Thursday
January 9, 1992
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 148, 260, 261, et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris;
Proposed Rule
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148,260, 261,262, 264,
265,268,270 and 271
[FRU-4014-1]
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Listed Wastes and Contaminated
Debris
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) today is proposing
treatment standards under the land
disposal restrictions (LDR) program for
certain wastes listed after November 8,
1984, and is also proposing to revise
treatment standards for debris
contaminated with certain listed
hazardous waste or debris that exhibits
certain hazardous waste characteristics
(hereinafter referred to as contaminated
debris). EPA is also proposing several
revisions to previously promulgated
standards and requirements. Due to
critical deadlines for this rulemaking,
today's proposal does not reflect the
decision in Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, No. 80-
1532 (D.C. Cir. December 6,1991), where
the court found procedural defects in
promulgation of the mixture and
derlved-from rules. EPA recognizes that
the court's remand of these rules may
affect this proposal and the final rule.
EPA requests comment on the impact of
that ruling on this proposal.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before
February 24,1992. (Since the Agency has
on lured into a settlement agreement to
promulgate this rule by May 1992, and
the capacity variance for much
contaminated debris ends on May 8,
1992, no extensions to the comment
period will be granted.)
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to EPA RCRA Docket
Number F-91-CD2P-FFFFF, room 2427
(OS-305), 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20-160. The docket is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 475-9327. A maximum of
100 pages from the docket may be
copied at no cost. Additional copies cost
S0.20 per page.
EPA is asking prospective
commenters to voluntarily submit one
additional copy of their comments on
labeled personal computer diskettes in
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 commenter'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 diskette 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 CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll
free) or (703) 920-9810 locally. For
information on treatment standards for
newly listed wastes or contaminated
debris, contact the Waste Treatment
Branch, Office of Solid Waste (OS-
322W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M St.. SW., Washington, DC
20460, (703) 308-8434. For information on
capacity determinations or national
capacity variances, contact die Capacity
Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-322W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20480, (703) 308-8440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984.
B. Pollution Prevention (Waste
Minimization) Benefits.
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Newly Lioted Wastes.
B. Changes to Current Regulations. •
C. Contaminated Debris.
III. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposed
Rule: Newly Listed Wastes
A. Recent Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037
and F038).
B. Wastes from the Production of
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
(K107-K110),
C. Wastes from the Production and
Dinitrotoluene and Toluenediamine,
(Kill and K112).
D. Wastes from the Production of Ethylene
Dibromide (K117, K118 and K138).
E. Wastes from the Production of
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (K123-
K126).
F. Wastes from the Production of Methyl
Bromide (K131 and K132).
G. Additional Organic U Wastes (U328,
U353. and U359).
IV. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposed
Rule: Changes to Existing Regulations
A. Proposed Revisions to the F001-F005
Spent Solvents Treatment Standards.
B. Conversion of Wastewater Standards
Based on Scrubber Water.
>C. Proposed Revisions to Treatment
Standards for K081, F008, and K062.
D. Inorganic Constituents to be Added to
Appendix VIII.
E. Notification and Certification for
Characteristic Wastes.
F. Applicability of Part 268 for Certain
Waste Mixtures No Longer Exhibiting a
Characteristic.
G. Storage and Treatment in Containment
Buildings.
V. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposed
Rule: Contaminated Debris
A. Overview.
B. Definitions.
C. Contaminant Categories.
D. Determining Contaminants Subject to
Treatment.
E. Exclusion of Contaminated Debris from
Subtitle C.
F. Contaminated Debris Treatment
Standards.
G. Regulation of Treatment Residuals.
H. Other Provisions of the Rule.
I. Permits for Treatment Facilities.
J. Comments on the May 30,1991 ANPRM.
VI. Capacity Determinations
A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary.
B. Petroleum Refining Wastes and Other
Organic Wastes,
C. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Listed Wastes Mixed with
.Radioactive Contaminants.
D. Required and Available Capacity for
Debris Contaminated with Newly Listed
Wastes.
E. Capacity Determination for Underground
Injected Wastes.
VII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States.
B. Effect on State Authorization.
VIII. Effect of Proponed Rule on Other
Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated Under the Clean
Water Act
. B. Discharges Regulated Under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
•Act.
C. Groundwater Protection Principles.
D, Wellhead Protection Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
. E. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
F. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act.
