Thursday
May 30, 1991
Part 18
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 268 C
Land Disposal Restrictions; Potential
Treatment Standards for Newly identified
and Listed Wastes and Contaminated
Debris; Proposed Rule
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
• Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules
EHVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FHL-3959-1]
Land Disposal Restrictions; Potential
Treatment Standards for Newly
Identified and Listed Wastes and
Contaminated Debris
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) and request for
comment and data.
SUMMARV: The Agency today is
requesting data and comments on
possible BDAT and treatment capacity
for many wastes that have been
identified and listed as hazardous since
the enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) in
November 1984. These include newly
listed wastes generated from the
production of ethylene dibromide (EDB),
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (EBDC),
methyl bromide, dinitrotoluene,
toluenediamine, unsymmetrical
dimethylhydrazine (UDMHfc ortho-
toluidine (U328), para-toluidine (U353),
and 2-ethoxyethanol (U359). The
Agency, in addition, is soliciting data
and comment on potential approaches
for developing treatment standards for
two newly listed wastes from petroleum
refining (i.e., F037 and F038)t and for
contaminated debris. The Agency also is
soliciting comment on possible
modifications to existing land disposal
restriction (LDR) provisions that may
simplify the implementation of the
BOAT treatment standards; potential
universal treatment standards for
various categories of wastes; conversion
of treatment standards for various F and
K wastes from standards based on
scrubber waters to those based on
conventional wastewater treatment;
modifications to the treatment standards
for F001-F005 solvent wastes;
modifications of treatment standards for
lab packs; and potential concentration-
based treatment standards based on
recovery of chromium from various
hazardous wastes.
The Agency specifically is soliciting
comment and data on the following as
they pertain to the wastes identified in
today's notice: state-of-the-art treatment
and recycling technologies; waste
characterization; waste minimization (as
demonstrated both here and abroad);
factors affecting treatment performance
that should be considered by the
Agency during sampling/analysis
efforts; on-site and off-site treatment
capacity requirements; and information
on the sosts; for setup and operation of
any current and alternative treatments
technologies for these wastes.
DATES: The comment period on waste
minimization and issues presented in
section III A.-D. of today's notice ends
July 29,1991. Comments on all other • /
aspects of today's notice; must be
submitted on or before July 1,1991.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an ••:-
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket £OS-
305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency?'room M2427,401M Street SW.t
Washington, DC 20480. Place the Docket
Number F-91-CDP-FFFFF on your
comments. The EPA RCRA Docket is
located at the above address, and is;
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday
through. Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The public must make an.
appointment to review docket materials'
by calling (202) 475-9327. The public "'.
may copy a maximum of 100'pages from
any regulatory document at no cost.
Additional copies cost $.20 per page.
EPA is asking prospective
commenters to voluntarily submit one
additional copy of their comments oil
labeled personal computer diskettes ia
ASCII (TEXT) format or a word
processing format that can be converted
to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to
specify on the disk label the word
processing software and version/edition
as well as the eommenter's name. This
will allow EPA to convert the comments
into one of the word processing formats
utilized by the Agency. Please use
mailing envelopes, designed to
physically protect the submitted
diskettes. EPA emphasizes that
submission of comments on diskettes, is
not mandatory, nor will it result in any
advantage or disadvantage to any
commenter. Rather; EPA is
experimenting with this procedure
solely as an attempt to expedite our
internal review and response to
comments. For further information on
the submission of diskettes, contact the
Waste Treatment Branch at the phone-
number listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTT
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-
free) or (703) 920-9810 legally. For
technical information on BDAT, contact
the Waste Treatment Branch, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-322-W), U.S.
Environmental Protection-Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20400 (703)
308-8434. For technical information on
capacity analyses, contact the Capacity
Branch, Office of Solid Waste (OS-321-
W) (703) 308-6440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Background
. A. Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
,B, Development and Identification of BDAT
n. Requests for General Comments and Data
"A. Request for Comment and Data on
Pollution Prevention for Newly Identified
,.' Wastes
. B. General Approach to the Development of
BBAT for Newly Identified Wastes
C. General Approach to the Analysis of
Capacity for Newly Identified Wastes
D. Newly Identified Mixed Radioactive
- Hazardous Wastes
III. Potential Modifications to Existing BDAT
••• A. Potential for Establishing Universal
BDAT Standards
B. Conversion of Wastewater Standards
Based on Scrubber Waters
C. Potential Revisions to the F001-F005
Spent Solvent Treatment Standards
D. Potential Modifications to Existing
• Treatment Standards for Lab Packs
E. Recovery as BDAT for Concentrated
. •_ Metal-bearing Wastes
Itf. Potential BDAT for Contaminated Debris
A_Relationship of Today's Notice to EPA's
"Contaminated Media Cluster"
B, Applicability of Existing Land Disposal
Restriction Treatment Standards and
Superfund 6A and 6B Guides
C. Development of Potential Regulatory
Definitions for Debris
D. Potential Regulatory Structure for
Treatment Standards
E. Development of BDAT for Contaminated
Debris
F. Analysis of Capacity Data for Debris
V. Potential BDAT for Specific F, K, and U
Listed Wastes Promulgated After 1984
A. Additional Organic U Wastes
B. Recent Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037
and F038)
C., Wastes from the Production of
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
(K107, K108, K109, and K110)
Dv Waste from the Production of
Dinitrotoluene and Toluenediamine
(Kill and K112)
E. Wastes from the Production of Ethylene
Dibromide (K117, K118, and K136)
F. Wastes from the Production of
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (K123,
K124, K125, and K126)
G. Wastes from the Production of Methyl
Bromide (K131 and K132)
I. Background
A. Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), enacted on
November 8,1984, 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 section 3004 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5);
42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5J).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules 24445
The amendments also require the
Agency to set "* * * levels or methods
of treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicrty 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. 6S24[m)(l)).
Wastes that meet the treatment
standards established by EPA are not
prohibited and may be land disposed.
The land disposal restrictions (LDRs)
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(hH2)).
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.
In response to these requirements,
EPA promulgated five regulations;
Solvents and Dioxins, November 7,1986
(51 FR 40572); California List, July 8,1987
(52 FR 25760); First Third, August 17,
1989 (53 FR 31136); Second Third, June
23,1989 (54 FR 26594); and Third Third,
June, 1,1990 (55 FR 22520). These
rulemakings set treatment standards for
alf hazardous wastes that were
identified and listed in 40 CFR 261.21,
.22, .23, .24. .31, .32, and .33 prior to
November, 1984. Land disposal of these
wastes in underground injection wells
was regulated in separate rales for
Solvents and Dioxins, California List,
and First Third wastes (see 53 FR 28188,
53 FR 36906. and 54 FR 25416,
respectively). - .
RCRA further requires the Agency to
make land disposal prohibition • ,
determinations for hazardous wastes
that are newly identified or Hated in 40
CFR part 281 after November 8,1984,
within six months of the date of
identification or listing (RCRA section
3004fg)(4>, 42 U.S.G. 6924(gJ[4}>. The
statute does not, however, provide' for •
an automatic prohibition freferred to as'
a "hard hamnter") of land disposal of :
such wastes if EPA faikVtwineeMhis •
deadline. •• • ; — ; , • • '
The Third Third rule, promulgated on
May 8,1990, set treatment standards for
five newly identified wastes. Today's
notice suggests possible treatment
standards for approximately twenty
more newly listed hazardous wastes,
and for contaminated debris, and
requests comments and data. (Other
newly identified and listed hazardous
wastes along with a discussion of
potential standards for contaminated
soil will be addressed in a forthcoming
ANPRM in the Federal Register.}
B. Development and Identification of
BOAT
A general overview of the Agency's
approach in performing analysis of _
BOAT for hazardous wastes can be
found in section IILA.1. of the preamble
to the final rule for Third Third wastes
(55 FR 22535, jane i, 1S9Q). The
framework for the development of the
entire Land Disposal Restrictions
program was promulgated in the
Solvents and Dioxins rule (51 FR 40572
(November 7.1986}).
The following steps outline the
general procedures that EPA follows in
the development of waste code-specific
treatment standards:
(1) Characterize and divide the wastes
to be regulated into treatability groups
(by waste code) based on similarities in
physical and chemical properties of the
wastes and constituents.
(2) Screen all applicable technologies .
to identify potential BDAT for each
treatability group.
(3) Screen the treatment data from
"demonstrated" "available** ' "
technologies with regard to the design :
and operation of the equipment, the
quality assurance/quality control {QA/
QC) analyses of the performance arid
operating data, and the accuracy and
precision of the analytical tests used to
assess treatment performance.
(4) Statistically evaluate the
individual performance data for each of
the various treatment technologies
(where data from more than one
technology are available) to determine
the "best" Where data exist for only
one technology, the Agency uses best
engineering fudgment 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. •
{5} Determine which constituents to
regulate such that the technologies will
be well-operated, thus assuring
consistent achievement of best '• :, "•
treatment/ ' • •''••. ••'"-.'••'. ~ '• "• •> •- »'•'•
• (6) Develop the waste code-specific •
treatment standards accotHiting for all -:
QA/QC measures." '•' '•'•"'• '•-v-•=.*•".••.•
Treatment standards are expressed
either 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 would rather set -
concentration-based treatment
standards whenever possible, because
they provide the regulated community
with flexibility hi choosing treatment
technologies, and encourage the
investigation and development of new
and alternative technologies. (This does
not, however, supersede the prohibitions
on dilution to achieve the concentration-
based treatment standard. See, for
example, 55 FR 22856.) In addition,
establishing concentration-based
standards provides a means of ensuring
that treatment technologies are
consistently operated at conditions that
will result in the best demonstrated
performance. ...•"••»
In section 111 A.I. of the Third Third
final rule {55 FR 22535-22542 Qunel,
1990)), EPA discussed several additional
issues that are important in determining
compliance with the treatment
standards, including: The applicability
of treatment standards to treatment
residues identified as "derived-from"
wastes and'to waste mixtufes;-
impermisisible switching of wastewater
and nonWastewater standards f with
specific discussions of issues associated
with characteristic wastes); placing
facility-specific monitoring and
compliance requirements in waste
analysis plans; 'and the relationship of
concentration-based standards to
detection limits and practical ,
quantitation limits (PQLs).
II. Requests for General Comments and
. Data •;•• '. '•' •'• •." ' v. ' ••
In previous notices, the Agency ..
promulgated listings for certain wastes.
as hazardous under 40 CFR part 261.
Although, data en waste characteristics
and current management practices have
been gathered as part of the : , •
administrative record for each listing
rule, the Agency has not completed its
evateationof the usefuhiess of these .
data for developing specific BDAT •-
treatment standard* Orassesaing the
capacity to treat (or recycle) tfiese • <>
newly listed wastes, Asa result, EPA is
soliciting comment* oa the completeness
of the existing listing data (as found in
the adminislrathrereeerd for the notices
for the pnJpOKedaixifmal listing actions
for eaifowasfeJ-ankllB requesting - -:w
-------
2ms
Federal Register /Vol. 56. flo. 104 / Thuraday, May 30. 1991, A fi:op08e4 Rules
additional data and information with •
respect to treatment arid capacity.
In order to expedite EPA's review of
all comments and data submitted in
response to this notice, EPA is .
requesting that the comments and data
be voluntarily identified by the section
headings and subheadings for numbers)
of today's notice. For example,
comments on the "potential '
modifications to existing ^reatment ,
standards for lab packs" coul4 be .
identified by that title or by "HLD.", its
subheading number. EPA recognizes
that many comments may actually apply
to several headings or subheadings (e.g.,
a comment on lab packs of debris could
be Identified as a comment for either
ffl.D., lab packs, or IV., debris). In this
case, the commenter should select the
identification that they deem most
appropriate, or simply identify the
comment as a "general comment".
> While EPA does screen all comments for
applicability to all areas discussed in
today's notice, this identification
procedure is expected to significantly
expedite EPA's review process,
particularly when coupled with the
voluntary submission of comments on
computer diskettes (as requested in the
ADDRESSES section of today's notice).
A Request for Comment and Data on
Pollution Prevention for Newly
Identified Wastes ; .
EPA has made substantial progress
over the years ha improving •
environmental quality through its media-
specific pollution control programs.
Standard industrial practice for
pollution control has concentrated
largely on "end-of-pipe" treatment or
land disposal of hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes. HSWA
established, however, a national policy
of reducing or eliminating wastes as
expeditiously as possible (RGRA
Section 1003(b))< EPA also realizes that
programs emphasizing management of
pollutants after they have been
generated have limitations. EPA
believes that reducing or eliminating
discharges and/or emissions to the
environment through the implementation
of cost-effective source reduction and
environmentally sound recycling
practices can produce additional
environmental benefits. Many
businesses are already incorporating
pollution prevention programs into their
strategic planning. Such programs may
decrease the volume and/or toxicity of
wastes by altering production to
incorporate source reduction or
recycling.
Under Sections 3002(b) and 3005(h) of
HSWA, hazardous waste generators are
required to certify that they have a
program in place to reduce the volume'
•or quantity and toxicity of hazardous •
waste to the degree determined by the
generator to be economically
practicable.:EPA encourages generators.
to pursue source reduction and
environmentally sound Eecycling .
wherever possible, to reduce the need for
the costs of siibsequent treatment,
storage, and disposal. Waste
minimization planning programs have
been suggested by EPA and mandated
by some States, • • , ' ;
To aid the regulated community, EPA,
has produced documents such as Drift
Guidance to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of a Waste
Minimization Program; Notice and
Request for Comment (54 FR 111 (June
12,1989)) and The EPA Manual for
Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessments (EPA 600/2-88/025, April
1988). Several States als'o have enacted
waste minimization legislation (e:g.,
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Act of 1989; Oregon Toxics Use
Reduction and Hazardous Waste
Reduction Act, House Bill 3515, July 2,
1989). Additional States have legislation
pending that will mandate some type of
pollution prevention program and/or
facility' planning, and many others offer
technical assistance to companies that
seek alternatives to treatment, storage,
and disposal of waste.,
. Successful reduction in waste
generation often does hot'require
complex and/or expensive process
changes. There are many relatively
simple and easily implemented
engineering solutions that will achieve
this goal. Evaluation of adherence to
existing process control measures, along
with slight modifications of these.
measures, can often result in significant
volume reduction. These evaluations
also may point out the need for more
complex engineering evaluations (e.g.,
mixing effectiveness, process
temperatures and pressures, and reagent
grade selection). Simple physical audits
of current waste generation and in-plant
management practices for the wastes
can also yield positive results. These
audits often turn up simple, easily
implemented practices that do not
involve complicated engineering
analyses. They may point out, for
example, the need for the repair and/or
replacement of leaking pipes, valves,
and simple equipment. In addition, they
may identify the need to modify
inspection and/or maintenance
schedules. , •• ' .
Waste minimization opportunities for
the manufacturing processes generating
the wastes identified in today's notice
may result hi significant reductions in
waste generation and, thus* ;
considerable cost savings for industry. :•
The Agency is interested hi comments
and data on such opportunities, ,
including both successful and
unsuccessful attempts to reduce waste
generation, volume, or tpxirity. It is also
possible that, owing to previous ,
implementation of waste minimization ,
procedures, some facilities or specific ,
processes have little.potential for
decreases in waste generation rates or
toxicity.
For the wastes identified in today's
notice, the Agency is particularly
interested in such specific information
as: Data: on the quantities of wastes that
have been or could be reduced; a way to
calculate achievable percentage
reductions (accounting for changes in
production rates); potential reduction in
toxicity of the wastes; the results of
waste audits; and potential cost savings
that can be (or have been) achieved.
