.0
0.028
4.9
0.0031
0.027
(i)
037
0.0031
(i)
OI29
0.15
0.029
0.10
0.23
1 Reserved. .
4. Use of Other Recovery Technologies
The Agency has preliminary
information indicating that other non-
thermal recovery processes exist that
could potentially be used to recover
metals from K061 nonwastewaters in
both the low zinc and high zinc
subcategories. These processes use a
series of primarily hydrometallurgical
technologies including chemical
precipitation, ion exchange, and
electrowinning. The process vendors
claim that these processes •generate no
residues for land disposal. However, the
Agency .currently has no data that verify
these claims nor does it have any
performance data for these recovery
systems. If these recovery processes do
•not generate any .solid waste residues,
they will not be .precluded from use by .
today's proposed rule when it is .
finalized and can be used to recover
metals from K061 nonwastewaters •
provided the wastes are processed in
accordance with all other land disposal
restrictions. The Agency solicits data on
these other recovery technologies.
C, Delisting of HTMR Nonwastewater
Residues
1. Introduction
The Agency is also proposing that the
nonwastewater residues, such as slag,
resulting from HTMR in units identified
as rotary kilns, flame reactors, electric
furnaces, plasma arc furnaces, slag
reactors, and rotary hearth furnace/
electric furnace combinations or
industrial furnaces (as defined in 40 CFR
260.10 {6), (7), and (12)) be delisted from
the hazardous waste regulations
provided they satisfy the conditions
described below and provided the
residues do Hot exhibit one or more of
the hazardous waste characteristics,
EPA notes that the issue of the
relationship between delisting levels'
and land disposal restriction treatment
standards is a subject of frequent.
comment Even though one standard is
based on the performance of treatment
technology and the other is based on
evaluation of risk, it would be desirable
to establish some connection between
the two, given that the treatment
standards minimize a waste's toxicity
and mobility and the delisting process
evaluates whether a waste is still
capable of posing a substantial threat to
human health and the environment if it
is mismanaged. In this proposal, the
Agency is combining the two concepts. .
EPA is proposing this action in order to
encourage the use of HTMR, which EPA
regards as the best treatment for K061
wastes because it conserves resources
through recovery of metals and
substantially immobilizes the metals
that are unavailable for recovery.
The Agency is proposing to delist the
nonwastewater residues, resulting from
HTMR processing of K061 waste (both
. low zinc and high zinc subcategories)
provided that these residues meet the
promulgated treatment standards for all
constituents, and provided the residues
do not exhibit hazardous characteristics.
As noted earlier, EPA is proposing
•treatment standards for all of the
Appendix VIE metals that might
reasonably foe expected to be present in
the nonwastewater residues from,.-
processing K061 wastes by HTMR in
order to allow a genetic ;delisting
determination. {See RCRA section
3Q01(£) requiring EPA to evaluate
whether toxic constituents in addition to
those for which a waste is listed could
make a waste hazardous.) The Agency
has evaluated the treatment standard
levels using its vertical and horizontal
spread (VHS) landfill model, which
predicts the potential for groundwater
contamination from wastes that are .
landffled. See 50 FR 7882 {Feb. 26,1985),
50 FR 48898 {Nov. 27,1985) and the
RCRA public docket for this notice for a
detailed description of the VHS model
and its-parameters. EPA solicits
comment on the use of the VHS model
for this purpose.
Using the treatment standard levels
and a waste volume of greater than
10,000 cubic yards per facility (a worst
case estimate for purposes of the VHS
model), EPA determined that
concentrations of arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and
vanadium hi HTMR nonwastewater
residues would be below the levels used
in delisting decision-making. These
levels are presented in the Addendum to
the K061 Background Document.
Antimony is an appendix VIII
hazardous constituent and has been
identified in some samples of
nonwastewater residues from the thigh
temperature metals recovery of K061.
EPA has data on 11 samples of
nonwastewater residues from HIMR
which showed antimony to be present in
the TCLP extract at a concentration of
between less' than 0.02 (nondetectable
levels) and 0.853 mg/l. These levels
would meet the BDAT limit proposed
today; however, some .of the samples
would not be below the levels
calculated with the VHS .model used in
the delisting program. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing in the alternative to
establish the-antimony standard at the
level calculated using the VHS model.