G. Applicability of Treatment Standards to
Wastes from Pesticides Regulated Under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
H. Regulatory Overlap of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs). Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
RCRA.
I. Disposal of Asbestos Regulated Under
TSCA.;
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
959
B. Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR parts 148, 260,
61, 262, 264, 265, 268. 270 and 271.
ippendix I to the Preamble: Overview of
Debris Treatment Technologies
Vppendix II to the Preamble: Asbestos
Treatment Standards
Background
1. Summary of Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted on November 8.1984,
prohibit the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes. HSWA requires EPA
to set "* * * levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized." RCRA
section 3004(m)(l). Wastes that meet the
treatment standards established by EPA
may be land disposed. For purposes of
the restrictions, land disposal includes
any placement of hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed
formation, or underground mine oy cave.
RCRA section 3004(k).
EPA was required to promulgate land
disposal prohibitions and treatment
standards by May 8,1990 forall wastes
that were either listed or identified as
hazardous at the time of the 1984
amendments, a task EPA completed
within the statutory timeframes. RCRA
section 3004(d), (e) and (g). EPA is to
promulgate prohibitions and treatment
standards for wastes identified or listed
after the date of the 1984 amendments
(wastes referred to in this notice as
"newly listed and identified wastes")
within six months after the listing or
identification takes effect. RCRA section
3004(g)(4). EPA has filed with the
District Court a proposed consent
decree that would put the Agency on a
schedule for adopting prohibitions and
treatment standards for newly identified
and listed wastes. The promulgation '
date for the-newly identified and listed
wastes dealt with in this proposal would
be May 1992. (EDFv. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-
0598, D.D.C.)
The land disposal restrictions are <
effective upon promulgation. RGRA
section 3004(h)(l). However, the
Administrator may grant a national •
capacity variance from the immediate
effective date and establish a later
effective date {not to exceed two years)
based on '•'*• * * the earliest date on
which adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity which
protects human health and environment
will be available." RCRA section
3004(h)(2).The Administrator may also
grant a case-by-case extension of. the
effective date for up to one year,
renewable once for up to one additional
year, when an applicant successfully
makes certain demonstrations. RCRA
section 3004(h)(3). See 55 FR 22526 (June
1,1990) for a more detailed discussion
on national capacity variances and
case-by-case extensions.
In addition to prohibition land
disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress
prohibited storage of any waste which is
prohibited from land disposal unless
"* * * such storage is solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous .waste as are
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment or disposal." RCRA section
3004(j). For storage up to one year, EPA
bears the burden of proving that such
storage was not solely for the purpose of
accumulation of quantities necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal. 40 CFR 268.50{b). For storage
beyond one year, the burden of proof
shifts to the owner/operator of a
treatment, storage or disposal facility to
demonstrate that such storage was
solely for the purpose of accumulation
of quantities necessary to facilitate
proper recovery, treatment or disposal.
40 CFR 268.50(c). The provision applies,
of course, only to storage which is not
also defined as land disposal in section
3004{k).
B. Pollution Prevention (Waste
Minimization) Benefits
EPA's progress over the years in
improving environmental quality
through its media-specific pollution
control programs has been substantial.
Over the past two decades, standard
industrial practice for pollution control
concentrated to a large extent on: "end
of pipe" treatment or land disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
However, EPA realizes that there are
limits to how much environmental
improvement can be achieved under
' these programs which emphasize'
management after pollutants have been
generated. EPA believes that reducing or
eliminating discharges and/or emissions
to the environment through the
implementation of cost-effective and
environmentally sound recycling and
source reduction practices can provide
additional environmental improvements.
In this section, RCRA requirements
and state legislative activities'regarding
pollution prevention/waste i : '
minimization are briefly described. Also
described are activities undertaken by
the regulated community to incorporate
pollution prevention/waste
minimization into their waste
management plans. Finally, this section
outlines how pollution prevention/waste
minimization is incorporated into
today's proposed rule.