EPA is currently investigating new
approaches that would incorporate '
waste minimization techniques into the
BDAT process. BOAT standards could
potentially be developed that somehow
use source reduction and recycling
technologies as the methods for
controlling hazardous constituents in the
- waste. One approach could involve the
use of alternative mass-balance
limitations for some constituents as they
remain in the treatment residuals after
application of best available source
reduction and/or recycling techniques.
For example, the concentration of heavy
metals and total cyanides in
electroplating wastewater treatment
sludges (e.g., F006 wastes) have been:
demonstrated to be reducible through
the use of various source reduction and
recycling techniques implemented in the
manufacturing process prior to
treatment. Thus, implementation of
waste minimization practices prior to
generation and subsequent stabilization
of the wastewater treatment sludges
would significantly reduce not only the
total mass of hazardous constituents,
but also the total volume of wastes
destined for land disposal units. Such a
result would accord well with the
mandate of section 3004(m) to
promulgate standards that reduce waste
toxicity or mobility in a way that
"minimizes" threats to human health
and the environment. (Data currently
available indicate that stabilization can
often result hi a significant increase in
total waste volume when complying
with current BDAT treatment
standards.) In addition, there may be
situations where specifying the use of a
treatment or recovery technology might
provide more effective protection than
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules 24447
relying on concentration-based or mass-
based treatment standards.
All of this is not to say that the
Agency will require waste minimization
as BDAT, especially by identifying a
specific technology that must be used.
While the Agency believes that waste
minimization is important, we also
believe that there should be flexibility in
the program in order to encourage
innovation so as to find new and better
methods to control hazardous wastes.
Thus, the Agency welcomes comments
on whether, and if so, how waste
minimization could be factored into the
development of BDAT.
B. General Approach to the
Development of BDAT for Newly
Identified and Listed Wastes
While the Agency has established a
waste management hierarchy that
favors source reduction, recycling, and
recovery over conventional treatment, it
is inevitable that some wastes will be
generated. (See EPA's Pollution
Prevention Strategy, January 1991.}
Thus, standards based on treatment
using BDAT will need to be developed
for these wastes. The Agency recognizes
that there may be some special
situations where the generation of a
particular waste Can be totally
eliminated, but this is unlikely for most
wastes.
The Agency intends to develop BDAT
treatment standards for newly identified
and listed wastes based on the transfer
of performance data from the treatment
of wastes with similar chemical and
physical characteristics or similar
concentratipns of hazardous
constituents. It also is likely that the
treatment standards for these wastes
will be established for both wastewater
and nonwastewater forms and on a
constituent-specific basis. These
constituents are not necessarily limited-
to those identified as present in the
wastes in today's notice.
The technologies forming the basis of
the treatment standards, in general, are
determined by whether the wastes
contain organics and/or metals. For
wastes containing primarily organics,
the Agency has found that incineration
and other thermal destruction
techniques can destroy most organics to
concentrations at or near the limit of
detection as measured in the ash
residues. Many people are concerned
about environmental impacts of
incinerating hazardous wastes,
however, and prefer that alternative
treatment technologies be used for
wastes that must be treated. While the
Agency believes that incineration and
other thermal destruction technologies
achieve a level of relatively complete
destruction of organics, EPA typically
establishes concentration-based
standards based on these data rather
than requiring the wastes to be
incinerated. Thus, any alternative
technologies that can achieve these
levels may be used, unless otherwise
restricted. In fact, where alternative
destruction or removal technologies
cannot achieve these levels, but achieve
reasonably comparable results, the
Agency may promulgate adjusted
treatment standards achievable by both
incineration and these technologies {e.g.,
the promulgated treatment standards for
petroleum refinery wastes (K048-K052)
are achievable by-critical fluid
extraction, thermal desorptioa, or
incineration).
Since metals are never destroyed, any
wastes containing metals must be
directly reused, extracted for recovery,
chemically stabilized, or generated such
that the metals are in a chemical state
where the metals are substantially
immobile or otherwise rendered less
toxic. Wastes containing both organics
and metals are usually first subject to
some destruction technology, and since
metals typically concentrate in the ash
and/or scrubber water sludges, these
additional residues may have to be
chemically stabilized.
Wherever feasible, the Agency is
considering transferring BDAT
treatment standards for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of the newly identified and listed wastes
from the list of treatment standards in
F039, the listing for multi-source
leachate, promulgated in the Third Third
final rule (see 40 CFR 266.41 and 43 for
standards applicable to F039 wastes).
These treatment standards were
developed not only for F039 but also for
the corresponding U and P wastes and
for many of the Fand K wastes. The
standards were based on the use of
several treatment technologies
performed on a wide variety of waste
matrices, thus ensuring that the
treatment standards are achievable for a
wide variety of wastes. The standards
for the nonwastewater forms of F039 are
known to be achievable by thermal
destruction techniques, such as
incineration, or burning in boilers or
industrial furnaces, while those for the
F039 wastewaters are achievable by
multiple wastewater treatment
technologies. If a newly identified or
listed waste or a new waste contains
chemicals that are not currently
regulated in F039 wastes, EPA will
develop treatment standards for these
constituents and may then propose to
add them to the treatment standards for
F039. (The Final BDAT Background
Document for U and P Wastes/Multi-
source Leachate is available from NTIS
(National Technical Information
Service), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-
4600. The NTIS numbers for the three-
volume set are PB90-234337, PB90-
234345, and PB90-234352.)
A similar situation may apply to lab
packs intended for land disposal. In the
Third Third final rule, EPA promulgated
regulations allowing generators to
dispose of small quantifies of U and P
wastes (commercial chemical products)
in either "organometallic" or "appendix
IV" lab packs, or in "organic" or
"appendix V" lab packs, depending on
the particular material being disposed. If
a waste that is newly identified or listed
is not already included in either
appendix IV or V, EPA anticipates
proposing to add the new waste code to
the appropriate appendix.
La order to determine whether existing
treatment standards such as those
established for F039 can be transferred,
the Agency is soliciting the following
data and information on these newly
identified and listed wastes; technical
descriptions of the treatment systems
that are currently used for these wastes;
descriptions of alternative technologies
that might-be currently available or
anticipated as applicable; performance
data for the treatment of these wastes
(in particular, constituent concentrations
in both treated and untreated wastes, as
well as information on the equipment
design and optimum operating
conditions); information on known or
perceived difficulties in analyzing
treatment residues or specific
constituents; quality assurance/control
information for all data submissions;
and information on the costs for setup
and operation of any current and
alternative treatment technologies for
these wastes.
C. General Approach to the Analysis of
Capacity for Newly Identified and
Listed Wastes
\. Data Availability
In determining whether to make land
disposal prohibitions for a given waste
immediately effective, EPA must
evaluate the availability of capacity to
treat that waste. The Agency performs
capacity analyses to determine the
amount of alternative treatment or
recovery capacity available to
accommodate the volumes of waste that
will be affected by the land disposal
prohibition. If adequate capacity exists,
the waste is restricted from further land
disposal. If adequate capacity does not
exist, EPA may grant a national capaeity
variance for die waste for up to two
-------
24448
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 104:/ Thursday, May 30. 1991 / Proposed Rules
years, or unti} adequate alternative
treatment capacity becomes available,
whichever Is sooner. To perform the
necessary capacity analyses, the
Agency needs reliable data on current
waste generation, waste management
practices, available alternative
treatment capacity, and planned
treatment capacity.
For previous .land disposal restriction
rules, the Agency performed capacity
analyses using data from national
surveys, including the 1981 Mail Survey,
the 1986 National Screening Survey, the
1987 National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,:
and Recycling Faculties (the TSDR
Survey), and the 1987 National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators (the
Generator Survey). The Agency
conducted the TSDR Survey to obtain
comprehensive data on the nation's
capacity for managing hazardous waste
and on the volumes of hazardous waste
being land disposed. The Generator
Survey includes data on waste
generation, waste characterization, and
hazardous waste treatment capacity in
units exempt from RCRA permitting.
Data from the TSDR and Generator
Surveys were use in capacity analyses
for the First Third, Second Third and
Third Third LDR rules.
Although the TSDR and Generator
Surveys were conducted in 1987, data
from these surveys reflect 1986 waste
generation and waste management
practices. These surveys cannot be used
to determine the volumes of newly listed
and identified waste requiring
treatment, since the majority of these
wastes were not listed as hazardous
until after 1988 and, therefore, were not
included in the surveys. In addition,
these surveys may not contain adequate
information on currently available
capacity to treat newly listed and
identified wastes because the data
reflect 1986 capacity and do not include
facility expansions or closures that have
occurred since then. Although
adjustments have been made to these
data to account for changes in waste
management through 1990, this was not
done on a consistent basis across all
waste management practices. For these
reasons, the Agency requests data on
currently available treatment capacity
to determine whether adequate capacity
exists to treat newly listed and
identified wastes.
EPA has compiled data from available
sources including proposed and final
listing rules, regulatory impact analyses
(RIAs], background information
documents (BIDs), the National Survey
of Solid Waste from Mineral Processing
Facilities, and the Petroleum Refining
Data Base. Even with these sources,
however, gaps in the capacity-related
data for newly listed and identified
wastes remain. Much of .the data are
several years old and may not reflect
current waste generation and ' . ,
management practices. In particular,.
data from the proposed and final listing
rules are often'incomplete, and, in some
cases, no data on waste generation or
management are included, since these
rules focus on the characteristics that
render a waste hazardous, rather than
on waste generation and management.
The RIAs and BIDs frequently use
estimated data based on assumptions
rather than on data collected directly
from generators. The National Survey of
Solid Waste from Mineral Processing
Facilities does contain data for some of
the mineral processing wastes; however,
not all mineral processing wastes were
included in the survey. The Petroleum
Refining Data Base reflects 1983 data
and does not include all petroleum
refineries. For these reasons, EPA
requests additional data on the waste
generation and management of newly •
listed and identified wastes to perform
capacity analyses for these wastes.
2. Waste Management Practices
To perform capacity analyses, the
Agency needs to determine the volumes
of hazardous waste that will require
treatment prior to land disposal. The
volumes of waste requiring treatment
depend, in turn, on the waste
management practices employed by the
hazardous waste generators. Hazardous
waste that is currently treated to LDR
standards on-site does not require
additional commercial treatment
capacity. Hazardous waste generators
may also manage their waste using
practices exempt from RCRA
regulations. For example, hazardous
wastes discharged to POTWs or
navigable waters without any
intervening land disposal are not subject
to the LDR treatment standards (i.e.,
they are restricted and not prohibited,
and therefore subject only to
recordkeeping requirements: See, e.g., 55
FR 22682.) Some generators may manage
their waste entirely in RCRA-exempt
tanks and thus likewise may not be
affected by the treatment standards;
others may recycle their waste
immediately after generation and not
land dispose it. .
Other waste management practices
can also affect capacity analyses.
Generators may co-manage hazardous
waste with nonhazardous waste or may
dewater hazardous waste, thus changing
the volume of waste requiring treatment.
Newly listed and identified wastes
mixed with regulated hazardous waste
may currently undergo treatment .and, •
thus, have been accounted for in the .
capacity analyses for past rulemakings. '
- Additionally, the hazardous waste
treatment technologies may generate -
additional wastes in the form of
residuals that also will be subject to the
LDRs.
- -As stated above, some generators
already treat their hazardous waste on-
site; Other generators may decide to
construct on-site treatment capacity, if it
is economically feasible. Since capacity
analyses determine the availability of
commercial treatment, wastes that are
treated on-site are not included in the
estimate of the volumes requiring
commercial alternative treatment
capacity. Nevertheless, the Agency must
still obtain information on the volumes
of waste that are or will be treated; on-
site. However, to the extent that
residuals from the treatment of
hazardous waste are generated, the
Agency also needs to account for these
residuals in its capacity analysis. EPA
requests information on the volumes of
waste that are or will be treated on-site
or at captive facilities, the residuals
generated from treatment, as well as
any planned changes in on-rsite capacity.
Much of the data on waste
management practices for newly listed
and identified wastes were collected
prior to the listing of those wastes. The
added costs of managing a regulated
hazardous waste may have induced
generators to minimize or recycle their
waste or otherwise alter their
management practices. Any change, in
management practices will affect the
volumes of waste requiring commercial
treatment capacity.
As can be seen from the above
discussion, to perform capacity
analyses, EPA requests information'on
current and future waste management
practices for newly listed and identified
wastes, including the volumes of waste
that are recycled, mixed with pr co-
managed, with other waste, discharged
under Clean Water Act provisions,
injected underground via a regulated
unit, and the volumes and types of
residuals that are generated.by the
various management practices
applicable to newly listed and identified
wastes (e.g., treatment residuals).
3. Availability of Treatment
The availability of adequate
commercial treatment capacity for
wastes not otherwise treated determines
whether or not a waste is granted a
national capacity variance. The
commercial hazardous waste
management industry is extremely
dynamic! National commercial
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 104. / Thursday,- May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules
24449
treatment capacity changes as new
faculties come on-line, as new units and
new technologies are added at existing
facilities, and as facilities expand . .
existing units. The available capacity at
commercial facilities also changes as
facilities change their, commercial status
(e.g., changing from a fully commercial
to a limited commercial or captive
facility). In addition, the amount of
utilized treatment capacity changes as
variances granted for previous LD.R •
rules expire and as economic and:
regulatory conditions change the ..
baseline demand for various treatment
technologies. To determine the
availability of capacity for treating
newly listed and identified wastes, the
Agency needs to consider currently
available capacity, as well as the timing
of any future changes in available
capacity.
Commercial combustion capacity for
sludges and solids is an important and
extremely dynamic component of the
nation's hazardous waste management
system. Previous LDR rules have
substantially increased demand for this
technology. Historically, there has been
a shortage of capacity for'this treatment;
however, the increased demand for
sludge/solid combustion has encouraged
this sector to expand. EPA requests
current data on the availability of
sludge/solid combustion capacity as
well as any planned expansions at
combustion facilities m order to
determine whether adequate capacity
will be available for those newly listed
and identified wastes that may require
sludge/solid combustion. ' ,,
Waste characteristics such as pH
level, BTUs, anionic character, and
. physical form may also limit the ' •
availability of certain treatment • • • '
technologies. For these reasons, the
Agency requests data and comments on
waste characteristics that might limit or
, preclude the use Of any treatment
technologies.
, EPA requests data from facilities.
capable of treating hazardous wastes on -
their current treatment capacity and
information on:any plans they may have
in the future to expand or reduce ; v "•— ••. •
existing capacity. The Agency also is
requesting comments from companies
that may be considering developing new'
hazardous waste treatment capacity. ,<•••'>
Specifically, EPA requests information
on the determining factors involved in
making decisions to build new treatment
capacity. .'.'..•. . . • . ..';...
, 4. EPA's Current Plans;Concernijig " ;'
Capacity' '-J- ' "•' •' •''''"• ''•'•' *;" •-'•;,
. hi cases where important information
for conducting capacity analysis for :. <
.' newly listed and identified wastes is not
currently available, EPA may conduct
additional data collection efforts to
obtain the necessary data. The Agency
could target the facilities generating
large volumes of newly listed or
identified wastes to obtain additional
capacity-related data. The Agency may
also collect additional information from
the hazardous waste management
industry on currently available
treatment capacity.
The, Agency is using this notice to
present available data on newly listed .
and identified wastes. Whenever
possible, the sources of the data are
indicated. In this notice, EPA also .
presents key issues and preliminary
assessments of capacity for newly listed
and identified wastes. In addition, this
notice presents a wide variety of
potential approaches and assumptions
the Agency could evaluate to develop
capacity assessments for newly listed
and identified wastes.. EPA is requesting
specific data and comments on currently
available data and the possible
approaches to capacity analyses from
generators of newly listed and identified
wastes. The data submitted to the
Agency will be.used in the LDR capacity
analyses for newly listed and identified
wastes and to'corroborate case-by-case
variance determinations, as well as for
other types of analyses (e.g., economic
and cost impact analyses, regulatory
impact analyses, market studies).