To arrive at this level, the Agency is .
using the proposed drinking water
maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
antimony (see 55 FR 30370) times the
predictive dilution and attenuation
factor from the VHS model
The Agency is requesting comment on
whether the -samples and analytical data
the Agency possesses are typical or
representative of antimony
concentrations in these nonwastewater
residues, if there are .certain wastes {if
any) that would be expected to contain
antimony -more than others, on .the
potential process changes that could
reduce or eliminate -the laobility of
antimony in the residues, and on Ihe
alternative standards proposed. .
In addition to antimony, the levels for
lead and thallium calculated using the
-------
15024
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 71.'/ Friday, April 12, 1991 / Proposed Rules
VHS model are Ipwer than the proposed
treatment standards; consequently, the
Agency is proposing, in,(the alternative, •
to establish these levels as the •
concentration standards for these
constituents. However, EPA believes
that the BOAT methodology is'actually
responsible for the proposed standards
for lead and thallium being higher than
the levels calculated using the VHS ,
model; in fact, all our data for these .
metals show nondetectable levels that
are less than the delisting levels.
Following BOAT methodology, however,
the Agency calculated today's proposed
treatment standards based on the
highest reported detection limits from a
wide range of detection limits. The
Agency is soliciting information on
whether it is appropriate to use lower
detection limits in the treatment
standard calculation for these metals,
which would result in treatment
standards that would be below the
levels used in delisting decision making.
EPA is proposing that nonwastewater
K061 residues from HTMR processes be
delisted if they meet the concentration-
based treatment standards, rather than
the levels calculated using the VHS
model for lead and thallium, since all
our data show nondetectable levels.
However, as noted in the preceding
paragraph, the ultimate standards for,
lead and thallium may be lower than
those proposed. For antimony, the
Agency believes that additional data
provided in response to this proposal
will demonstrate that a significantly
lower treatment standard that also
satisfies delisting criteria can be
achieved.
EPA solicits further comment on
whether the nonwastewater residues '
from HTMR should also be evaluated
for delisting purposes by considering
alternative exposure scenarios—that is,
other than disposal in a landfill. While
the Agency believes that its current
delisting criteria are conservative, we
believe that other exposure scenarios
may be appropriate for these wastes
because the majority of the slag is
presently not disposed of in landfills or
piles, but rather is put to further use,
principally as road base material in
highway construction, or as an anti-skid
agent (i.e., direct application to road
surfaces). The situation here thus differs
from other delistings the Agency has
processed in that the land disposal
scenario that the Agency evaluates
through modelling is not the primary
means of waste management, and, more .
importantly, may not represent a .. , ' •
reasonable worse case situation. Thus,
with respect to use of the slag as an
anti-bktd agent, the pathway of concern
could involve direct exposure through
surface runoff or from air-blown dust,
• and the environmental concern would
therefore be the total concentration of
toxic metals in the slag rather than the
teachable fraction. Use of the'slag in a
road base, on the other hand, may be
analogous.to a capped landfill, in which
, case the VHS model is probably an
- appropriate analytical tool. (Indeed,
, since it models an uncapped disposal
unjt, the model may evaluate a more
stringent situation than road base
usage.)
Consequently, in order to evaluate the
.appropriateness of delistmg the residues
when considering their actual
disposition, EPA solicits comment on
what routes of exposure would be
significant and how the'use of these
residues as anti-skid material could be
evaluated. EPA also solicits comment on
the use as road-base material and the
appropriateness of using the VHS model
to evaluate potential hazards posed by,
this type of management. The Agency
will evaluate this information in
determining whether to delist these
residues,,and what the scope of the
delisting might be.
2. Proposed Testing Requirements
Both the land disposal restriction and
delisting programs typically impose
testing requirements in order to verify
that regulatory requirements have been
satisfied. EPA is proposing here that the
land disposal restriction testing'
requirements also be used to ensure that
the residues are properly considered
nonhazardous wastes. Under these
requirements, treatment facilities must
test treated wastes at a frequency
specified in their waste analysis plan to,
determine whether they have satisfied
the treatment standard. See Section
268.7(b) and 55 FR at 22669 (June 1,1990)
(treaters and disposers must do some
testing to assure treatment standards
are met). EPA solicits comment on
whether more detailed testing
requirements are necessary. For
example, EPA solicits comment on
requiring that composite samples of the
residues be collected and analyzed at
least twice a year, twice a quarter, each
month, or weekly, and when process
inputs change significantly. Please also '
see the Addendum to the KOS1
Background Document for an example of
an alternative testing frequency.