1. General Discussion of Pollution
Prevention/Waste Minimization
Under RCRA sections 3002(b) and
3005(h), hazardous waste generators and
owners/operators of treatment, storage
and disposal facilities (TSDFs) 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 to be
economically practicable. EPA
encourages hazardous waste generators
and owners/operators of TSDFs to
pursue source reduction and
environmentally sound recycling
wherever cost effective to reduce the
need for and costs of subsequent
treatment, storage, and disposal. In
many, cases, there may be economic as
well as environmental benefits for
companies that pursue pollution
prevention options. Waste minimization
planning programs have been mandated
by some state gpvernments. For
example, several state governments
have already enacted waste
minimization legislation (e.g.,
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Act of 1989; Oregon Toxics Use
Reductiqn and Hazardous Waste
Reduction Act, July 2,1989). About six
other states have legislation pending
that will mandate some type of waste
minimization program and/or facility
planning. An additional 25 states offer
some type of technical assistance to
companies that seek alternatives to
treatment, storage, and disposal of .
waste, In addition, several EPA
documents on waste minimization are
available to the public (see, e.g., Draft
Guidance to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of a Waste
Minimization Program: Notice and
Request for Comment, Federal Register
Vol. 54, No. Ill, June 12,1989 (58 FR
25056); arid The EPA Manual for Waste
Minimization Opportunity Assessments,
EPA 600/2-88/025, April 1988). :
Program success generally requires
.that each individual within an
organization; regardless qf status or '
rank, be encouraged to make a
contribution to minimize waste.-:
Collective and individual pay incentives
can be provided for productivity ' :•
improvements. Waste minimization
circles can be established using self-
managing teams chosen frbnfa broad
spectrum of production and
-------
960
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 6 / Hiursday, January 9, 1992 / flropoaed Rides
management personnel These
management teams can be provided
with all information necessary to
adequately assess waste minimisation
opportunities. Additionally, it is very
beneficial for production personnel to be
trained and retrained in the optimum
use of plant equipment and raw
materials.
Some companies set explicitly defined
objectives for the reduction of waste
volume and toxicity that are achievable
within reasonable time frames.
Typically, the objectives should not
exceed the ability of the operations
personnel to support and maintain them.
In all cases, it is necessary to
determine the causes of waste
generation. This can be done for
individual processes or for •several
combined processes if the plant process
waste streams are particularly complex.
Many corporations have implemented
this type of "waste minimization
assessment" as part of an overall waste
minimization program.
For a waste minimization assessment,
it is generally necessary to accurately
characterize the type of waste generated
by volume, toxicity, and source(s). Most
companies track their waste generation
by a variety of means and then
normalize the results to account for
variations in production rate(s). One
state (Massachusetts] requires each
generator of a toxic or hazardous
substance to track the rate of waste
generation and release/transfer per unit
of product. The EPA Manual for Waste
Minimization Opportunity Assessments
aids generators in identifying waste
sources (which can be quite difficult to
analyze in complex plant operations]
where many processes discharge into
one waste stream.
Next, individual processes can be
examined to search for coat effective
opportunities for waste reduction such
as substituting less hazardous raw
material!!, modifying existing equipment,
using novel technologies, making capital
improvements, increasing process
efficiency, and recycling. EPA and state
funded t<»r>iniral assistance programs
(e.g., Minnesota Technical Assistance.
Program—MnTAP, California Waste
Minimization Clearing House, US. EPA
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse) are becoming "•
increasingly available to identify cost
effective waste reduction opportunities.
Information is also available through
industry trade associations, professions!
consultants epeoalnang in waste
minimization, technical literature, and .
chemical and equipment vendors.
It! v important to realize that waste
minimization, especially when
incorporated into company policy, is a
continuous process. Ideally, a cost
effective waste minimization program
becomes an integral part of the company
strategic plan to increase manufacturing
productivity.
2. Incorporation of Pollution Prevention/
Waste Minimization in Today's Proposal
The Agency has identified a number
of waste streams where environmentally
sound recycling has been identified as
BDAT. For example, we are proposing
today in section JV.C to set alternate
treatment standards for electroplating
sludges (F006) and spent pickle liquor
(KQ26), based on high temperature
metals recovery (HTMRJ. The Agency
has determined that these wastes have
sufficient concentrations of metals
(nickel and chromium), with low
concentrations of interfacing chemicals,
to be amenable for recovery in HTMR
units. Moreover, the Agency is
proposing to grant a generic exclusion
for F006 and K062 HTMR
nonwastewater residuals, provided that
these r^p'^""^" meet designated
concentration levels, are disposed of in
Subtitle D units, and exhibit no
characteristics of hazardous waste.