As noted, capacity information is
important for many decisions and
policies. To ensure the quality .of this,
information, EPA must cblle'ct and
validate the relevant data, arid
otherwise develop the pertinent data
base, prior to analysis. This often is an
iterative process which.can be'lengthy.
EPA stresses that all knowledgeable
parties should provide us with then-
data, comments and concerns as early
as possible for the wastes 'and issues
addressed by this notice.
D. Newly Identified Mixed Radioactive
Hazardous Wastes, '...[.. .,'.', :
, Radioactive mixed wastes (RMW) are
unique hazardous wastes because of
dual regulation ty. the A^qmiG Energy
Act (ABA) for the radioactive • ;: •
componentstand by RCRA for the •
hazardous waste components. The , -
hazardous waste components of RMW
must meet all applicable treatment • •
standards for each waste code prior to
its disposal, unless the wastes are
managed in land disposal units that
have been granted a no-migration .
petition. Treating RMW, presents, - ,
however, a major difficulty: Achieving
the treatment standards for hazardous
wastes while.at the same time ensuring,.
that the AEA safety and handling • .
requirements for radioactive materials
are met. In some instances, this may be
resolved by establishing specific
treatment standards for specific types of
RMW, as the Agency did in the Third
Third rule (see 40 CFR 268.42, table 3), or
by establishing site-specific variances
for the waste.
RMW consists of hazardous waste
mixed with high-level radioactive
wastes, transuranic (TRU) wastes, or
low-level radioactive wastes. High-level
radioactive wastes are spent fuel from
commercial nuclear reactors or wastes
from the production of atomic weapons.
TRU wastes contain elements with
atomic numbers greater than 92 (the
atomic number for uranium) and pose
greater radioactive hazards than the
low-level wastes because they contain
long-lived alpha radiation emitters. Low-
level radioactive wastes include
radioactive wastes that are not
classified as high-level or TRU wastes.
All treatment standards that have
been promulgated to date for RMW
were in the. Third Third'nnal rule.
Except for four specific types of RMW
that have unique BDAT treatment
standards, all promulgated treatment
standards for RCRA listed and
characteristic .wastes also apply to the
corresponding RMW. The Agency
specifically is requesting comment on
difficulties the regulated community has
encountered with the treatment
standards for RMW. EPA particularly is
interested in resolving these issues on a
more generic basis rather than relying
solely on the use of the variance;. •.
process.
While the Agency does not
specifically expect that many of the
newly listed E and K wastes listed in
today's rule are generated as RMW; the
Agency does anticipate that many
radioactive wastes will now qualify as .
hazardous wastes (i.e., RMW) due: to the
recent toxicity characteristic. f3TC) riile;
In addition, the, development of new
treatment standards for contaminated
debris are expected to be applicable to ~
some RMWi The Agency, therefore; ia
requesting comment and data about
, specific RMW that'aite TC wastes arid •
are considered debris. (Stacethe-TG - '
wastes and contaminated soil will be .'•
covered ina forthcoming ANPRM^the ....."
30-day comment period provided in this •
notice only applies to debris and those
specific F.Kf and U wastes listed in
today's notice;) Jbtt addition,- EPA -: •• :•
requests information and suggestions on
special decontamination procedures that
have been developed (or may be -, >-
required)[specifically for the removal.of
• the radioactive componentsibf ;.-. .
. contaminated debris. (These may affect
-------
24453
Federal Register
**** /
the tdectipnpf appropriate ,
management practices for these wastes.)
EPA, therefore, is requesting that
reader* carefully review today's notice
in it* entirety, for its potential
applicability to RMW with respect to
generation, treatment, and capacity for
all wastes discussed in today's notice.
in. Potential Modifications to Existing
BDAT
Section 2002(b} of RCRA authorizes
the Administrator to revise, not less
frequently than every three years, each
regulation promulgated under HSWA.
Section 3004{m){l) likewise directs EPA
to revise existing treatment standards
"as appropriate," As a result of this
authority and a desire for a simplified
regulatory framework, EPA is
considering whether to propose
regulations that would revise treatment
standards and/or reduce administrative
requirements.
A. Potential for Establishing Universal
BDAT Standards
1. Concentration-based Standards for
Organfcs
Facilities that land dispose organic
wastes today typically must comply
with individual treatment standards
that, in some instances, impose slightly
different concentration limits. As a
possible alternative, EPA is soliciting
comment on the concept of establishing
universal seta of treatment standards for
all organic constituents—one set for
wastewaters and a different set for
nonwastewaters. These universal sets of
organic standards are being considered
as a means to simplify owner and
operator compliance as well as the
Agency's enforcement and compliance
monitoring efforts. The universal
treatment standards will be particularly
helpful where mixtures of wastes are
encountered at both on-site and off-site
hazardous waste treatment facilities.
Under a universal set of standards,
the same organic constituent would
have the same concentration standard,
no matter what waste code it is in, and
the selection of the regulated
constituents would become the primary
concern of enforcement and compliance
monitoring. The applicable
concentrations (i.e., standards) would
then be limited to those found in the
universal sets (depending on whether
the wastes were wastewaters or
nonwastewaters). This approach is also
consistent with the fact that many
wastes that are treatable by similar
technologies are often appropriately
comingled prior to treatment The
development of universal sets of
standards would not be intended to
modify current restriction* on the
corningung of incompatible wastes,
impermissible switching of treatabflity
groups, or impermissible dilution and
the Agency is not reopening these issues
during consideration of whether to
pursue universal treatment standards.
EPA solicits comment on the
advantages and disadvantages to the
establishment of universal treatment
standards for organics. Among the
potential advantages are that they
would provide the regulated community
with concentration goals on a
constituent-bjc-constituent basis for
which the facility can develop
alternative treatment technologies and
to direct waste minimization
investigations. Universal standards
would also provide EPA with a
mechanism to streamline the
development of BDAT treatment
standards for future listing of hazardous
wastes under 40 CFR part 261. New
listings could be assumed to be treatable
to the levels found in the universal set of
standards. Facilities could then rebut
these assumptions during the . '
rulemaking for the listing of the wastes.
This could also provide a mechanism for
the Agency to comply with the statutory
mandate to develop BDAT within six
months of the final listing.
The majority of the existing waste-
code specific noriwastewater standards
for organics have been established
based on data from some form of
thermal destruction, typically
incineration. This is primarily due to the
ability of these thermal devices to
destroy organics to levels at or near the
detection limit (as measured in the ash).
In fact, incineration has been
determined to be BDAT for most of the
wastes containing organics. The .
majority of the existing treatment
standards for organic constituents in
wastewaters have been based on a
variety of conventional wastewater
treatment technologies. (See also section
in.B. of today's notice for a discussion of
concentration-based standards for
wastewaters and scrubber waters.)
In determining whether to pursue
universal treatment standards, the
Agency would consider whether to
transfer the numerical levels for these
universal organic standards from those
established for wastewater and
nonwastewater forma of F039
multisource leachate. These standards •
were established based on the premise
that they might be used for universal
standards. They include over 200
constituent-specific standards which
account for all of the organics that can
be analyzed consistently in treatment
residuals and that are regulated in all of
the other waste codes. (See also the
discussions in subsequent sections of
today's notice concerning potential
adjustments to F001-F005 solvents
standards.)
2. Potential Establishment of
Technology-Based Standards as
Alternatives for Many Wastes
Containing Hazardous Organics
EPA is contemplating whether to
propose a modified technology-specific
treatment standard of incineration
(currently coded as INCIN in 40 CFR
268.42, table 1) as an alternative
treatment standard for most organic-
bearing nonwastewaters currently
required to comply with the constituent-
specific treatment standards listed
under 40 CFR 268.43. EPA is considering
whether to modify tie INCIN standard
to require that the incineration unit be
operated in compliance with the
updated technical operating
requirements that were recently
promulgated in the Final Rule for „
Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces, (55 FR7134J,
February 21,1991. EPA is particularly
interested hi the possibility of adding to
INCIN requirements for monitoring
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons '.
along with metals. These requirements
would only apply to those units where
INCIN would be applied as an
alternative standard.
As another alternative standard, EPA
could propose, a modified technology- •
specific treatment standard of fuel
substitution (currently coded as FSUBS
in 40 CFR 268.42, table 1) as a method of
treatment This would be limited to
those organic wastes for which the
constituents of concern contain only
carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in their
elemental structure. This is based .
primarily on the lack of air pollution
control devices on fuel substitution units
that would remove air emissions
expected from the combustion of organic
constituents with other elements present
(such as bromine, fluorine, phosphorus,
sulfur, nitrogen and/or metals). The
potential establishment of limitations on
the concentrations of these other
elements is, however, being considered
as part of the modifications to the
. alternative FSUBS standard.
None of the standards mentioned ,
above would be intended to replace the
existing concentration-based standards.
They would only act as alternatives.
That is, if the facility complied with the
modified INCIN or FSUBS standards, .
the current concentration-based
standards (as measured in the ash)
would no longer be applicable for these
wastes. The concentration-based
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 104 / Thursday, May 30. 1991 / Proposed Rules
24451
standards, however, would still apply to
residuals treated by methods other than
incineration or fuel substitution. EPA,
however, is soliciting comment on
whether both of these possible
alternative standards should include a
requirement for the analysis of a
significantly reduced number of
constituent-specific treatment standards
that could serve as surrogates for
confirming proper operation of the
incineration or fuel substitution unit
The existing concentration-based
standards were developed as a means of
ensuring that the incineration or fuel
substitution unit was operated properly
for the constituents of concern in each
waste on a waste code-basis. The
concentration-based standards were
also established because they provide a
greater amount of flexibility in use of
alternative technologies compared to
technology-specific standards. The
existing technology-specific standards
of INCIN and FSUBS were intended to
accomplish this same goal, but were
only established for waste codes where
concentration-based standards were not
possible.
Comments received during the
development of the LDR regulations
suggest that some of the BDAT '
concentration-based standards may be
too low to be verified by existing
analytical equipment (as indicated by
certain commercial facilities). EPA
addressed these issues in the Third
Third final rule and is not reopening
these issues for comment EPA,
however, is currently investigating
whether these perceptions are causing
wastes to go untreated (i.e., commercial
facilities refusing to accept certain
wastes for treatment because they
cannot detect the residuals at or below
the treatment standard). If so,- the
Agency may propose revisions to the
existing BDAT treatment standards on a
waste code-basis in order to ensure that
these wastes axe treated. In general,:
'. waste generation and management data
on the majority of these wastes appear
to indicate that this is not the situation.
These modified technology-based
standards could potentially lead to a. •
generic procedure for delisting of ash •.
residues from incineration or fuel
substitution units. This generic delisting
procedure for ash from hazardous waste
incineration must, however, address
concerns about the potential presence,
in the ash, of teachable toxic metals and
toxic organic products'formed during the
incineration of halogenatedofganics.
One approach to addressing these
concerns that could, at the same-time,
8impl%:recordkeeptag, compliance
monitoring, and enforcement, is for the
Agency to develop new waste codes for
ash, based on the analysis of hazardous
constituents in ash prior to stabilization,
or possibly based on the type of waste
incinerated (e.g., halogenated or
nonhalogenated).
3. Concentration-Based Standards for
Types of Metal Wastes
The Agency also is considering
•options for establishing one or more
universaLsets of TGLP metals standards
based on general types of metal-bearing
wastes (e.g., metal hydroxide sludges,
metal sulfide sludges, slags, ash, and
brine salts/sludges) rather than on a
waste code basis. The basic physical-
chemical composition of the waste (as .
given by the above examples) is a key
factor in determining the level of
achievabilityof treatment This could
potentially allow the establishment of
standards (with some potentially below
the characteristic levels) that are based
on what treatment can consistently
achieve for that waste subcategory; All
other metal-bearing wastes that would
not fit into these metal subcategories
would have to be treated to the
corresponding existing standards on a
waste code-specific basis. .
As an example, one set of metal
standards could be established for the
stabilization of wastewater treatment
sludges that consisted of primarily metal
hydroxides prior to stabilization—«ven
though facilities could have identified
these sludges as combinations of D004
through D011, F006, or derived-from F, K,
U, or P wastes. Since one metal may be
regulated at different levels depending
on the waste code, and since not all
metals are regulated for-each waste
code, a universal set of applicable metal
standards could ease the difficulty of
sorting out the appropriate treatment
standards. -
At the same time, there may be
certain metals (such as arsenic, mercury,
and/or chromium) or waste types (such
as brine sludges, glassified slags, •
refractory bricks, or scrap metal •
materials} that cannot achieve the levels-
of treatment achievable inmetal .
hydroxide sludges and, therefore, may •
need higher treatmentstandards, This
was one of the main reasons EPA could
hot establish treatment standards for
DQ04 through Doll wastes below the
corresponding characteristic levels (i.e.,
while data indicated that the majority of
metal-bearing wastes apparently could
be treated to below the characteristic
metal levels, there was always at least ?
one waste type per metal that couldn't'
reach the lower levels, thatthe other -
data seemed to suggest were ; ' ,
achievable); The Agency,ithus;is* '-
soliciting treatment data and comment
on specific subcategories of metal-
bearing wastes and treatment standards
that could be developed for these
subcategories. T
Establishment of some sets of
treatment standards could potentially
lead to the establishment of a simplified
generic delisting procedure for certain
types of metal-bearing wastes, such as
incinerator ash, residues from high
temperature metals recovery, and
possibly certain stabilized waste types.
These standards would probably place
certain restrictions on types (or levels)
of metals and/or waste types that could
be co-treated. These standards may also
require analysis for all metals and
would have to require analysis for other
constituents that might reasonably be
expected per metal type. In doing so, the
likelihood of sham treatment through
improper co-mingling of waste types or
constituents could be reduced. See also
the discussion of generic delisting for
nonwastewater residuals from HTMR
processes in section III.E.3. of today's
notice. : •
4. Potential Regulatory Mechanisms to
Encourage Development of Alternative
Technologies
The Agency is soliciting information
and data ort the achievability of "the
existing incineration-based treatment
standards utilizing other technologies. In
particular, the Agency is interested in -•
biological treatment data for wastes on
a waste code-basis. • • •
It is important to emphasize that a
universal set of BDAT treatment
standards for organics could encourage
(but not force) the development of
alternative technologies, in that the
goals of treatment would be Very clear.
A further mechanism could be
established to encourage alternative
technology development by allowing
compliance with 'the concentration-
based standards using destructive
technologies (chemical; biblogieaE or,;
thermal) that can achieve son-detect '
levels reasonably close to^hese > < ^
"universal" standards. The Agency is
; soliciting comment and data that could •••.
be used to establish a BDAT regulatory
procedurethat would thus encourage •
the development of alternative *
treatment technologies. : ":''•' ' :
B. Con versipg of Wastewater Standards
Based on Scrubber,Waters
On Novetober 22,1989 (54 FR 48372J,
EPA pfoppseH as part of the Third Third
rule concentration-based treatment
standards for numerous listed wastes; •
based on the performance of ' ; " "•>
incineration..For-the wastewatersv the
treatment standards were based on the
-------
24452
Federal Register / Vol. 56y Nq. lfl£ / Tfasday. May 30.1991 / Proposed Rules
concentration of the constituents of
concern in incineration scrubber watere.
In the final rale (55 ER 22520), however.
EPA altered its approach to setting these
standards and promulgated BOAT
treatment standards {or waatewatera
bancd on actual wastewater treatment
data for the constituents of concern.