3. Applicability to Other Types of
Treated K061
EPA is proposing that the delisting
discussed above for these KQ61 wastes
apply only to those nonwastewater
residues generated by HTMR processes.
One major reason for this is that the
analytical data used to develop the
treatment standards are based on
analysis of residues of an HTMR
process rather.than stabilization. A:
second major reason is that the
chemical bonding that occurs in the high
temperature and oxidation/reduction
conditions within the HTMR units is
inherently different than the bonding
that forms the basis of cementitious and
pozzolanic stabilization. In addition, the
kinetics of the reaction forming the
bonds in these HTMR processes are
vastly superior to the kinetics of bond
formation in cementitious reactions.
(Cement is not typically considered set
until at a minimum of 72 hours and often
not considered fully cured until after 28
days.) Stabilization has also been
documented as a process that is highly
matrix-dependent and prone to chemical
interferences. Most commercial
stabilization facilities have to develop
special mixes for each waste type by
selecting additives that will enhance
curing time and/or product integrity
(often measured by comprehensive
strength.)
While the Agency prefers HTMR over
stabilization for K061 wastes in the high
zinc subcategory, the Agency does
support stabilization as an alternative
for many metal-bearing wastes. In fact,
the Agency is not precluding the use of
stabilization by today's proposed rule,
and site-specific delisting remains a
viable option for stabilized K061 wastes.
However, due to the inherent
differences between HTMR and
stabilization stated above and the fact
that insufficient data currently exists to
propose a generic delisting for stabilized
K061 wastes, the Agency is not
proposing that the generic delisting
levels for HTMR nonwastewater
residues are applicable to stabilized
K061 residues that have not undergone
HTMR. The Agency believes that more
individualized consideration of
stabilization processes is warranted
before residues from the process are
delisted.
In addition, the Agency believes that
HTMR is preferred for managing the
K061 dust over stabilization
technologies, in light of its resource
recovery potential, and in light of the
large differences in volumes of treated
wastes that require disposal versus the
generation of a delisted, nonhazardous
waste. Nevertheless, the Agency solicits
comment on these pomts,
D. Capacity Determinations
1. Waste Generation
In the First Third rule, EPA used data
from the Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 5® No. 71 / Friday, April i2.! 1991 / Proposed Rules
15025
and Recovery (TSDR) survey and
estimated the total generation of K061
wastes (both high and low zinc} to be
345,000 tons per year. For the capacity
analysis for the high zinc K061 wastes,
the Agency assumed that 75 percent of
the total K081 volume generated is in the
high zinc subcategory (i.e., 260,000 tons).
More recent estimates of KOM waste
generation data have been submitted by,
Hofsehead Resource Development •
Company (HRD) arid by the American
Iron and Steel.Institute (AlSi); HRD is
the primary commercial facility thatis
.currently recovering zinc from K061 f
wastes mHTMR units. HRD estimates
that in 1991, the national generation of
high zinc K061 will be approximately
500,000 tons. AISI, a trade organization
representing a substantial portion of the
generators of all K061 wastes, provides
a different estimate of K061 generation.
Based on steel production in 1989, AISI
estimates that approximately 285,000
tons of high zinc K061 was generated iii
1989, which is consistent with data from
the TSDR Survey. The Agency
recognizes the discrepancy in the
estimates of the generation of high zinc
K061 and requests additional datason ;
this issue. However, for purposes Of this '
capacity analysis, EPA used the higher-
estimate of 500,000 tons of high zinc
' ""
m the following discussions and '
capacity analysis, the Agency did not
specifically break out the high zinc K061
wastes which also contain a combined
nickel/chrpmium content of greater than
1.5 percent because the Agency believes
that they represent a 'relatively small
volume of wastes and because the
Agency has no information indicating
that there are problems with HTMR
capacity for these wastes. . . . -
. 2. Current Management Practices
The Agency has received data
indicating that most high zinc K061
(about 90 percent) currently goes'. ,
- through HTMR. The volume of high zinc
K061 being stabilized and subsequently
. land disposed is, thus quite low. The ••'.-,
, Agency believes that this inay.be due to -
the existing incentives to recycle high
; zinc K061, Stabilization and landfilling
costs are high, and spme states have
provided tax incentives not to land
dispose. Thus, generators currently are
recycling their wastes. .