(This exclusion is similar to the one that
was promulgated on August 8,1891 for
K061. See 56 FR 41184. August 19,1991.)
The Agency expects that these
provisions will encourage more
generators to recycle their wastes, if this
alternative iamore cost effective than
conventional treatment and disposal In
addition, treatment standards for the
newly listed petroleum refining wastes
(F037 and F038) are based on the
recovery technologies critical fluid
extraction and thermal desorption, as
well as incineration.
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
On May 30.1091. EPA published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
to solicit comment on most of what is
included in today's proposed rule. EPA
also solicited comment at that time on ,
several ideas to streamline the LJ3R
program, such as universal standards for
organic wastes, EPA is still evaluating
the comments received on streamlining
the LDR program and expects to publish
a proposal regarding these ideas in the
summer of 1992.
A. Newly Listed Wastes
EPA has promulgated a number of
hazardous waste listings since
enactment of HSWA in 1984. Section III
of today's notice describes the treatment
and/or recycling technologies that have
been identified as BOAT for 20 of these
listings and proposes JJDR treatment.
standardsbasedon BJQAT,. Wastes
included in, today's proposal include.
petroleum refining wastes (F037 and
F038J, wastes from the production of
unsymmetrical dimethylbydrazine
(K107-K110), wastes from the
production -of dinitrotoluene and
toluenediamine (Kill and KHZ), wastes
from the production of ethylene
dibromide (K117, K118, and.K136).
wastes from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (K123-
K126), wastes from the production of
methyl bromide (K131 and K132), and
several organic U wastes (U328. U353.
and U359). Future proposals will include
newly listed wastes not covered in
today's proposal. Soil contaminated
with the newly listed wastes for which
standards are proposed today will be
addressed in a future proposal.
B. Changes to Current Regulations
The Agency is proposing revisions to
the existing treatment standards for
organic constituents in F001-F005
wastes, including conversion from the
evfotipg TCLP standards to standards
based on total concentrations. The
existing numerical treatment standards
include concentrations for 25 solvent
constituents. In addition, the Agency is
proposing the conversion of wastewater
standards tor 24 F and K waste codes
based on .actual wastewater treatment
data lor the constituents of concern.
Several of the proposed revisions to
existing standards and the proposed
standards for newJy listed wastes in
today's notice are based on transfer of
data used to develop standards for F039
(multisource leachate); in these cases,
the Agency particularly requests
comment on whether data submitted by
commenters should be considered in
regard to F039 as well as the proposed
revision or standard.
EPA is proposing today alternate
treatment standards for F006 and F062,
and EPA is also proposing to extend the
K061 generic exclusion published on
August 19,1991 (56 FR 41164) to certain
F006 andJfffleZ wastes. Also, revisions
are proposed regarding notification and
certification for characteristic wastes,
and regarding the status under part 268
of wastes listed for a characteristic.
Finally, EPA is proposing to establish
a new waste management unit known as
a containment building. (The two types
of wastes .presently intended for storage
in containment buildings (of which EPA
is aware) ore spent pottinexsirom
primary /aluminum production and lead
plates andgrouns/from processing spent
lead acid.bfttteriea. There is no question
that 4^ i^ disposal proh/Wtians apply
to these fnatensds because Jhey are both
solid wasjtaB and hazardous wastes.
With regard to lead plates and groups,
-------
the materials are solid wastes under the
federal regulations because they are
spent materials being reclaimed. 40 CFR
261.2(c}(3). (The plates and groups are
"spent material" because they are part
of the spent lead acid battery, which
battery is a spent material because it
has been used, become contaminated,
and cannot be used further without
processing. See § 261.1(c)(l).) There is
also no jurisdictional bar to these
materials being classified as solid
wastes. The plates and groups are
discarded material within the meaning
of RCRA section 1004(27} because they
are part of the spent battery, which is
discarded by its user. American
Petroleum institute v. EPA, 906 F 2d 729
741 (U.C. Cir. 1990} ("APf); American
Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177
1187 n.14 {D.C. Cir. 1987}. The spent '
plates and groups are also "part of the
waste disposal problem" and therefore
solid wastes. API, 906 F.2d at 741;
American Mining Congress \.EPA, 907
F.2d 1179,1186 (D.C. Cir. 1990).1 EPA
also has interpreted the regulations as
defining battery plates and groups to be
solid wastes.2 Since battery plates and
groups typically exhibit the TCLP for
lead, 55 FR 22637 (June 1,1990), they axe
also hazardous wastes and thus covered
by the land disposal prohibitions if land
disposed. Id.}
C. Contaminated Debris
Debris contaminated with listed
prohibited wastes is already subject to
tne treatment standards for those
wastes, as is debris exhibiting a
1 Spent plates and groups can clearly be viewed
as part of (he waste disposal problem not only
a"
™ «•
. at 741, but also because they are
presently .tored in the open in piles (hence the need
lo develop containment building standards to
accommodate management that Is not within the
9°
anHh T en
, and because of the history of
environmental damage incidents resulting from
!TS7rr manaSement <>f *ese wastes. 50 FR 650.