This change was adopted fora number
of reasons.
First, it was stated in the final tole.for
the Second Third wastes {54 FR 28629)
and reiterated in the final role for Third
Third wastes [55 FR 22577) that when
the Agency had appropriate wastewater
treatment data from well-designed and
well-operated wastewater treatment
units, it preferred to use those data
rather than scrubber water data to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. This is because incineration
is not a normal treatment method for
waatewatersJta addition, alternative
standards were proposed in the Third
Third notice for multisource leachate
(F039) wastewaters baaed on a transfer
of performance data from various
sources, including: the Office of Water's
Industrial Technology Division (TTDJ
and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) data
(specifically from the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) database); the
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory (HWERL) database (HWERL
is the former name of EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory); the
Office of Solid Waste's BDAT data
(from previous land disposal restriction
rules); and additional wastewater
treatment data from articles on wet air
oxidation CWAO) and powdered •
activated carbon treatment (PACT).
Second, commenters on the proposed
Third Third rule had urged the Agency
to develop treatment standards for
wastewater forms based on residues
from wastewater treatment technologies
rather than incineration scrubber
waters. Commenters on previous rules
had also stated that they felt EPA had
performance data from technologies
treating wastewaters containing the
same or similar constituents that EPA
could use to develop BDAT treatment
standards. Commenters emphasized that
these performance data represented the
treatment of organic-containing
wastewaters better than incineration
scrubber waters alone. Finally,
commenters on the proposed rules for
the 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...--. •. ,.-•': .... ••- : ' •..)•>. , ••-.' •.'• .
The Agency reviewed all of the . - •..
aforementioned data during the Third
Third comment period to determine
whether it could be considered BDAT.
In reviewing these data, the Agency
considered, influent concentrations of
the treated constituent, whether the
treated stream was representative of
that U, P, F, or K wastewater, and how
achievable the detection limit was in
similar or other matrices based on other
data received. Upon conclusion of these
analyses, the Agency revised the
proposed wastewater standards for
most of the Third Third F, K, U and P
wastes based on the data received prior
to proposal: Constituent-specific
concentration-based standards as found
hi F039 wastewaters. Detailed
information on the development of the
wastewater treatment standards can be
found in the amendment to the
background document titled "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." (This document can be
found hi the RCRA docket for the Third
Third final rule.)
As part of the First Third and Second
Third rules, EPA promulgated treatment
standards for wastewater forms of 24 K
and U wastes (i.e., K015, K016, K018,
K019, K020, K023, K024, K028, K030,
K043, K048, K049, K05Q, K051, K052,
K087, K093, K094, U02I3, U069, U088,
U102, U107 and U190). These
wastewater treatment standards were
based on data from incineration
scrubber waters. The Agency is
presently analyzing these data to
determine whether EPA should modify
the concentration-based treatment
standards for these wastewaters. The •
wastes affected by this change .come
primarily from three general treatability
groups: Chlorinated organics, petroleum
wastes, and phthalate wastes. The
Agency is today providing an
opportunity to comment on this possible
change, and to submit data.
C. Potential Revisions to the F001-F005
Spent Solvent Treatment Standards
The Agency is investigating the
benefits of revisions to the treatment
standards for organic constituents in
both the nonwastewater and
wastewater forms of F001-F005 wastes.
The Agency is soliciting comments on
possible-ways to change the standards
as well as any treatment data that may
be available to assist in further
refinement of the treatment, standards.
The existing standards, currently listed
in 40 CFR 288.41, include concentrations
for 25 solvent constituents-
1. Nonwastewater Standards Based on
Total versus TCLP Analysis
The Agency is looking at the issue of
conversion of nonwastewatertreatment
standards for organic constituents hi
F001-F005 spent solvents from the
existing TCLP standards to standards
based on analysis of total
concentrations. The existing treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of •
F039 (multi-source leachate) would be
potential candidates for transfer. Any
new F001-F005 standards, however,.
would not modify the standards for the
four solvents that were added to the
solvents listings since1984: Benzene, 2-
ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane to
F005, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane to F002.
Treatment standards for these solvent
constituents were promulgated in the
Third Third rule and, for the most part,
are already based on analysis for total
concentrations rather than TCLP.
The Agency also is considering
establishing die treatment standards
based on the analysis of total
constituent concentrations as an option
for compliance with the existing F001-
F005 leachate standards. Thus, in the
course of treating mixtures of other
hazardous wastes andF001-F005
solvents, the facility could be
considered to be hi compliance with the
TCLP treatment standards for FOO1-F005
by demonstrating compliance with the
F001-f005 total numbers. This would be
consistent with the concept of universal
standards as discussed previously hi
section IH.A. of today's notice, and
could reduce unnecessary and extra
laboratory analysis (i.e., using both
TCLP leachate analysis and total
analysis for the same constituents).
2. Consistency with Universal
Wastewater Standards
In order to be consistent with the
concept of universal wastewater
treatment standards discussed earlier in
section ELA. and B., EPA would also
consider whether to convert the existing
standards for wastewater forms of F001-
F005 to those established for F039
wastewaters. This would result hi
increases in the concentrations for
approximately half of the F001-F005
constituent-specific standards. The
majority of these compounds are low-
toxicity, water-soluble compounds for
which detection limits have been
purportedly difficult to achieve at the
existing standards (e.g., ethyl ether,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules
24453
ethyl benzenetacetone^ and n-butanol).
Some of the increases are relatively
insignificant [e.g., ethyl benzene may
increase from SOppb to 57ppbJ, For
approximately half of the F001-FQO5
constituents, the standards would be
lowered. These compounds are typically
the more toxic of the 25 solvent
constituents and tend to be halogenated.
3. Revisions to the Standards for Cresols
In the Solvents and Dioxins role, the
Agency promulgated BDAT treatment
standards for "eresols" (a regulated
constituent in the F001-F005 treatment
standards), but did not distinguish
between the various isomers present iii
cresols. Hence, the Agency determined
the concentration-based treatment
standard for cresol wastewaters to be
2.82 mg/1 based on the performance of
activated carbon adsorption treatment
of cresols. For nonwastewaters, the
Agency had no data on TCLP extracts of
residues from the incineration of cresols
(cresylic acidj to use in the derivation of
the BOAT treatment standard. EPA
used, in part comparable chemical
structure as the basis for transferring
treatment data to cresols: (cresylic acid}
in the spent solvents. The data on which
the treatment standard was based was
from the incineration of methyl ethyl
ketone. The treatment standard of 0.75
mg/1 for nonwastewatera is based on
the transferred data.
The Agency also is investigating
whether there is merit in a change to the
current treatment standards for the
constituent "cresols" in FOQ1-FOQ5
wastes. JD. the Third Third nife. EPA
promulgated treatment standards for
U052 wastes. U052 is listed as,"cresols
(cresyEe aeidy Creaylic acid is the
name given to a mixture of three
isomeric cresols. p.e^ oitho-creaol, meta-
cresol and paia-creaol} La which meta-
cresol predominates. Analytical
methods are usually reported for o-
cresol (CAS No. 95-48-71 and a
combination of m- and p-cresols
because m-cresol and p-cresol cannot be
distinguished fay the analytical methods.
Thus, the Agency promulgated
conceritraoonr-hssed standards for 13052:
based on an analysis for 0-cresof and
the mixture of m-cresol and p-cresol.
The Agency, theEefdre,.irconsMeiing
whether to transfer fite waktewater and
nonwastewater. treatment standards
from U052 wastes to F001-RXJ5 wastes.
4. Modification to the Regulatory ,
Placement GfEQOWroos Standards
Thff A^ncy afeo is coHsSiering'fee
issue of placement of fee FDOi-F095
treatment standards a* ftey appear i»
the regulatory tables. "IfoeAgeirey has •"' •"
identifiedahetrorint&»current ; '•
placement that often provides confusion
in locating the standards. Currently, the
standards for FOOk-FOOS
nonwastewaters and wastewaters are
both found in Table CCWE^-
Constituent Concentrations in Waste
Extract (40 CFR 268.41}. The wastewater
standards should be in 40 CFR 263.43,
Table CCW— Constituent
Concentrations in Wastes, because they
are based OB total analysis and not a
TCLP analysis; Furthermore, if the
Agency alters the nonwastewater
treatment standards from a TCLP
standard to a standard based on total
waste analysis, the standards will also
be in 40 CFR 28&4S, Table CCW—
Constituent Concentrations in Wastes.
D. Potential Modifications to Existing
Treatment Standards for Lab Packs
Potential changes to 40 CFR 268.42 for
lab packs are also being examined. In
the January 31* 1991 technical
amendment to the Third Third final rule
(55 FR 3864), the Agency corrected many
typographical errors in appendix. IV and
appendix V of 40 CFR part 268. EPA also
noted some inconsistencies in the
conceptual placement of these wastes
into the appendices. Today's notice
provides information on potential
modifications in order to simplify the .
use of the appendices.
1. Potential Limits on Organo-metallic
Lab Packs
Appendix IV of 40 CFR part 268
identifies waste codes mat may be
placed in an organometsllic tab pack,
whfle appendix V identifies waste codes
that may be placed m an organic lab
pack. These two categories of lab packs
were established to distinguish those
wastes neetfing chemical stabilization
after incineration from those needing
only incineration. The current regulatfon
not only reqaires incmeratioa; but also
reqaires m 40 CFR 268.42[cX4J that the
residues from either type of feb pack
must no longer be characteristic for the
majority of toxic metals {i.e., they must
comply with the treatment standards for
D004-D0m Brno, and DOIlj prior to
land disposal. Since ft is necessary to
address the potential presence of "metal's
in the incinerator ash for bom
appendices, there fs Kttie prauticaf
difference to application of the
standards tor fiie two appendices. EPA
is soliciting ideas orr regulatory •
modifications that eouhf simpfify the
application of these appendices.
Appendix: IV allows seven: of the eight
characteristic metal wastes said F009 ' :
from cwriain eleL'ti opiating operations! ' '
«_-l'»l_ *_1_-| _ . -- !i?t'.- "-'- f I,, ij,' ,,'l urn Vl !- ITffl T i./ff^ ' ' ' •"'
to De piacea in organomEtafflc istj
packs. ThteS^-w
contain organics. Although the Agency
intended that these wastes be
organometallic, there is no regulatory
definition of what constitutes an
organometallic. The Agency therefore is
investigating whether a regulatory
definition of organometallies is
necessary, or whether other regulatory
requirements should be developed to
prevent potential misuse of the existing
appendix IV lab pack requirements.
The Agency also is considering
requirements. &at would; limit the
quantity of organics and metals that lab
packs may contam. or. as another
option, combining appendix IV and V
into one appendix end requiring
incineration with subsequent
stabilization of the residual incinerator
ash to meet the characteristic metals
treatment standards. ~~
The Agency also is investigating a
limit on total arsenic placed in
organometallic lab packs. After
incineration of a lab pack containing
arsenic, some of this metal may either
remain- in' the incinerator ash or become
trapped in the ash in a toxic inorganic
form. Although volatile arsenic can be
controlled by appropriate air pollution
control devices, there is concern
regarding the effectiveness of
conventional pozzoianic stabilization
processes for asfe that contains
significant amounts of arsenic.
2. Lab Packs fzom Trealability Studies,
In addition to the afewve issues, the
Agency is aware, of two other areas
(discussed int this and the next
subsection) wfeere the development of
alternative trearfment standards far ,
other types of lab pa<*S;CtmM«&igiHfy
implementation of the- land disposal
restrictions.
One situation arises for certain lab
packs containing residues front
hazardous waste treatabflity studies.
These studies take samples of treated
and untreated hazardous wastes for
analysis of hazardous constftnerrts in
order to' determine the effectiveness of .
treatment. There are likely to be "
residues from the analysis of the wastes
(both treated and untreated} that do not
represent optimum treatment (ie* they.
may fail the treatmeDt standards by only/:
slight amounts, and perhaps for only one
constituent); and from sampled that
were spiked for recovery studies that
may be above the promulgated
treatment standard1.
These samples are usually relatively
small. Before the land disposal' . * °
restrictions, they were disposed of fit lab-
packs* Current regulations recgiire these
sampies to, be treated to below the '
'
-------
24454
means^at these samples m*ust'be >
segregated, possibly grouiid, and most
likely mixed vvith largerljafches "of ,
untreated Wastes. Since there is such a
small quantity? there is some logic in
mixing these with other wastes in lab
packs that are going to be incinerated
and/or stabilized. However, as with
other lab packs, difficulties arise in
verifying concentration-based treatment
standards because of the difficulties in
obtaining representative samples of the
wastes in the treated lab packs.
The Agency is soliciting comment on
provisions that might be established for
these wastes. One approach for metal-
bearing wastes from treatability studies,
for example, could be to establish
stabilization as a method of treatment
with limitations on one or more of the
following: A minimum amount of :
stabilization reagents, a maximum
amount of interfering compounds such
as organics,'or limitations based on the
amount or type (i.e,, treatability group)
of metals or waste codes present. The
Agency is interested in comment on this
and any other feasible approaches.
3. Lab Packs from Hospitals and
Laboratories
In a similar situation, many analytical
laboratories and hospitals generate lab
packs containing heterogeneous
mixtures of debris-like materials, such
as broken glass, gloves, syringes,
protective gear, empty analytical vials,
wipe samples, and broken
thermometers. These materials usually
are contaminated with small amounts of
many wastes and/or chemicals. Since
some of these may be wastes or
chemicals that otherwise would be
prohibited from placement in lab packs,
some laboratories may not be able to
take advantage of the alternative
treatment standards for appendices IV
and V. While the treatment standards
being developed for contaminated
debris may resolve this issue, the
Agency also is soliciting comments on
regulatory modifications that could be
developed.
4. Potential Automatic System for
Incorporating Newly Identified and
Listed Wastes into Alternative
Treatment Standards for Lab Packs
The Agency also is considering ways
to establish an automatic system for
incorporation of newly identified and
listed wastes into appendices IV and V
(or a composite version of these). Thus,
if the newly Identified or listed waste
contains organics and metals, then it
could be automatically included in
appendix IV. If, on the other hand, the
waste contains only organics, it could be
included automatically in appendix V.
The'pfesent plan calls for making 'thse"se •
decisions during the'regulatory' • • ; • • :
determination for listing the wastes.
E. Recovery as BOAT for Concentrated
Metal-bearing Wastes ...
The Agency is soliciting general
information on types or subcategories of
metal-bearing wastes 'that are currently
amenable to varibus metals recovery
technologies. Preliminary discussions
with several commercial recovery
vendors appear to indicate that a wide
variety of metal-bearing wastes can be
technically .and economically recovered
with existing technologies. These
processes'typically involve various
combinations of pyro-, hydro- and/or
electro-metallurgical principles.
The Agency is currently investigating
mechanisms that could be used to
encourage the use of these processes as
alternatives to Stabilization and land
disposal. One potential mechanism is for
the Agency to revise the existing
concentration-based metal standards
based on stabilization to new
concentration-based standards based'on
the analysis of recovery residues, such
as those from high temperature metals,'
recovery (HTMR). The following section
of today's notice illustrates how this
might work for certain K061 wastes.
1. Potential Revisions to K061
Nonwastewaters in the Low Zinc
Subcategory that Contain High
' Chromium/Nickel
K061 wastes are defined in 40 CFR
261.32 as emission control dust/sludge
from the primary production of steel in
electric furnaces. While many of the
K061 wastes generated from the primary
, production, of steel are generally low in
chromium, KD61 wastes that specifically
are generated from the primary
production of stainless and specialty
steel typically are rich in chromium and
low in zinc (i.e., they are in the K061 low
zinc subcategory). This type of K061
waste is one of the easiest materials
from which to recover.chromium and
nickel by HTMR.