3. Available Capacity [
Based on information received by
EPA, HTMR capacity for 1991 is
estimated to be approximately 553,000
tons/The following facilities account for
this capacity: '. -,-•:.•••-
« Two HRD plants are currently
operating with a'total annual capacity of
355,000 tons.
* A new HRD faculty in Rockwood,
Tennessee is adding 80,000 tons to
nationwide annual capacity.-
• Zia Technology is building a zinc
' recovery facility capable of processing .
60,000 tons per year of K061.
• Laclede Steel Coflipany has - ;~,;
,! cbntracted with Elkehn tip'construct a >,•;.
40,000 t6risj peryear capacity HTMR; '. '
furnaqe. ttiisi facility will process ; : \
wastes from Laclede generatedbn^site
and will reduce the demand for ;
commercial HTMR capacity.
• International Mill Services (IMS) is
currently operating two thermal dust
treatment plants with a combined yearly
capacity of 18,000 tons to handle all the
electric arc furnace dust generated by
IMS. The Florida steel operation is a
6,000 ton per year HTMR facility in
Jackson, Tennessee; the facility in
Blytheville, Arkansas, which has a
capacity of 12 JJOO tons per year, became
operational in the spring of 1989.,'
In addition to these facilities, Waste.
Management tic..D/VMI) indicated"In
comments Jo' die Third Third proposed, :
rule that they had completed a prpppsa)".'..
•'• to pw4 and operate a high temperature
metals recovery facility.in ;the Jackson,
Mississippi area with an annual
capacity of 100,000 tons. WMI indicated
that they .wer'e .seeking commitments
from generators prior to starting
construction on the facility. However,
EPA currently, has no information on
whether WMI is proceeding with this
facility.
For the purpose of analyzing
alternative capacity, the Agency has
also assumed that stabilization for high
ziric K061 may be able to 'meet" the
. proposed concentration-based treatment
standards. As of May 8,1990, there was
. excess capacity for stabiiizatioii of over .
1,3 million metric tons. v, ..
4. Capacity Implications " :'' >
Based on' the information described •.-...
above, HTMR capacity is being
developed to handle.the 1991 demand
for K061 recovery, and excess
stabilization capacity also is available.
Therefore, EPA believes there is
sufficient capacity, to handle the .
volumes ofihigh zinc K061 requiruig
treatment; EPA is requesting comment.
on this analysis, and the Agency
requests any additional data on the ;
generation and management of high ziric
'K061. "••'• , . ' • '-•' :
HI. State Authority ' •• .'.\~ : ,'.'."' \
A. Applicability of Rule ifi Authorized
States ' : ' ; '•'••.'
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authoriz.e qualified States to, v X1 ;
administer iand enforce the RCRA
program within the State; Following ,
authorization, EPA tetairis enforcement
authority under sections 3008, sols', aiid
: 7003 of RCRA, although authorized,;;;
States have primary Enforcement ' '
,responsibiUty.;The'Standi|rd£i and; J ; •;: '• >
requfrempnte for authqiization are found;
'--ir? ' '"'
,
Priorto HSWAi a State^with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste.program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time.frames. New Federal . ,
requirements did not take effect in an "-.
authorized ;State until the i State adopted
thetequirements as State law, ••• ;:
• In contrast, under RCRA-seGtibni
3006(g) (42 ttSiG, 6926^ new .-- -
requirements and prohibitjons imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized ; : •
States at the same time that they take '
effect in nonaiithorized States. ERA is
directed to carry, out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
mcluding.the issuance of permits, untU
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. • . : •• .