058-60 (January 4, 1985).
1 See Memorandum from Sylvia Lowrance,
^rector. Office of Solid Waste to RegionalWasta
Management Division Directors, August 2& 1968
battery plates and groups are potentially eligible
«2M ™TCe m b6ing 8 8olid waste P""""' t°
5 260.31(c) as a material that has been partially but
«°e ZfttfiT* provLded the variance «rf«ir
are satisfied: however, the battery plates and
groups are obviously solid waste? while appUcation
for a variance is pending, since the variance only
UUe'r frl"1!,16?'8 ^l^ <" !°Ud w«
Helton Tal £ •?"?"• AC'inS CWef- Review
section to Lee Norman, Industrial Safety and Health
Consullanta. lnc., November ^ lg88 W HeaUh
and groups are spent materials, and therefore sol d
wastes when reclaimed, because they are part of
he spent battery): 55 FR at 22837 (June 1. 1990)
nrnh h Hi - * notce ls « f°nn of
prohib ed land disposal and is prohibited under the
proh.bmon for D008 wastes, but a two-year national
capacity variance is warranted) nanonai
hazardous waste characteristic for
which EPA has promulgated treatment
standards. Today, the Agency is
proposing to revise the treatment
standards for debris. The Agency is also
proposing treatment standards for
debris that is contaminated with those
newly listed wastes for which standards
are proposed in this notice. The Agency
is proposing to require contaminated
de.bris to be treated prior to land
disposal, using specific technologies
from one or more of the following
families of debris treatment
technologies: extraction, destruction, or
immobilization. In the alternative,
contaminated debris may continue to be
handled in accordance with the
Agency's contained-in policy.
The LDR standards for contaminated
debris specify the use of a particular
technology, or one of several alternative
technologies, for a particular debris
type/contaminant combination. Six
different categories of debris have been
specified as well as ten different
categories of contaminants.
To ensure effective treatment (i.e.,
treatment sufficient to constitute BDAT),
the treatment must be performed in
accordance with the proposed
performance standards (see Appendix
IX). The consequence of performing this
treatment would be two-fold. Not only
would the debris no longer be prohibited
from land disposal, but EPA would
consider the treated debris to no longer
be or require management as a
hazardous waste provided that a
destruction or extraction technology is
used for all debris types/contaminant
combinations and provided that the
treated debris does not exhibit any
characteristic of hazardous waste. Such
treated debris could, therefore, be
reused, returned to the natural
environment, or disposed of in a Subtitle
D facility. See section V.E.I where EPA
r?q"ests comment and data to support
the design of performance standards for
immobilization technologies that would
be sufficient to allow contaminated
debris treated by such technologies to
be excluded from Subtitle C
management.
However, if the treatment unit was
not operated in accordance with the
specified performance standards, the
treated debris ordinarily would remain
prohibited from land disposal because it
had not been treated by the specified
methods and would likewise be subject
to the rest of the Subtitle C regulations.
The debris could be determined to
meet levels protective of human health
and the environment in accordance with
the contained-in policy.
Residuals generated from the
treatment of debris contaminated with
listed wastes would still be hazardous
wastes by virtue of the derived-from
rule and would be subject to the
hazardous waste management system.
The Agency is today proposing that
residuals generated from the treatment
of contaminated debris be subject to the
F039 nonwastewater and wastewater
numerical treatment standards. A
detailed discussion is provided in
section V.E.