On April 12,1991, the Agency
published a notice of a proposed rule for
K061 wastes in the high zinc
subcategory'(SB FR15020). In this notice,
the Agency proposed concentration-
based treatment standards based on the
analysis of residues from HTMR
processes from which zinc was being
recovered. The Agency has preliminary
data and information on another high
temperature metals recovery (HTMR)
. process consisting of a rotary hearth
furnace followed by an electric furnace
that can recover chromium and nickel
from other K061 wastes (I.e., those in the
low zinc subcategory) as well as from a
variety of other hazardous wastes.
These other Wastes include: Kpe2:
(spent pickle liquorj,F008 (wastewater
treatment sludges from certain
electroplating'operations), and
characteristic wastes such as D002 acid
wastes and D007 chromium wastes.
These characteristic wastes typically
include wastes identified as pickling
solutions (acids), plating solutions,
batteries, catalysts, chrome-maghesite
refractories (i.e., bricks), spent chromic
acid, and other air pollution control
device (APCD.) baghouse dusts that are
similar to K061. In order to recover- .
chromium and nickel from these wastes,
the wastes typically must meet the
following specifications: A minimum of
1.5% (by weight) nickel and chromium,
in combination; a maximum of 0.03%
total phosphorus, 2.0% copper, 2.0%
sodium or potassium chlorides, 5.0%
sulfur (10% for lime neutralized and
precipitated solids), and 250 ppm total
cyanide; and a minimum of 20% solids
content with no free liquids.
The Agency is soliciting comment on
the potential for establishing
concentration-based treatment
standards based on the analysis of
residues from high temperature metals
recovery (HTMR) units recovering
chromium and nickel. At the time of this
notice, specific concentration-based
standards based on this process have
not been completely developed, but are
expected to be similar to those proposed
for K061 wastes in the high zinc
subcategory except for nickel and
chromium. (See discussion of high
chromium/high zinc K061 wastes in the
April 12,1991 proposed rule.) The
Agency is considering proposing such
standards for K061 wastes in the low
zinc subcategory (see the following
discussion on applicability to these K061
wastes) and solicits comment on
expanding the applicability of these
standards to the K062, F006, and
characteristic wastes meeting the
criteria described above.
For reasons outlined in the April 12,
1991 proposed rule, the concentration-
based treatment standards for K061
wastes in the high zinc subcategory
were proposed as applicable to 14
metals rather than to only those
currently regulated in the low zinc
subcategory. The Agency specifically is
soliciting information on the
applicability of these proposed
standards to K061 wastes in the low zinc
subcategory. The Agency also is
soliciting comment on whether these
levels also may be applicable to wastes
from HTMR of high chromium/nickel
K061 wastes, as well as other hazardous
wastes, such as F008 and K062, that may
be treated using these technologies
-------
Federal Register / ¥ot. 56, Mo. 104 / Thursday. May 30. 1991 / Proposed Roles 24455
(provided they meet the specifications
identified above).
2. Currently Available Capacity
- Information for KB8t Wastes
The American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI) estimated the total 1989
generation of KJD31, from Both stainless
and carbon steel production, to be
353,OQQ tons per year. According to AISI*
stainless steel accounts for IS percent of
tola! sleet production; therefore, 1989
high chromium KD61 generation is
approximately 67,000 fona per year. In
the Eirst third rule,, EPA usedtfeta from
the TSflR Survey to estimate the total
generatioD.of K061 to be 345,008 tons per
year. "Hie Agency assumed tnat 75
percent of the K061 volume is from
carbon steel. Thm. the remaining 25
perceftt was assnmed to be from
stainless steel production, which; yieMs
86,000 tons of 'tagh chrome K06I per
year; The Agency recently received an
estramle- &oat. an mdastry source
indicating t&at 199tt stamless steel K061
generation ranged from 8S,80ff to 86,000
tons. The Agency needs to confirm the
volume of 1^ ehreHmnm KBfB that is
generated' •
Indications are that most high
chromium Kfl6l pgtenfiaU? coold be
recycled to recover chroDoiaiH. The
Agency has received information that
chKxaiaBa recovery, can be achieved %
HTMRaadhvdiometaliurgical/ ,
electroesetallnsgical metals recovery.
One HTW facility is CHfieatly , ,
processing ygbehromiuBiKOei. and is
capable ofpsocesaing 52,000 tons per
yearv A hydieanetallurgzcal/
electroinetallurgical metals recovery/
facility^ which began operations in 1990,
may be. capable of processing 300 tons
of sta|nItBi|84&elKQJ§l Jjeryear.
r TKe Ag^ftby Be^ueSsjts 'cpqmients ,ori the
currenthigt c£rqffliurri1p)3i processing
capacity, and; oa'.fny gEysicali chemical,
or materials .handling constraints .;•' '
associated with high temerature or
recovery for Sni/wasiev
. '* '»". -'"••: - • - • • :- '- ' - ' ' .
3. Potential Generic Delisting Option for
BDATNomvastewaters Residues
EPA is considering the idea of a '
generic delating fiarKQSl wastes in the
low zinc subcategcwy f and possibly for :
FOBS and K962} that coatafe recoverable
compliance witkfeeatment standards, for
Msort^ eaoM be proposed as
ai -~
residues]
that occurs under the high temperature
and oxidation/reduction conditions
within the HTMR units is mherently
different from the bonding mat forms the
basis of cementitious and pozzolanic
stabilization. In addition, the kinetics of
the reaction forming the bonds in these
HTMR processes are superior to the
kinetics for bond formation.m
cementitious reactions. (Cement is not
typically, considered set for a minimum
of 72 hours, and often not considered
fully cured until after 2& 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: mat will enhance
curing time and/or structural integrity
(often measured by compressive
strength)..
While the Agency recognfzes some
advantages of HTMR recovery of
chromium and/or nickel over
stabilization, stabilization does provide
treatment for fee metal-bearing wastes
that must be land disposed and cannot
tee economically recovered. In fact,
should the Agency propose or
promulgate generic debating and new
treatment standards based on HTMR for
K061 wastes in the low zinc
subcategory, site-specific delisting still
would remain a viable option for
stabilized K06I wastes. However, due to
the inherent differences between HTMR
and stabilization stated above, and the
fact that rasufficient data currently
exists to propose a generic delisting for
stabilized wastes, generic delisting
levels for HTMR nonwasteiwater
residues would not appropriately bfe
applicable to stabilized K061 residues
that haye not undergone HTMR. More
uidMduaHzed consideration of
stabilization processes is warranted
before residues from the process .are
genericafly delrsfef.
Generic deHst&ig for these recovery
residues could encourage the nse- of .
HTMR as well aa other recovery
processes, fit addition, the Agency.
believes that HTMR and other recovery
processes, offes an advantage over
stabilization technologiea for. some , ,
metal-bearing wastes, with respect to
their re'sowree recovery and fee forge-
di^Fenees in ypfemes of treated waste»
that reqarre disposal versus fee
generation of deitsted, nonhazardous
washes, llie Agency Is .solftntfiig •
comment on afi facets of these fssnes.
W. Potential BOAX for Contaminated
De&rfs ,• :.,--: .-•...-,. - ' •' • •":
.„. , .xfebfiaaciiBatoifrMS «'
v residutesia:that the chemicalbite^ngJi -::.
available to the Agency on
contaminated debris, the status of
ongoing treatment evaluations, and the
approach and options that the Agency is
considering for establishing revised
treatment standards for contaminated
debris. (Today's notice does not involve
contaminated soil, A discussion of data
and the Agency's approach to develop
treatment standards for contaminated
soil will be addressed in a forthcoming
advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking.)
Commenters submitting treatment
performance data should include a
description of the contaminated debris,
complete chemical and physical
analysis of the wastes and treatment
residuals, and technical descriptions of
the treatment method or management
practice (mdudmg optimum operating
conditions). Those planning new tests
with the intent of submiteng data to
EPA are urged to communicate with
EPA before tes&Jg.to confirm that the
data developed will meet EPA's QA/QC
requirements.
The Agency also is- soliciting
information on the costs associated with
treatment of contaminated1 debris in
order to prepare me regulatory impact
analysis. Of interest are technical
reports on any of the treatment
technologies1, wife particular emphasis
'on treatment efficiencies* end
concentrations reached and their
dependence on untreated
concentrations-, and costs for set op and
operation of the treatment technology.
A. Relationship of Today's Notice to
EPA's "ContaminatedMedia Ouster"
As this notfee goes to press, fee
Agency his- begun a broader
consideration of .contaminated media -
issues that wffi have sonie influence on
the issues raised herei In order to
improve the overall quaKty of its
regulatory decision maiding; the Agency
has begun to look at groups or clusters
of regulations HI order1 to develop-more
integrated approaches to various'
environmental problems. One of these
regulatory dusters, the "contaminated
media claateF", is designed to develop a
more integrated Agency approach for if s
policies and regulations dealing with its
wasfe remediation programs. Over the
next several months, the contaminated
media cluster project will gather
information to develop s comprehensive
yiewof the qnantaties and types of
waste needing remediation, the types of
risks they represent, the current
statutory araJ regul»to?y framework,
elements of an effective cleanup. >
cleanup. The culmmatioro of ftatworft ''
-------
24450
.Federal-Register / !Vol. 5.6,-No. ;IC£ ;/,,,3&ursdlay, .Majc;30,!tl991, fa$tJ
will be a regulatory strategy that will ,
include^ set of objectives and operating
principles for the Agency's remediation
programs; The land disposal restrictions
(LDR) regulatory effort and the
resolution-of issues on contaminated .
debris will be closely coordinated with
the regulatory cluster on contaminated
media.
B. Applicability of Existing Land
Disposal Restriction Treatment
Standards and Superfund 6A and 68
Guides
In promulgating LDRs, including
treatment standards for solvents and
dioxins, California list wastes, and the
First, Second, and ThirdJThird wastes,
the Agency regulated debris
contaminated with these restricted
wastes. The land disposal restrictions in
40 CFR part 268 thus generally apply to
contaminated debris, including such
debris generated from corrective actions
and closures atRCRA-regulated land
disposal sites, remedial and removal
actions at CERCLA (Superfund) sites, ,
and private-party cleanups.
Under the Agency's "contained-in"
policy, contaminated media (i.e., debris,
soil, groundwater, sediments] that
contain RCRA wastes must be managed
as if they were hazardous waste until
the media no longer contain the
hazardous waste (Le., until
decontaminated) or until they are
delistcd. To date,- the Agency has not •
issued any definitive guidance as to
when, or at what levels, environmental
media contaminated with hazardous
waste no longer contain the hazardous
waste. Until such guidance is issued, the
Regions or authorized States may
determine these levels on a case-specific
basis. The Agency also suggests that
when making a determination as to
when contaminated media no longer
contains a hazardous waste that a risk
assessment approach be used that
addresses the public health and
environmental impacts of the hazardous
constituents remaining.
The Agency has determined, however,
that contaminated debris generally is
more difficult to treat than RCRA
industrial wastes. Special treatability
variance procedures were established
for contaminated debris based on the
available treatment data that existed at
the time. These data were used to
develop interim guidance treatment
levels (Superfund LDR Guides #BA and
#6B, i.e., OSWER Directives 9347.3-06FS
and 9347.3-07FS, respectively) for
assessing these treatability variances.
(Copies of the 6A and 6B guides can be
obtained by calling the RCRA Hotline at
1-800-424-9346.)
C. Development, of Potential Regulator^:-
Definitions far Debris^ I •:r-~-M:',,>,'.','t hro
The Agency has previously:de^eloped'
definitions for debris that setye as !,,''; •
guides in applying the tre'atmenf ^ "r,' ^
standards. TJie Agency noW iff'-y • ^'*.'.''.
corisidering and requesting comment Pn'..
whether regulatory definitions ft^debris,
and contaminated debris are necessary •
or could provide a means of sijnph^iri'g"^
the implementation of treaiijdaeffltt.', _ ' '•',
standards. *rhese definitjoiis'ctiuld be 'f,
placed either in'4d CFR26Q.1P for '
general application, or in 40 CFR 368.2
for application only to.ttie fend disposal'
restrictions. The Agency nas developed
preliminary regulatory definitions for
debris arid contaminated debris that are
.given below. (The presentation?of jhese
suggested definitions in today's'notice .,
should riot be construed as replacing, . ,
definitions that appear in other ,v, :
regulatory form.) . , ; , f>;
Debris means solid material that {!) Has:
been originally manufactured or processed!,
except for solids that are listed .wastes or can
be identified as being residues from
treatment of wastes and/or wasteVaters, or
air pollution control devices; or (2) is plant',
and anim&l,matter; or (3) is'natural geoIogteH
material exceeoing s 9.5 mmsieve Size : ;' '
including gravel, cobbles, 'and boulders (sizes'•
. as classified by the U.S. Soil Gonservation
Service), or is a mixture of such materials
with soil or solid waste materials, such as -
liquids or sludges, and is inseparable by - •
simple mechanical removal processes.,
Contaminated Debris means debris which
contains RCRA hazardous waste(s) listed in
40 CFR part 261, subpart D, or debris which
otherwise exhibits one or more
characteristics of a hazardous waste (as a
result of contamination) as defined in 40 CFR
part 261, subpart C.
When soil is agglomerated on debris
or compacted/contained inside the
nooks and crannies of crumpled debris,
it is difficult to separate; this soil
typically is separated during the
treatment of the debris, however, and
may require additional treatment,
depending on the process utilized for the
treatment of the debris. Any separated
soil will be subject to treatment.
standards for soil.
D. Potential Regulatory Structure for
Treatment Standards
Existing treatment standards for most
RCRA hazardous wastes are presented
on a waste code-basis as leachate
concentrations hi 40 CFR 268.41, as
specified treatment methods hi 40 CFR
268.42, and as total constituent
concentrations hi 40 CFR 268,43. As a
result, any revised treatment standards
for contaminated debris might logically
fall under these regulations, However,
the Agensy may consider placing new
treatment ,
debris in a new regulato|y/8fibtibfcpr-.T','
appendix 'y
CIA^S vj-^ivii^ */yv»v/«Ji*«jyj u.ji»I»iy».«.w*>*I^«*^»-*'
Primary.^^0^^jM ,.
.completeseparation WpplpJoglcaHy,
result in nonhazardous debris. • •
difficulties can arise-in. a
complete, sepaprationj^f
construction of jrejiunen
debris, thuSf-niay not guaraiuiBe a , ,-r^ ^,
nonhazardous defcrj?,;but^^ca^proyide^;;.-
compliance wjth i&.*$$&$ &?$$£$$$'•
to treat all^.Jiiazardous^^waste7 pipior;jtdi ,£i:i
lan(J disposal in away ttatrsjlgruficantly;
reduces waste toxicity arid mobility; The
rema)nkg detria would Jh^be /
considered treated and could be
disposed^;,'•y;;.;.-,u•;,••..;>; .,:,•,. r',;;.;'.i
Residues derived ffontthe^sepai
of the hazardous waste from the-':
contaminated diebris:(eXde|it for. "-; -• i
separated .SPil residues) cduldlogicaUy
carry the Waste cdd6 of codes bf the <• i-'
waste brigmally contaminatuig thfe -
debris. In an effort to simplify the ! ''
'treatment standards, however, the •
Agency is considering establishing a few
new waste codes'specifieally'fbr the
residues from the treatment of debris, . ' •
A similar situation arose for rriulti- ''•".
source leachate which, theoretically,
could be derived from any combin'ation
of waste codes. As a regulatory^ solution,
the Agency created a new listing for
multi-source leachate identified as F039
and established treatment standards for
approximately 200 constituents for F039.