B. Effect on State Authorizations ,
•Today's proposal for treatment. :
standards is proposed purfiuant to ,
section 3004Cd)'bf RCRA: therefore, it
wiU be added to; Table 1 in 40'CFR.
271-.1Q), which identifies the Federal
. prpgramrequirements that are . '
prcimulgaited pursuant fd; HSWA and
take effect in all States,'regardles8 :of
their authorization status. As noted
above, EPA will implement today's
proposal in authorized States until 'heir
programs' are''modified :to -adopt .these1;
rules arid-the modification is approved ' '.
by EPA; 'Because the rule is jprpposed ..
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting- a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim- oif.-fihal- i ... '
authorization under RCRA' section ; . -
3006(g)(2} or 3006(b),/re8pectiveiyroii the
' basis-'of requirements that-arei.' •'• '''
-------
Federal Register / VoL 5& No. 71 /Friday. -'April
/ .Ptopoaed
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. The
deacHineby which- the States must
modify their programs to adopt today's
proposed rule Ja July 2> 1993* It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January l,199a (see 40 •
CFR271.24{c}}. -
With respect to the proposed
delisting. today's proposal would not be
effective in- authorized States: since the
regulations would not he imposed
pursuant to HSWA. Thus, the regulation
would be applicable only in those States
that do not have interim- or final
authorization. In authorized States!, the
regulations would not be applicable
until the State revised its program to
adopt equivalent regulations understate
law. . ' '
Section 40. CFR 271*21(e){2) requires
that States that have final authorization
must modify their programs to reflect
Federal program changes and must
subsequently submit the modification to
EPA for approval. The deadline by
which the State must modify its program
to- adopt this proposed regulation will be
determined by the promulgation of the
fine! rule in accordance with section 40
CFR 271.21(e). These deadlines can be
extended in certain, cases (see section 4O
CFR 271.21(eH3}). Once EPA approves
the modification, the State requirements.'
become subtitle CRCRA requirements.
It ghonld be noted that authorized
States are only required to modify their
programs when EPA promulgates
Federal regulations that are more
stringent or broader la scope than the
existing Federal regulations. For those
Federal program changes that are less
stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are hot required
to modify their programs. This is a result
of section 3009 of RCRA, which allows
States to impose regulations in addition ,
to those in the Federal program. The
proposed delisting would be considered
to be less stringent or would reduce the
acope of the existing Federal
regulations. Therefore, authorized States
would not be required to modify their
programs to adopt regulations
equivalent or substantially equivalent.
States with authorized RCRA
program* may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
proposal. These State regulations have
not been assessed against the Federal
regulation* being proposed today to
determine whether they iheet the tests
for authorization. Thua,te State is not
authorized to implement these,
, requirements in. lieu of EPA until the
State program modification i» approved.
: Of course. States with existing. •'
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. IB implementing'the • '
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
their efforts to implement their programs
rather than take separate actions under. .
: Federal, authority. '. , • : - -
• States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date .of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these , . •.
regulations in their application.
However,, the State must mod% its.
program by the deadline set forth in
section 40 CFR 27I.21[e}. States that
submit official applications;for final
authorization 12 moaths after,the
effective date of these regulations roust
include standards equivalent tot these
regulations; in their application. The
requirements a state must meet when .
submitting its final authorization
application are set forth in 40 CFR 271.3,
C. State Implementation
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)(3j 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..
Under section 40 CFR 268.44, the
Agency may grant waste-specific
variances from treatment standards in
cases where it can be 'demonstrated that
the physical and/or chemical properties
of the wastes differ significantly from
wastes analyzed in developing the
treatment standards, and die 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
treatabiKty 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 inipacts; therefore,
this aspect of the program is not '
delegated to the States at this time, - ;-
Under sectfon 40 OFR26a6, EPA may
grant petitions of specific duration to .
allow land disposal of certain hazardous
, -wastes whereJt can be-demonsteated ' --<
that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. States
whichhave the authority to impose
restrictions may be authorized under •
RCRA section 3008 to grant petitions for
exemptions from the restrictions.