The Agency considered and rejected
proposing numerical standards for
contaminated debris because of the
difficulty of sampling contaminated
debris. Nevertheless, the Agency
requests comment on the feasibility of
setting such numerical standards; in
addition, the Agency requests comment
on whether such standards should apply
to all contaminated debris or just certain
types of debris that can be sampled
without difficulty. Further, the Agency
requests comment on how such samples
should be collected. As an alternative
method of compliance, the Agency
requests comment on continued
application of the existing LDR
standards.
Today's proposal also deals with the
issue of inherently hazardous
contaminated debris. Inherently
hazardous contaminated debris is debris
that is fabricated from metals identified
as D004-D011 and that exhibits as
fabricated the toxicity characteristic
under both the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure and the Extraction
Procedure. The Agency is proposing
today to require treatment of inherently
contaminated debris for: other
contaminants subject to treatment that
are present. If the debris continues to
exhibit the toxicity characteristic due to
its inherent content after treatment, it
must be either immobilized prior to land
disposal under Subtitle C or recycled as
provided in § 261.6(a)(3)(iv). Inherently
hazardous debris that is not
contaminated with other contaminants
subject to treatment may be recycled
without treatment or immobilized and
disposed in a Subtitle C facility, under
today's proposal.
Finally, the Agency is proposing that
debris contaminated with both
radioactive and hazardous waste (mixed
waste) comply with the treatment
standards for contaminated debris in
addition to any regulation of that
material under the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)j The Agency is also proposing
that debris contaminated with mixed
waste for which special treatability
groups have been established be subject
to the debris standards rather than to
-------
382
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 6 J Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
the specified treatability group
standard*. The exception to this is
standards promulgated for the D006
radioactive lead treatability group; in
this case, the contaminated debris will
be subject to both the debris standards
and the D008 radioactive lead
standards. Treatment of the
contaminated debris must occur before
treatability group treatment
It should be noted that the Agency is
currently evaluating issues related to
contaminated media. In order to
improve the overall quality of its
regulatory decision-making, the Agency
has begun to look at groups or clusters
of regulations in a specific area to
develop a more integrated approach.
One of these regulatory dusters, the
"contaminated media chaster." is
designed to develop a more integrated
Agency approach for its policies and
regulations dealing with waste
remediation programs. The
contaminated media duster project ia
gathering information to develop a
comprehensive view of the quantities
and types of waste needing remediation.
the types of risks they represent, the
current regulatory and statutory
framework for these wastes, elements of
an effective clean up process, and the
costs and benefits of such dean up. The
culmination of that work will be a
strategy that will include a set of
objectives and operating principle* for
the Agency's remediation programs.
This proposed LDR rule for
contaminated debris has been dosely
coordinated with the regulatory cluster
on contaminated media. In an ongoing
effort of this cluster, the Agency is
considering a strategic approach that
focuses on waste management
standards specific to the problems of
remediating already contaminated seal
and debris. This proposal supports that
approach by considering contaminated
debris a unique entity and providing
flexibility in treating and disposing of
contaminated debris.
HI. Detailed Discussion of Today's
Proposed Rule: Nowly Listed Wastes
Since the enactment of HSWA in 1964,
EPA has promulgated a number of
hazardous waste listings under 40 CFR
part 201 subpart D and has expanded
the number of wastes covered under 40
CFR part 261 subpart C. This section of
today's notice describes the treatment
and/or recyding technologies that have
been identified as BOAT for 20 of these
"newly listed" wastes. The Agency is
proposing treatment standards under 40
CPR 263.41, .42, and .43 for these wastes
based on the transfer of performance
data from treating other hazardous
wastes that have been determined to be
similar or more difficult to treat than
these wastes.
This section does not, however,
propose treatment standards for the
following newly listed hazardous
wastes: those recently identified under
the TC rule (D018-BO43); characteristic
wastes generated by mineral processing
activities; spent potlinere from
aluminum manufacturing (K088J; and
listed wastes from wood preserving
(F032, F034. and F035). These wastes, as
well as wastes from coking operations
and chlorotoluene production, will be
addressed hi subsequent .Federal
Register notices. EPA anticipates
proposing land disposal restrictions for
many of the aforementioned wastes in
the spring of 1992. with the remainder
addressed in the spring of 1993.
A. Recent Petroleum Refining Wastes
(F037andf03Bj
F037—Any sludge generated from the
gravitational separation of oil/water/
solids during the storage or treatment of
process wastewaiers and oily cooting
wastewaters from petroleum refineries.