EPA thus is considering four
categories of standards for both.
contaminated soil and debris: (1) Those
for the treated soils; (2) those for the
treated debris; (3) those for the
nonwastewater residues derived from
the treatment of contaminated soil and .
debris (i.e., residues that are neither soil
or debris); and (4) those for wastewater
residues derived from, the treatment of .
contaminated soil and debris. (The
regulatory structure being considered for
contaminated soils will be discussed in
a forthcoming advance notice of '
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).) The
regulatory structure-being considered for
the treated debris will be discussed later
in this section. • .' /.
-------
. Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30. 1991 / Proposed Rules 24457
ff
Depending upon the separation
process that is applied to the
: contaminated debris, non-debris
honwastewater residues from the
separation process may need further
treatment. (For example, solvent
extraction of a debris material will
' probably resmlt hi a solvent residue that
. contains the hazardous organics
, Constituents!) The matrix of these ,
residues should tie h^ss complex than
that jpf contaminated debris, and could
- be ddraprised pf any of the BDAT.
constituents over a range of
concentratipns. Since the separated
materials are actually derived from the
hazardous waste that originally was
contaminating the debris, one option for
deyelophig treatment standards for
these residues would be to simply apply
the^xisting applicable treatment
standard tot that hazardous waste code
' (if identifiable). One, other jb'ption is to
establish one.setpf cqncentration-lbased
treatrnpnt jst&ftdards.jfor such residues
,(as introduced^iiiitheiaBove^discussipn
on the appiipabuity of F039 st'andardSjr
In a similiar manrier, the wastewaters
that result frlo'm the decbntarainatiori of
debris also may haveto be treated
before they can be^land disposed. It is
>. - . *. • a- i-.i-' »>' --.i ».. •-.-' i "--.'• - '.- .* •••.-.- . ' •
' wastgwateri'Sre Significantly less '
C—'iftfficiiat' Jfrireaithan the ctintammated.
f- debrife and niay be treatable to :;
,concenb:aflt>hiB8inulartpthe "
wasfeWWer1^eatmeh1;staridards for
••. -• F03ffAAigfiui, a transfer of the treatment
standards fo1rF03&(iexciept this time, the
.wastewatef standards) for the
'•;"• wastewaters from treating debris could
X.te appropriate because these.
^aSteWaters^ouId contain: ainy of the
regafatedBDAT constituents.1
Baaed on the technical theory behind
•:••< "the development of the treatment
. standards for multi-source leachate '
, (F039) and the U and P chemicals, one
"• ; setof wastewater and one set of : •
; nonwastewater standards are also a
,„ 4eri8jB.(»;
-------
24158
R^gisler / VoL 56. No- lff|..-/.-;gturs,aay. ftby*p."1991
abateaeni techniques,
macroBDcapsulation, chemical sealing
(e.g., K-20 sealant}, andpozEolffituc
stabilization. -
Immobilizaticti technologies may
materials by crushing or grinding. The,
Agency is investigating the following
with respect to grinding: The existence
and capabilities of machinery for
crashing-and grinding; limitations that
potentially could be established for
these operations; limitations on feed
composition of the debris materials {i.e.,
by debris types); and potential for air
emissions (including dust, metals, and
volatile organics) and/or controls that
may be required. In addition, the
Agency is investigating the need for
limitations on waste/binder ratios for
stabilizing debris.
2. Options for Contaminated Debris
Treatment Standards
Establishing the use of specific
technologies as the treatment standards
for contaminated debris under 40 GFR
2B8.42 would appear lo solve the major
issues in sampling and analysis of
treated debris by eliminating the need
for constituent specific analysis of the
treated debris. The Agency is requesting
comment on the following definitions for,
treatment standards that the Agency is
considering to establish for
contaminated debris: /
DSTnCfDestructioa} means compliance
with the requirements of chemical oxidation
(CHOXD), chemical reduction [CHRED),
blodcgradation (BIODG) or incineration
(INC1N) Identified in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1;
or the uoo of an equivalent destruction
technology thtt provides sufficient agitation,
temperature, and exposure time that a
surrogate compound or indicator parameter
hns been substantially reduced in
concentration (e.g., Total Organic Carbon can
often be used as an Indicator parameter for
destruction of many organic constituents that
cannot ba directly analyzed).
EXTRC (Extraction} means the use of an
extraction technology (such as acid washing,
liquid-phase solvent extraction, abrasive
blasting, drilling and spoiling, scarification
and grinding, water washing and spray, etc.)
with sufficient agitation, temperature,
partitioning, exposure time, and/or
appropriate solvent/chemical such that the
majority of'RCRA hazardous contaminants
have been significantly reduced in
concentration from the surface or pores of the
material
IMMBL (Immobilization) means the use of
an immobilization technology (such as
macrocncnpsulalion, stabilization and
solidification, sealing, etc.) with sufficient
curing time, and appropriate chemicals such
that the mobility of a majority of RCRA
hazardous contaminants has been
significantly reduced.
These standards would appear in 40
CFR 203.42 Table 1* As discussed at the
introduction; of this eeetion of',
the contamnwra in the debris, Ifce
regulated, community woald&tea .select
recommended technologies.from ^a
guidance manual or an appendix tyet to
be developed} based oh contarhiRcnt '
type, debris type, ted technology. Tfce
key to the use of the*pe(Mc*eehnology
is built into the definitions of the three
standards of EXTRC, DSTRC, «aM
IMMBL. The selection •>'•.•;•;.,.•:.,•
compounds, in conjunction wife/Jfiese-fif
the other inorganics in the brick, form .
the -technical basis of. feejTefracsteiy , '-,.'.;
brick's structural andtheimai ;,-s ••-..&*.
properties.)J3ue to,4he high . -,•,..,, .--> ,v
concentration of me-tajis^sqiae -brick ;,
contain up to 40% .chromium), it may not
be possible to toeatiheseimaterialsto .
nonhazardouslevels without adding*
tremendous araqunt:pf,stabjlizanoii' • •-, :
reagents. tEPA is soliciting data «n this „
type of waste mat are curreatiy -
available on the sequential addition «>f
stabilization reagents that might
indicate an appropriate uut-oSf point for
addition of reagents such that a
significant reduction in leachatnlity of •
metals, could be assured. See also -"
section ELK. of today's notice discussing
high temperature thermal recovery of
chromium as a potentialvoption for
establishing treatment standards for
metal-bearing wastes of this type.
The Agency is considering several
options for dealing with contaminated
debris mat are also hazardous due to
their inherent metallic content. One
alternative is to perform an appropriate
extraction of the •constituents and
wastes that are contaminating the '
debris and then either macroencapsulate
the remaining debris before land- ; '
disposal or consider the debris treated
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules 24459
fox1 purposes of the land disposal •
restrictions. Another alternative is to
require that certain types of treated
debris, e.g,j lead pipe or chrome-plated
fixtures, be recycled as scrap metal. The
Agency is requesting comment on these
approaches and on other approaches
that may arise due to other types of
debris materials captured hi the
hazardous waste management
operations because of their inherent
content. '..'..
F. Analysis of Capacity Data for Debris
EPA needs to determine the volume of
debris contaminated with newly listed
and identified wastes that currently are
land disposed, in order to assess
whether adequate alternative treatment
capacity exists to treat these wastes.
The Agency has already set LDR
effective dates for debris contaminated
with solvents and dioxin, wastes,
California list wastes, and First Third, ,
Second Third, and Third Third wastes.
However, the Agency; will have to
collect and evaluate all data on
contaminated debris because EPA's
Qurf ent information is limited.' '
A- comprehensive d&ta base' on the
generation volumes and: characteristics
of contaminated debris, and the
capacity of treatment technologies is
important for the i bllowmg reasons: To
determine the volumes of debris •
contaminated with newly listed and •
identified .waste's that may require
alternative treatment; to assess the
available. capacity of treatment
technologies suitable for debris .•_.'•>
contaminated with these wastes; and to
identif&theitotal volume of affected
contaminated debris, which may include
debris contaminated with regulated-:
wastes in addition to newly listed and
identified^ wastes. ,L • .
Given current dettnMohs, a wide '•'.':'
• range of products, materials, and items
can constitute debris; Contaminated
debrisiis generated; at hazardous waste
. site remedial actions, However, ,the- '•_.-•••
imiver§e:ofcontanHHated debris is !
broader than that of contaminated soil,
in>jjjaj geferis is generated bymaxiy
indusjries: andythrough many typjes of- :
contaminated debris, jianiedclassified :
tatb three broad categories!.,.: :
(1) Debris from remedial fictions (e.g.,
Superfurtd sites, RG§A.porrec,tiVe"' .
•action.sj;.>r •>•? .,-,- i^fy u ;,« x.\ ;f--~,:-.'-.->i '-.";
(2) RQU|5njeJx|generaJejd, debris, (e.g,,
refractory ,bric!KsJ: discarded'drums ;and . •
containers); and ,«!i'-"rnj!:>f=;- fi^ys -.* ' •:•.••.
(3) sporadically-generated debris (e.g.,
* "-^" "-''•
demolition of builoMpP*
'
a ted debris
ly to.be
generated at sites other than those
where remedial actions are undertaken.
Therefore, data available on these sites
(e.g;, Superfund RODs, RFIs and RFAs)
may be of limited use. EPA requests
data from any source generating debris
that may meet the definitions of
contaminated debris.
Data on the generation and
management of contaminated debris are
generally scarce. In comments to the
Third Third proposed rule (54 FR 48372),
six commenters submitted data on the
generation of contaminated debris from
sources other than remedial actions.
Specifically, Chemical Waste
Management submitted a list of debris
wastes it had received and found
unsuitable for stabilization. Other
reports listing various types of debris
are available; however, no volume data
are included hi these reports other than
data from debris at Superfund sites.
The National Survey of Treatment
Storage and Recycling Facilities (TSDR
Survey) and the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators
(Generator Survey) contain data on the
volumes of contaminated debris
reported at RCRA facilities. However,
these data are generally incomplete and
-have limited, applicability.
The number and types of allowable
management practices specified for .
contaminated debris will add
complexity to the Agency's capacity
analysis for contaminated debris. The
Agency will be developing a method for
measuring the available capacity for
such treatment technology groups as
destruction, extraction, and
immobilization which may be used as
general treatment standards for
. contaminated debris.
For previous capacity- analyses, the
Agency has examined full-scale,
commercially available technologies.
For contaminated, debris, however, there
are several innovative.technologies
being developed that are under'Agency
review. In particular, Superfund's
ongoing Si IK program has developed a
number of technologies specifically
designed for the treatment of
contaminated debris. The Agency
requests information on the availability
and technical constraints of innovative
• technologies that can treat
contaminated debris.
The Agency :plan£. to consider
contaminated debris from various
sources other than remedial action sites.
The Agency is, currently identifying the •
various items that may meet the;
definition of debris and the industries . ,
. and processes by which these items are
generated. The; volumes affected and the
treatment technologies for these debris'-
will determine the extent of the need for
alternative treatment for contaminated
debris. Thus, the Agency is requesting
data on the volumes of routinely
generated debris and sporadically-
generated debris.
While the Agency plans to focus its
capacity analysis of contaminated
debris on volumes generated outside of
remedial actions, readily available data
from Superfund RODs were examined to
characterize the Volumes of
contaminated debris from Superfund
sites that may require treatment under
the LDRs. The faculties reviewed
included both Fund Lead remedial
actions and Private Party Lead remedial
actions. A significant number of RODs
did not distinguish volumes of
contaminated soil from contaminated
debris. In addition, in recommending
remedial technologies, RODs rarely
indicated the relative quantities of
contaminated debris that would be
assigned to each technology. These data
indicate that a high percentage of the
total contaminated debris volume
reported at Superfund sites is generated
by relatively few facilities. If the
majority of contaminated debris remains
within the area of contamination, the
LDRs may not be triggered.
The total volume of contaminated
debris reported at Superfund sites for
which RODs were signed in 1988 and
1989 is approximately 280,000 tons. This
volume is likely to underestimate the
total volume of contaminated debris
generated at these sites. The Agency
requests comments on this analysis. The
Agency also requests data on •
contaminated debris subject to
remediation at Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action sites including data
on the actual volume of contaminated
debris at each site; current and planned
treatment technologies for contaminated
debris; and the starting date and
projected duration of cleanup actions
involving contaminated debris.
V. Potential BOAT for Specific F, K, and
U Listed Wastes Promulgated After 1984
EPA has promulgated a number of ;
hazardous waste listings under 40 CFR
•261.31, .32, and .33 since the enactment
of HSWA in 1984. This section of
today's notice describes the treatment
and/or recycling technologies that have
been identified for preliminary:
consideration as BOAT for twenty of
these listings. The Agency also identifies
potential transfers of existing treatment
standards and provides preliminary
capacity information that currently is
available for these wastes. The Agency
emphasizes that these determinations
are preliminary in nature, and that any
data submitted will be carefully
-------
'^^sm.y,,j^y'^o^9\j^^M^^^^^
examinodin preparing any.proposed
BOAT.
This section does not describe EPA's
activities for all wastes that have been
promulgated since 1984. A forthcoming
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
•will describe EPA's activities for t>ther
newly identified and newly listed
•vvastes including: Those recently listed
under the TC rule (DD18-D043);
characteristic wastes ftorn milling and
mineral processing: spent potliners from
aluminum manufacturing (K088); and
listed wastes from wood preserving
(F032, F034, and F035). Several wastes
from coking operations and
chlorotoluene production that currently
are being considered for proposal as
hazardous also may be addressed in this
forthcoming notice.
A Additional Organic U Wastes
This section addresses ihe
investigation of BDAT and capacity for
three specific wastes listed under 40
CFR 261,33 since November, 1984. These
are Identified with alphanumeric waste
codes that start with a "IT.
1. Ortho-tolttidin« and Para-toluidine
(U328andU35S)
Ortho-toluidine and para-toluidine,
which when discarded become U328 .
and U353. are-manufactured from
processes similar to those
manufacturing dinitrotoluene and
toluencdiamine. US28 and U353, thus,
may be similar to wastes identified as
Kill and K112. The textiles industry
and the dyes and pigments industry
generate o-toluidine and p-toluidine as
intermediates and reagents for printing
textiles and making colors fast to acids
in the dyeing process. Both compounds
also are components in ion exchange
column preparation, used as
antioxidants in rubber manufacturing,
and used as lab reagents in medical
glucose analyses.
EPA is considering regulating U328
and U353 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters by setting methods of
treatment as standards. These methods
of treatment appear to be the most
appropriate type of treatment standard
for these wastes, because the organic
compounds for which the wastes are
listed are considered to be relatively
unstable in water and difficult to
quantify. In addition, these two organic
compounds resemble other organic
compounds, namely 4-chloro-o-toluidine
(U049) and o-toluidine hydrcchloride•
(U222) for which similar standards have
been promulgated.
The Agency, therefore, is considering
the possibility of specifying incineration ;
or thermal destruction as required
methods of treatment for the
nonwaiBtewater forma of ifaese wastes;
and cbenucal oxidation €&HoweaVby ,
either biological treatment or carbon
adsorption for the wastewater forms of
these wastes. {While not« primary
technology for wastewaters,
incineration could be proposed as ah
alternative method of treatmentfor ,
wastewaters.) Because these ' -'•
compounds may be considered to be
relatively unstable in water, consistent'
quantification of o-tolnidine andp-
toluidine in raw wastes -and treated
residuals may preclude the development
of a concentration-based standard for
these wastes, I.B., fee alternative to
specifying methods of treatment.