Decisions on site-specific petitions do
not require the national perspective;
required to restrict wastes or grant
extensions. EPA will be handling "no
migration" petitions at Headquarters,
though the States may be authorized to
grant these petitions in- the future. The
Agency expects to gain valuable
experience and information from review
of "ho migration" petitions which may
1 affect future land disposal restrictions
rulemakings. In accordance with RCRA
section 3004(i), EPA will publish notice
of the Agency's final decision on
petitions in the Federal Register.
IV, Regulatory Impact
A. Executive Ordei; 12291
Executive Order 12291 requires thai
the regulatory impact:of potential
Agency actions be evaluated as part of
the process of developing regulations. In
addition, Executive Order 12291 requires
that regulatory agencies prepare a
Regulatory Impact Analysis in
. connection with major rules (section 3).
Major rules are defined iri section IfbJ
as those which are likely to result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries, or significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or international trade.
Today's proposed rule establishes
treatment standards for a waste
originally regulated in the First Third.
land disposal restrictions rule {53 FR .
31162). In the First Third rule, the
Agency set a treatment standard of "no
land disposal"1 for the high zinc
subcategory of KQ61 .nonw.astewaters
based on the determination that high
temperature metals recovery represents
BDAT for the waste. Due to a shortage ,
to high temperature metals recovery
capacity, an interim numerical standard
based on the performance of
stabilization technology was established
until August 1990. to the Third Third
rule, this interim standard was extended
for one year. .-•:'.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis. (RIAJ
for the First Third rule eosted the K061
high zinc wastes based on, HTMR. The
post-regulatory coat for .a volume of
KOSt high zinc waste of approximately
172,000 tonawa* estimated to be $50 ,
-miHiort per year (1987 dollars}. , - . ;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 71 / Friday; April 12. 1991 /Proposed
15027
Today's proposed rule .establishes
.numerical treatment standards based on
HTMR. Currently, due to construction of
additional recovery process capacity,
the Agency has determined that there is
adequate HTMR capacity for K061 high
zinc wastes. The .Agency estimates that
approximately 500,000 tons of K061 high
zinc are generated each year. Of this
volume, the Agency estimates
approximately 90% to be undergoing
treatment by use of HTMR, with the ,
remaining 10% going to stabilization.
Therefore, in the worst case
assumption, only 10% of high zinc K061
would be affected by today's rule. If the
10% annual generation portion of high
zinc K081 which is now being treated by
stabilization was.to be treated by
HTMR, the incremental cost of this
change is estimated to be $1 million per
year. This alteration in'management
'practices represents the most severe
cost scenario which could be incurred as
a result of this rule. However, delisting
the slag residue from the HTMR process
will spare the industry subtitle C
disposal costs and allow them to
continue selling the slag as road
aggregate; this revenue has not been
reflected in the annual incremental cost
estimate provided above; and would
make the cost lower than the $1 million
estimated. Therefore, it is estimated that
this proposed rule will not impose' a
large cost upon industry, and is
estimated to be a minor rule according
to Executive Order 12291.
This rule has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to issue a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small business, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions}. The Administratormay >
certify, however, that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of .small entities.
Since the proposed rule would allow the
regulated community'to continue to .use
existing management practices, and in
, -the worst case scenario 'only affects 10%
of high zinc K061 waste, the .
Administrator certifies that this .
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and therefore,
does hot require a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
C, Paperwork Reduction Act
• ,A11 information collection
requirements in this proposed rule were
promulgated in previous land disposal
restriction rulemakings 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 261,268,
and 271
Hazardous Waste Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements.
Dated: April 8,1991.
F. Henry Hablcht,
Deputy Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended: as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Autfcbrity:42 U.S.G 6905, .6912(a), 6921, .;
6922, and6938.; . - i: •..'-- • ; •'• ::••
2. In § 261.3paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(G) is'
added tb'readas follows: , ; '-./'
§261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
* .''-*..; *-... *• •.-.*.. • •. .•
(G) * * *
(2) V> *
. ft) * * * V :,".'. ' = :>'.-• ':• I.,':
(c) Noriwastewater residues, such as
slag, resulting from high teniperature '"•"
metals recovery (HTMR) processing of:
K061 waste (both low zinc and high
zinc), hiiunits identified,a6 rotary kilns,
flame reactors, electric furnaces, plasma
arc furnaces, slag'reactors, rotary hearth
furnace/electric furnace combinations ':'
or industrial furnaces (as defined in 40
CFR 260.10(6), (7), arid (12)), provided, '.