EPA solicits detailed comment aboiit:
The compositions of these U waste
streams, including both organic and
possible inorganic components, the need
for a dual set-of treatment standards (I.e.
methods of treatment ior organic
constituents and concentrafion-tiased
standards for metals, if present),
performance data demonstrating the
treatability of these waste •streams or
similar waste streams by thermal,
biological or other treateent processes,
and analytical complications '
encountered or anticipated in
quantifying constituents In these wastes.
2. 2-Ethoxyelhanol JU359)
Since 2-ethoXyethanol is used in the
printing, organic chemical
manufacturing, and leather/tanning
industries, it is Jikely that these
industries may be generators of U399
wastes. It is used by these industries 3a
various removers, cleansing solutions,
and dye baths, -as well as a solvent for
inks, duplicating fluids, Tutrocelhilose,
lacquers and other substances, and also
is a chemical intermediate In 2-
ethoxyacetate manufacturing. EPA
anticipates that U359 is typically "bo-
treated and co-disposed with FOOS
solvent wastes that are listed for 2-
ethoxyeflianol.
EPA is considering regulating U359
wastes by specifying incineration or
thermal destruction for U359
nonwastewaters, and chemical
oxidation followed by either biological
treatment or carbon adsorption for U359
wastewaters. This is primarily because
2-ethoxyethanol is relatively \instable in
water and thus particularly difficult to
quantify. In the absence of an SW-8W
method demonstrated to -quantify 2-
ethoxyethanol in complex waste
matrices, methods of treatment
standards are arguable more
appropriate than concentration-based
standards.
Since F005 wastes that are listed for 2-
ethoxyethanol are expected to be
similar to U359, the Agency also is
considering esta
comment on any ^ef^
in treatabllity ofFOOS wastes tmd'13359,.
anE whether the standards Already -"""> !
established f or Foos {2-ethoxyethanbl}
are appfopriate for U359. ; • !
EPA solicits detailed comment about: ,
The compositioniof these waste' streams,
including both organic and possible
inorganic components, the need for a
dual set of treatment standards (i,a,
methods of treatment Jor organic - (
constituents and concentration-based
standards Ibr metals. If present), "
performance data demonstrating fhe ,-
treatability of these or similar waste
streams by thermal, biological orother.
treatment processes, and analytical , •
complications «ncounterf
-------
Federal Regiatei / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday. May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules 24461
compilation of data submitted by
members of the regulated* community fii
response to BPA'sFebniarjF 11,. :t985,
Notice of Qata ATOilabasty |5»BK 563?}.
ThuBtrtkes data; set consists of veaste
characterization date coUeeted by EPA
andcontainedman April 131, 1985,
Notice oi Data Availability £53 FES;
12182).
The majpE% of the indastey-
subraitted data- did nol contain enough
aite-apeeifiii information to, determine
whether each sludge; woald be elaasified
as. either F037 or F03S. Therefore, these
data were combined and viewed by EPA
as waste characteimzation data foe a
combiBatiofi of FOX7/F038 sludger The
characterization data generated by the.
Agency were stunmarizsd in & final
report entitled "Summary of Data and
Eiigineerins Analysis Performed fox
PetioIeuniEgfuiingWiaatewater
Treatment Sludges* Final Report." [Tnia
document fs available in the RCRA
docket for the April 13, 1985. Notice of
Data A^a&ffify |5S PR 12182J .J Facility
site-spreciiicriiiruniiation, such aa .
schematics of tfe waste treatment unite,
WETS pro vMsd fn this report. Using this
information, each F03? and ¥038 sludge.
sample' w
cfiaracferizatf on
datais-tabnla^ed'andcfoctiilienteQ*.
. The t*araciteifeefioii data for PoaT"
andlFB38 indicate that the waste* have
not been tested for Several organic
constituents- that are typieaBy present in-
K048 and KOSt {eg, aeenapbthene and
anthracene). BPAie^Besfa, additional ••
characterization; data for alt organic
constituents present in F037 and F03&
Since F&37 and; F03S are generated by
the p«fe|ffl!ie^aBag|HdH8tEjf, and are
generated, by nnits &imilaEin design and
purpose to API separators and BAF •
float uj^geeeRrf^ |£G48 and Kfl&li att
of the applicable and demonstrated;
techaojegiea fQrKSMta.andKOSl wastes
presumabljf would be applicable tek F037
the feasibility of traaafeiring existing
performance data for K048 and IC051 to
these wastes- fmord'c^twdevetop" • '-
treatment standarda. These was tea not
only cor^^omsjjiaiar Waste generation
, opera tfons^ bait ih«.jf result feom similar
i.L .•
KQ^SaMKiKl/ahdKe thualil£ry to be
' "
. exnticffont^e^^ dfeaori>tipn> and
• mctoer^^g^^qi^4rA"i*fpu^ate , , .
,jtreatment sfand'arb's Jpr OEgfitnica in the
nonwastewater forma of K04S through.
K052. For the nonwastewater metals in
those wastes. BDAT was determined to
be stabilization. These technologies
fikely would be considered BDAT.for
F037 and FQ38 nonwastewaters^
Treatment standards forK04Sand
K051 wastewaterorganfcs are based on
uicmerator scrubber water data.
However, for the reasons stated earlier,
the Agency is requesting1 comments' on
the transferabifity of multf-souree
leacfeate wastewater performance data
to F037 and F038. See also the
discussion of potential universal
treatment standards and the conversion
of wastewater treatment standards
based on scrubber waters in section
IILA. and B. of today's notice,.
respectively. EPA specifically requests
comments documenting, the treatment of
organics in wastewater forms of F037
and FQ3S by biological tteatment, carbon
adsorption, PACT keatment, and wet air
oxidation., Based on the multi-source
leachate data available on the
constituents known to be present in
F037 and F03S wastewaters^ biological
treatment would presumabty be able to
treat the organics potentfaHy. present in
F037 and FQ38. For metals rn wastewater
forms ofK(m through KBSZ^ BDAT was
determined to 6e chemfcaf precipitatfon
with lime and sufflsfe folfowed by
vacuum1 filtration.
In establishing BDAT for F037 and
F03S, EPA will be evaluating data and
information on the potential impact era
the performance of a given treatment
technology daeto expected variations in
the chemical and physical composition
of F037 and F038 wastes. The waste
characteristics being examined include
oil and grease1 eontent, heat content
(BTU/poandJ, fetal suspended soEdsv
total dissolved solids, total organic
carbon, pH, fluorides* sulfides,
chlorides, water content, and the
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents. Commenters submitting
data on the effects, of these parameters
shbuTd ciearry; indicate the technologies
used, ftp desTgnandoBeratfon
paramefer* twed to actramit for these
constituents, and waste-cbaracterizatfori
data for bo«b untreated or treated
wastes.
3. Currently Available Capacity
Information
Availabte data tm &e qjiantities o£
F037 and FOSSare defived froni the
Petroleum Refinery Data Base (jPRDB}
that was compiled fr,oia. industry
respoHseata a RCRA Section 38Q7
request for informationuTais database
contains, unit proeeaaea^waatewater
treatmeiit, aad waste ggneratkra. data >
from 1383,. For 18S. of the 220 peiioleum
refineries listed in the 1984 Oil and Gaa
Journal Refining Survey. EPA has
information that 204 refineries were
operating at the beginning of 1989; of
this total,, EPA estimates that 149 of the
refineries accounted for in the PRDB are-
expected to generate F037 and F033.
This data base, however, provides
limited information on management
practices.
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA> for the final F037 and FQ3& listing,
the Agency estimated that 4O to 75
percent of the refineries that generate
nan-K048 and non-K051 primary
wastewater treatment sludge will be
affected by the new listing, and that the
remaining refineries will be affected by
the Toxfclty Characteristie fFCJ final
rule (55 FR 11798). From the PRDBr the
Agency estimated that approximately
450,000 tons of n
-------
24462
Federal Register,/ VpL. 56, No.
quantities of newly identified F037 and
F038 sludge that will be handled in this
way is unclear, as is the amount of
treatment capacity that will be required
by the additional quantities of K048 and
K051, which were not accounted for
previously.
5. Additional Capacity Issues
EPA estimated the average water
content of the F037 and F038 sludges as
generated to be 82 percent based on the *
water content of DAF sludges. Because
of their high water content these wastes
could be dewatered, which would result
in significantly lower volumes requiring
treatment. Some of the added
dcwatoring capacity for K048-K052 also
may be available for F037 and F038
wastes. Preliminary estimates suggest
that standard filter presses can reduce
water content to 50 to 60 percent
Additional thermal drying could reduce
water content to as little as 4 percent.
The extent of dewatering can
significantly effect the volumes of F037
and F038 sludges requiring treatment
For example, if EPA assumes the RIA
estimated generation volumes for F037
and F03B sludges and further assumes
dewatering to a 50 percent water
content, the quantities of newly
regulated sludges annually requiring on-
site and off-site treatment could be
reduced to a range of 104,000 to 201,000
tons. EPA needs updated data on the
volumes of these sludges both as
generated and after dewatering in order
to conduct its capacity analysis.
In addition to the quantities of sludge
generated annually, a number of
refineries have accumulated large
quantities of primary wastewater
treatment sludge hi surface
Impoundments. If after the effective date
of the F037 and F038 listing the
accumulated sludge is removed from the
aurface impoundments and re-managed
by land disposal, it will be subject to
regulation as hazardous waste and also
subject to the pertinent LDRs after the
treatment standards become effective.
The Agency estimated in the RIA that
about 474,000 tons (based on a water
content of 55 percent for sludge
sediments accumulated in
impoundments) were accumulated in
surface impoundments. The quantity of
accumulated sludge that will be re-
managed by land disposal is uncertain.
Further analyses on timing of surface
impoundment closures are needed to
determine the impact on treatment
capacity.
In response to the LDRs for K048 and
K051, EPA has been advised that
refineries are seeking additional waste
treatment alternatives. However, it is
unclear whether refineries have planned
far enpugh in advance to develop' '.'.,'.'
sufficient capacity ip.account jfcr F037
and F038 wastes as 'well (which may ;
have the same BOAT as K048 andIK051).
Furthermore, EPA does not know
whether this increased demand for
capacity will be available on-site, off- ,
site, at captive facilities, or how much of
it will be for combustion as opposed to
solvent extraction and high-temperature
thermal distillation. EPA anticipates,
however, that facilities whose industrial
furnaces and boilers comply with the
new provisions finalized in the Federal .
Register in the Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces (BJE) Rule, 55 FR 7134
(February 21,1991), also will be able to
provide treatment capacity totoeat these
wastes.
F037 and F038 wastes are generated in
units similar to those that generate K048
and K051. Therefore, the treatment
technologies specified for K048 and K051
would probably be applicable to F037 '
and F038. EPA requests comments, on
the issues raised in this discussion.
Specifically, the Agency requests data
on the volumes of F037, F038, K048. and
K051 that are being generated and will
be generated in the future; the volumes
of F037 and F038 which exhibit the TC;
the average water content of these '
wastes as generated and as managed;
on-site available or planned de-watering
capacity; the current and planned
management practices for these wastes;
and the accumulated volumes of F037
and F038 in surface impoundments as
well as the management plans for these
sludges.
C. Wastes front the Production of
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
(K107, K108, K109, and K110)
Four wastes generated in the
production of l.ldimethylhydrazine
(UDMH) salts from carboxylic acid
hydrazides were listed as hazardous on
May 2,1990 (55 FR 18496). For a detailed
description of wastes K107 through
KllO, refer to the final rule listing these
wastes as hazardous.
The Agency also proposed to list two
additional wastes, K137 and K138,
generated in the production of 1,1-
dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) salts from
carboxylic acid hydrazides as
hazardous on May 2,1990 (55 FR 18507).
These two additional wastes were
proposed for listing on the basis of
comments received hi response to the
proposed listings of K107-K110 (49 FR
49556). For a detailed description of
K137 and K138, refer to the Federal
Register notice proposing to list these
wastes as hazardous (55 FR 18507).
EPA is co
for wastes fi-ont the prod&ction'of
UDMH by setting methods of treathtent
as the standard'consistent with the?' ^
Third Third final rule decision toV" " ?-
regulate U098, l.l-diffiethyHiydrazinel*
This decision established incineratioh
as the method for iionWastew&tef foims
of U098, and incineration dip cheinical "
oxidation with carbon adsbrptioii for fee
wastewater fornibf UO&8.TreaBnenf ;"-'•'
methods may be appjop'riate standards
for these wastes becadse information /:
developed in the Third Third irulemaking
(available in the fhifd Third. BDAT \;
Background Document for U and P 2'
Wastes andMulti-soufce.Lelchate,; ; '"'
Volume B) s\iggest8that i.i- ;, ' , ;
dimemylhydraziite, a^incijsaibrganic ~.
component of these wastes, ifftinstMjJfr '
in water and, thus, partibularljr difficvilt^
to quantify."- .^"^'-'i''^ '•: i['.^,'',''^\
However, EPA also, is.cpnsidering.'
setting cpncentration-based .standards, ^
for UDMH wastewater and- . •.'.,. TV
'non waste water streams if they .turn out .
to contain significantcbpqenbations o£.
other organic compqiientpi that are"".,
analyzable and can act,as surrogates for
the dimethylhydrazine compounds by
virtue of being more difficult to treat.
In addition to comments evaluating
these possible regulatory options, EPA
solicits information and comment.
regarding: The compositions of these '•
waste streams, including both organic
and possible inorganic components;, the
need for a dual set of treatment
standards (i.e. methods of treatment for
organic constituents and concentration-
based standards for metals, if present);
performance data demonstrating the
treatability of these or similar waste
streams by thermal, biological or othet
treatment processes; and analytical . •
complications encountered or
anticipated in quantifying constituents
of these wastes. EPA will incorporate
these data into any proposal to establish
BDAT for these, wastes.
2, Currently Available Capacity Data
Data available to the Agency suggest
that these wastes are no longer being
generated (see 55 FR 18496, May 2,
1990). Wastes K107-KHO and K137-K138
are generated when UDMH is produced
using a specific production process.
However, the only manufacturer using
this process reportedly is not producing
UDMH, as of May, 1990. EPA requests
additional information on whether any
generation of Kl37'and K138 currently is
occurring and, if.so, .what waste
volumes are generated and how 'the
wastes are managed.
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules
24463
In addition, if Kl£K7 and K1Q8 are
being generated, someKlQ? waste may
meet the EPA's definition of D002
corrosive waste (40~CER 261.221 ond
some KlOS waste may meet the EPA's
definition qf D001 iignilabte .waste (40
GFR 26:L21}v WA promulgated treatment
standards and made capacity
determinations for B002 corrosive and
P001 fgnitable wastes fa the Thfrd,Third
rufe! (55 ER 22546. 225®}, and afl K107
and KlflS wastes exhibiting tiiose
characterfatfcff are preaenas-s^li|ect to
the ElOpl, srid'EfOEB treatment standards.
ZX Waste/rent the Production of
Dinitroto&ueae and Toluenediamiae
(Km rand K11ZI .
On Qefo&er 23, 1985, six wastes (Kill
ftretigfi Kiiej generated Si the
prpduelSDB of dnatrofelaene fDNT},
tofoe«edfam&BBmftX and trfueae
hazardous (50 FR *2S96)C For » detailed
deseriptfottof'the wafctesv refer to the
final rufe BsfiRg these 'wastes a*
hazerdouff,Tre*tsieiit Standards for f COT
were proOBilgated. iii tiie Second Third
final ftile|»FR 28823). The Agency ia
planningta develops teestoent *tandards
for the twa remaining wastes, Kill and;
. Kllltprodoct wash wateia&om the
tf Baarmfactmiag
inoiga]MccbeHJiEaIst,djes and; pigments,
ea^feMivBs, as^i organic Aemiicalsfei the
course of organic synthesis operations.
K112, reaction by-pioduct water front
the drying GoJfanni fa ,Ae prodaetfon of
toluenediamine via hydrogenation of
eheaakats, •
. as-iathepeoduetissigf to
as
Kill and K112wastewatfira ana
nonwasfeiwafers. Setting methods of
treatment as standards is «&s approach,
given th^^ niaioE osganiE constituents
of Kill an^KliattaedjnifeotpIuenea
and toMdinea) aEe"EBlairveIy unsta&Ie in.
lyalentl test
iso aVr#u§ua basis lo
components- that could be present and
potentially used as surrogates for
concentration.-based standards are
dinifrotoluenes* niiEocresoIs»
nitrophfinols, and nitrobenaoic acid.
K112 & an aqueous. Gquid with small
quantities, of toluenediaminesu Kill and!
K1I2 wastes also may include metals
such as nickel (from, catalysts). EPA
solicits comment on all possible
treatment standards, including a
treatment standard where a method
such as incineration or. rTipmfca{
oxidation would be specified to ensure
treatment of the oiganica, and
concentration-based standards, would
be specified for the metals*. The Agency
also solicits analytical eompoaition data
for both, the osganic and met»T
constituents, in the KH1/K112 streams.
Incineration for nonwastewaters* and
incineration ox chemical oxidation
followed By activated carbon adsorption
for wastewafera aie among passible
treatment standards for Kill andKLtZ
wastes. However, since information .
suggests that these wastes are currently
treated by biological processes, with or
withoat subsequent activated carbon
treatment, EPA paitfe»fa% is requeuing
data characterizing the treatability of
these wastes int biological systems.
The alternative to establishing,
treatment standards expressed, as
required method* ia to develop
concentratioa-based sifuodards.
Cpncentsationrbftsed atandarda for the
organics, iaKlll and K112. wastes would
be appropriate if the toxic organics
anticipated to-be pseseni ace amenable
to quantiFtciatJoRm cosaplex matrices. If
surrogate organics can be identified that
can be redorad sigaificantly through
wastewater treatment systems' and data
demonstrate that these organies are as .
difficultto treat. EEA may propose
concentration-based standards foe these
wastes. EPA, therefore, solicits
analytical data.on the composition of
these steeam*,Hi osder to detesmine
whether they contain, con&titnenta that
can act aa analytical suErogates to verify
destruction of the oiganic constitaenta
of concern. . -
2. CtarreniFy Available Capacity
Information1
, The background documents for tha
proposed rule for the listing of these
wastes>estimated the.qntn^T generation
of these wastes fo be approximately .
47XTJXK} tons of Kill wast ewafer and
215,000 tons ;ofjai2 wrastewafer. Over
70 percent qfJtheJS3l£^^and TSpeEcenf cf
the KllZwaatewaters are treated and
|B)c Qean Wafer Act • ;
, 140^000 tona
"'"
management, practices that arecurrentiy
unidentified. la the absence of
information on the generation of Kill
and KI12* the Agency may use 195,000
tona as an "upper bound" estimate of
the volumes of Kill and K112
wastewaters that are generated
annually.
EPA currently does not have
information, regarding the availability of
on-site treatment capacity- for these TDI
wastes (Kill and K112J. to addition, the
Agency currently does not have data on
the volumes or characteristics of Kill
and K112 residuals that may be;
generated during the treatment of Kill
and K112 wastewatess. However, the
Agency believes that nonwastewater
residuals genera ted from, biological
treatment may .not require further.
treatment prior to land disposal; EPA
requests comments on this assumption.
Currently available data indicate that
195,000 tons of Kill and K112
wastewaters are generated annually and
may require treatment prior to land
disposal. The Agency sequesf a
additional data on. the, generation, and
management of Kill and KHZ wastes.
oa available on-site treatment capacity
at generating faculties, and on the
volumes of waste water residuals
currently generated.
E. Wastes from the Prodaeticm of
EttiyleneDibFoaiids (KX17, Kllff, and
KI36J
Three wastes generated in the
production of ethylene dibromide (EDBJ
were listed as hazardous on February
I J, 198ff (5t FR5327J. For a detailed
description of K117, KM?, andK138,
refer to the final rule listing these wastes
as hazardous. Although EPA banned the
use of ethylene dlbfomide (EDBJih the
U.S., EPA believes that EDB wastes may
still be generated by pesticide
manufacturers intending to sett EDB
overseas. '• •
K117 is a liquid stream containing
ethylene dibJonridevbroMcethanev
bromochloroethane and chlorofonru
K118 is a solid waste consisting, of spent
adsorbents saturated with, ethylene
dibromide, 14,2-tri&iomometaane,
bromochloroethane» bcomomethane and
bisia-bromojethyl ether. K136 is an
organic liquid with high concentrations
of ethylene dibEomide.
The.EDBwasfeaK117andKlia
resemble very close^ the
organobxomuie wastes 11029,11030,
U06gtU067,U068aadD225 regulated in.
-------
24461
developed from the data Used to
calculate thptI02ff(bromonietbaiie),,
U030 (4-bromophenyl phenyl ether).
U068 (l,2-dibromo-3-chlofoprppane),
U067 (ethylene dibromide, EDB), U068
(dibramomethane) and U225
(bromoform) Third.Third standards.
since these data came from incineration
of EDB wastes performed and monitored
by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances.
Incinerating brominated organic
compounds raises the issue of
preventing emissions of molecular
bromine (Brs) from the incinerator by
shifting the combustion reaction product
equilibrium to favor the formation of
hydrogen bromide (HBr). Limited data
available to EPA suggest that adding
sulfur to the combustion mixture
prevents generation and subsequent
emissions of molecular bromine.
However, EPA realizes that
organobromine wastes offer unique ,
opportunities for recycling—at least one
facility is known to recover bromine
from brominated wastes by thermal
processing. Therefore, EPA requests '
documentation describing attempts ajt
processing discarded organobromine
compounds into commercial products. In
addition, EPA solicits information
documenting attempts, successful and
otherwise, to incinerate brominated
organic compounds while controlling
bromine and bromide emissions from
the incinerator stack.
In addition to comments evaluating
these possible regulatory options, EPA
solicits comment on the following
issues: The compositions "of these waste
streams, including both organic and
possible inorganic components;
performance data demonstrating the
treatability of these or similar waste
streams by thermal, biological or other
treatment processes; and analytical .
complications encountered or
anticipated in quantifying constituents
of these wastes.
2. Currently Available Capacity
Information
In the proposed rule for the listing of
EDB wastes, the Agency estimated the
annual generation of K117 wastewaters
to be approximately 26,000 tons, and 150
tons of K118 nonwastewater. The
proposed rule does not provide an
estimate of the volume of K138
nonwastewater that is generated. EPA's
data on the generation of K117 and K118
reflects 1984 production levels of EDB.
However, as already indicated, in 1984,
the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) banned the use
of EDB as a fumlgant. Therefore, the
production of EDB may have decreased
since 1984.
EPA lacks ^nfprmariqrii)ftl3iet, ; • , ;-
generation bf waste Kl38vHoyfe^er,-the'|
Agency b^lieyisy'thafftiisw""'*" •*sfl1'
bottoms from the purificati(
not generated iH significant <.[uaijiiii4c=.
The Agency also dfles;npt haVe:data ;„
currently on the volumes Or KJJ& Kilty;
and K136 residuals that maylire* ''• "\ ' ; ;
generated during" treatment" of fiDB
wastes. f. ' ' ''' - '.' ' " .,,;' .' .,
Data available to EPA mdicate that, in
1984, 26,000 tons of K117 arid Ml8 "
wastes were generated annually. Given
the low generation volumes qffhese ;
wastes, it appears that there is likely to
be sufficient capiacity to treat-10117 and
K118. Although there is n6 volume data
for waste K136; the Agency believes that
this waste is not generated in large
quantities, and thaf there probably is
sufficient capacity to treat this vvaste if
incineration is required. EPA requests
comments on its current data and
requests additional information oh the
generation and management of K117,
K118, and K136 wastes..
F. Wastes from the-Production of
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (K123,.
K124,K125,qndK126) ; ,
Four wastes generated in the ' " '
production and formulation of the
fungicide ethyienebisdithiocarbamic
acid (EBDC) and its salts were listed as
hazardous on October 24,1986 (51 FR
37725). For a detailed description of
K123 through K126, refer to the final rule
listing these wastes as hazardous.
In general, waste characterization
information indicate that.K123 wastes
are aqueous liquids, K124 wastes are
caustic aqueous liquids, K125 wastes are
filtration and distillation solids, and
K126 wastes are dry dust-like solids.
Ethylene thiourea appear to be the
primary organic component of all four
wastes.
1. Potential BOAT
A potential means of establishing
treatment standards for K123, K124,
K125, and K126 wastes is to specify
methods of treatment as BOAT.
Methods of treatment may be
appropriate for these wastes because
the principal organic components of
these wastes are
ethyienebisdithiocarbamic acid (EBDC}
and ethylene thiourea, both of which are
relatively unstable in water and thus
may be particularly difficult to quantify.
EBDC, as U114, and ethylene thiourea,
as U116, were regulated in the Third
Third rulemaking, both with methods of
treatment as standards. The methods of
treatment which appear particularly:
appropriate for K123 through IC126
wastes are incineration or thermal
destruction for nonwastewaters, and
w TOWS
treatment parameters can be identine. .
Available i data 8tfgge8tltiiatMtterofthe:|
hazardous orgtoic'eoristttueritrbf; "^ :^'VU
concern ia K123 through -K12& waste!? I)
are easily jpantijiesj; in feeatm.eji|i;j K&;
residues from treatment of pthe,? ty,pe8,ef
wastes: '
.
are appropriate for t
four wastes, Ep
on their., po
or paramejteES pan be^dpntlBecl totcanl
act as analytical;sujrri|jgatefli[i
indicators jtp verify destruction, of the •.., ;•;
organic .coristiments,o£-ihe sttp;aBtt that Jl
are, difficult^oanalyzeji EPA rnayMi.k;
able, tp propose concenfrationtbased,' W? •
standards using these surrogates. EPA? .',•<"
also requests rreatment.perfbrman'Ce' ,i '
data from attempts to treatthesBAr ; j
similar wastes by thermal, biological or
other processes. Furthermore!, EPA •- -'
requests composition and treatability. '
data about all metal components, of this'
waste. ' , ...-'
2. Currently Available Capacity ,
Information ' ,"..•' ,',,.'. '••'"
K124 may meet EPA's definition of
corrosive waste (40 CFR 261.22) and, .
therefore, may be a.DOQ2 characteristic
waste. The Agency promulgated •'.-'
treatment standards and inade capacity
determinations for D002 corrosive waste
in .the Third Third rule (55 FR 22549)i
K124 waste that is also a D002 waste
already may undergo neutralization or ,
other treatment prior to land disposal.
The proposed rule for the listing of
these wastes estimated the 1982
generation of EBDC wastes to be
approximately 35,000 tons of K123
wastewater, 1,500 tons of K124
wastewater, 500 tons of K125
nonwastewater, and 15 tons of K126
nonwastewater.'In the absence of more
current data on waste generation, the
Agency is likely to use the 1982
generation rates to make a preliminary
assessment of capacity. In addition, in
the absence of data on waste :
management practices, the Agency may
use the entire volume qf waste ;
generated as an "upper bound" estimate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 104 / Thursday, May 30, 1991 / Proposed Rules
24465
of the volume of waste that will be land
disposed and, therefore, require
treatment.
Data from the proposed rule for the
listing of these wastes indicate that
35,000 tons of K12"3 and 1,500 tons of
K124 wastewaters may require
treatment annually. In the Third Third
final rule (55 FR 22635, 22647), the
Agency estimated that approximately
190,000 tons of biological treatment
capacity and 65,000 tons of incineration
capacity for liquids was available.
Therefore, it appears that there may be
sufficient capacity to treat K123 and
K124 if biological treatment or
incineration is chosen as BDAT.
Data from the proposed rule for the
listing of these wastes indicate that 500
tons of K125 and 15 tons of K126 may
require treatment annually. The Agency
believes that residuals generated from
the treatment of K123 and K124
wastewaters are not likely to require
further treatment prior to disposal.
Therefore, the volume of K123-K126
nonwastewaters requiring sludge or
solid combustion may be 515 tons. It
appears that there is sufficient capacity
to treat these wastes. The Agency
requests comments on this analysis and
requests additional data on the
generation and management of EBDC
wastes.
G. Wastes from the Production of
Methyl Bromide (K.131 andKl32}
Two wastes generated during the
production of methyl bromide were
listed as hazardous on October 6,1989
(54 FR 41402). For a detailed description
of wastes K131 and K132, please refer to
the final rule for the listing of these
wastes and the listing background
documents. K131 wastes are acidic
aqueous liquids containing methyl
bromide, dimethyl sulfate and sulfuric
acid, plus other brominated ethanes and
methane- and ethane-based alcohols
and ethers. K132 wastes consist of
adsorbent solids saturated with liquids
containing methyl bromide.
1. Potential BOAT
Methyl bromide and the compounds
expected to be contained in the wastes
resemble the organobromine compounds
that were regulated as U wastes in the
Third Third final rule. Appropriate
standards for these wastes may be
concentration-based standards
developed from the data used to
calculate the U029 (bromomethane),
U030 (4-bromophenyl phenyl ether),
U068 (l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane),
U067 (ethylene dibromide, EDB), U068
(dibromomethane) and U225
(bromofonn) Third Third standards,
particularly considering that this data
came from incineration of EDB wastes.
Section V.E., above, discusses issues
associated with incinerating and
recycling brominated organic
compounds. EPA solicits comments on
those issues for brominated methane
wastes such as these.
In addition to comments evaluating
these possible regulatory options, EPA
solicits information regarding: The
composition of these waste streams,
including both organic and possible
inorganic components; performance
data demonstrating the treatability of
these or similar waste streams by
thermal, biological or other treatment
processes; and analytical complications
encountered or anticipated in
quantifying constituents of .these wastes.
2. Currently Available Capacity
Information
In the proposed rule for the listing of
these wastes, EPA estimated the annual
generation of methyl bromide wastes at
maximum capacity to be approximately
14,000 tons of K131 wastewater and 150
tons of K132 nonwastewater.
K131 may meet EPA's definition of
corrosive waste (40 CFR 281.22) and,
therefore, may be a D002 characteristic
waste. The Agency already has
promulgated treatment standards and
made capacity determinations for D002
corrosive waste in the Third Third rule
(55 FR 22549). K131 waste that is also a
D002 Waste already may undergo
neutralization or other treatment prior to
land disposal. The Agency does not
have any data indicating what fraction
of K131 is also D002 characteristic or
whether waste treated for corrosivity
will require further treatment for
organics.
In the absence of data on the current
waste management practices for these
wastes, the Agency is likely to use the
entire volume generated as an "upper
bound" estimate of the volume of waste
requiring alternate treatment. The
Agency does not have data currently on
the volumes or characteristics of K131
residual wastes that may be generated
during treatment of this waste.
However, based on professional
judgment, the Agency believes that
treatment residuals may not require
alternate treatment prior to land
disposal.
Data currently available indicate that
14,000 tons of K131 wastewater are
generated annually and may require
treatment. Data from the proposed rule
for the listing of these wastes indicate
that 150 tons of K132 is generated
annually. Given the relatively low
generation volumes, it appears that
there is likely to be sufficient capacity to
treat both K131 and K132 wastewaters
and nonwastewater residuals. The
Agency requests comments on this
analysis and specifically requests data
on the current generation volumes of
methyl bromide wastes, and off-site and
on-site management practices for these
wastes.
Dated: May 20,1S91.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 91-12512 Filed 5-23-91; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 65EO-SO-M
-------
.if
------- |