that these residues meet part 268 • '.'
treatment standards for all constituents.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues 'to read as follows: \
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921, and
6924. '\. • . ' ,, _' " ••'._ .:.': '-• •
2, In S 268.41, Table C(3WE is
amended by renioving the entry for K061
(High Zinc SubcategOry—greater tihian-
15% Total Ziric-^-Effective until Aij^ust
7th; 1991) and by adding entries for K061
(High Ziic Siibcategory with less than
1.5% chromium/nickel combination) and
K061 (High Zinc Subcategory with
greater than 1.5% chromium/nickel'
combination) to read as follows:
§268.41 treatment standards expressed
as concentrations iir waste extract
-------
15028
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 71 / Friday, April 12,. 1991./ Proposed Rules
-
ttfesiacoffe
*
K061 High zinc
• cubcaicfiory with less
th*nt.5%
chfomtom/rttckol
comWnatiofv
KOStHSgbzire
wbartegorywHb
greater trxw 1.5%
ctKonifom/nicKe*
combinuion.
* •
TABLE CCWE.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT -
• ' . '••••.. Wastewaters
name • owarau constituent ' Concentration . pjotes
..-,-. • . • • . ' • •.'••'•,'
• • . .-' '• • • • . ' • ' '. * ' ' ' ' • .-•' *
• Electric Arc Furnace Table 2 in 268.42,. " Antimony , .._,
Dust. . Table CCW in 268.43., Arsenic :
Chromium- (total}.... ~~. .................
Mercury. ;..._. „:........_ _
Nickel . u :., ....
^ , Silver ..«.« «..»..»„»....«».„»...„.»..«.„»....„«..
Thallium „ .... „..«„. u...
Vanadium „- ....... .
' ' . Tine.. ' ' ' ' ' '
Eteetrte Arc Furnace Tabte 2 In 268.42, Antimony .„:._: „ :
Dusl. • Table CCW in 268 (3 Arsenic _.-...
Beryllium. .. . .
: . Cadmium- . „ „„.. .v.^ „ ....._.....
•• • • • Chromium (tntaiy ..,,.,... ...,,,'„, _,L . . .
Silver ' '' '
• . • Vanadium « . ..
' '
. . Nonwastewaters
Concentration ' ...,,.,,.,
(mg/kg) No!es
1.0
0.028
4.9
OUJ031
0.027
0.065
037
0.0031
0.16
0.29
0.15
0029
0.10
023
1.0
0028
4.9
0.0031
0027
Reserved
0.37
0.0031
Reserved
0,29
0.15
0.029
010 •••'
0.23
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
I. Hie authority citation ifdr part 271
continued to read as follows: ' '
Authority; 42 U.S.C. 6905,69l2(a), and 6920. following entry to table 2 in
« ^ i^. » , •»'•»• • ~ • * chronological order:
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
§271.t Purpose and scope.
2. Section 271.1QJ is amended by
adding the following entry to table t in
chronological order, and by. adding the
TABtE 1.—Re6utATiONS IMPLEMENTINGTHE HAZARDOUS AND Souo WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 198.4 . .;, ;
PrormjfaaBon data
Title of regulation ;
Federal Regloter reference
Effective date.
Iftwert data of pobScaSon of filial rule Land-disposal restrictions for KS61 high. [Insert Federal Register page rum- -Aug. 8,1.891.' '
In tt»Ftd«f«l Register. , zincsubcategor/rionwastewaters. bawl.
TABtE 2;—SELF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS-QF THE HAiA^todUs AND SOLIDWASTE AMENDMENTS o^"l 984'
. Effective'dam- ".' •„•
..Sett-implementing provision,-. ,r>_
•RCRA citation-
Federal Register reference
AW 0.199*—
Land disposal restrictions en KOethigh 3004(g)'(6)(A) ...._..„...
zincsubcategory. | :. • . • ;: .
Elnsert.:date of- publication! 55 FR
: • [insert Federal Register page hum
hers!
IFR Doc. 81-60i87 Hied 4-11^ 8^a
------- |