Such sludges include, but are not limited
to, those generated In: Oil/water/solids
separators; tanks and impoundments;
ditches and other conveyances; sumps;
and stonnwater units receiving dry
weather flow. Sludge generated in storm
water units that do not receive dry
weather flow, sludges generated from
non-contact once-through cooling waters
segregated for treatment from other
process or oily cooling waters, sludges
generated in aggressive biological
treatment units as defined in 40 CFR
261.31{t>K2) (including sludges generated
in one or more additional units after
wastewaters have been treated in
aggressive biological treatment units]
and K051 Wastes are not included in this
listing.
F038—Any sludge and/or float generated
from the physical and/or chemical
separation of oil/water/solids in process
wastewatera and oily cooling
wastewaters from wastewaters from
petroleum refineries. Such wastes
include, but are not limited to, all sludges
and floats generated ia; induced air
flotation (IAFJ units, tanks and
impoundments, and all sludges generated
in D AF units. Sludges generated in storm
water units that do not receive dry
weather flow, sludges generated from
once-through non-contact cooling waters
segregated Cor treatment from other
process or oil cooling wastes, sludge*
and floats generated in aggressive
biological treatment units as defined in
5 261.31(b}(2) (including sludges and
floats generated in one or more
additional units after wastewaters have
been treated in aggressive biological
treatment units) end F037, K048, and
K051 are not included in this listing.
On November 2,1990 (55 FR 46354),
EPA listed two additional wastes
generated by the petroleum refining
industry as hazardous wastes F037 and
F03B. These two newly listed hazardous
wastes ace generated in the primary and
secondary separation of oil/water/
solids from petroleum refinery process
wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters. These sludges have waste
properties similar to other petroleum
refining wastes Kitted as K04B and KOS1.
(For a more detailed description of all of
these petroleum refining wastes, see 45
FR 74884, Mxy 19. 18BO; 55 FR 46354,
November 2,1990; 58 FR 21955, May 13,
19911 and the associated listing
background documents.) These listings
became effective on April 2,1991.
1. Characterization Data
The Agency has two sets of waste
characterization data for untreated F037
and F038 wastes. One is a compilation
of data gathered by EPA from 1981 to
1984, including data submitted by the
regulated community. These data, which
characterize wastes from petroleum
refining waatewater treatment systems,
were published in a Notice of Data
Availability on February 11,1985, (50 FR
5637). A second set of data, consisting of
waste characterization data collected by
EPA after 1984, was presented as part of
a Notice of Data Availability published
on April 13,1988 (53 FR 12182). All of
these data are summarized in the
proposed BOAT Development
Background Document for F037 and F038
which is available in today's docket.
Based on somewhat limited
characterization data, EPA has
identified 18 hazardous constituents that
are known to be present in wastewater
or nonwastewater forms of F037 and/or
F038. These 13 constituents have also
been demonstrated to be present in
other related petroleum refining wastes
(K051 and K04B) at approximately the
same levels (Le» many constituents are
present in concentrations with the same
order of magnitude). This appears to be
directly related to the similarities in
generation of these wastes: F037 and
F038 are generated in similar waste
management units as those generating
K051 and K048; all four of these wastes
result from the processing and refining
of similar raw materials (i.e., petroleum
products); and all four of these wastes
are generated from the treatment of
similar oily wastewaters.
EPA believes, however, that
additional hazardous constituents are
likely to be present in HJ37 andTBSB
wastes because they are known to be
present in K04B and KOS1 wastes. Up to
six additional organics that are present
in K048 wastes could: also be found in
wastewater or nonwastewater forms of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
963
F038 (i.e., ethyl benzene, xylenes, bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-buryl
phthalate, flourene, and phenol).
Similarly, there are up to eight organics
in K051 that EPA believes could be
present in F037 wastes (i.e., ethyl
benzene, xylenes, acenaphthene,
anthracene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
di-n-butyl phthalate, flourene, and
phenol). Cyanides are also believed to
be present in both F037 and F038
wastes. In an Advance Notice of
Proposed Ruelmaking (ANPRj published
on May 30.1991 (56 FR 24444), EPA
solicited additional characterization
data for F037 and F038 wastes. In
response, the American Petroleum
Institute indicated that it was gathering
such information. As of the writing of
this rule, EPA has not yet received these
characterization data, but will place
them in the administrative record for
today's notice if they become available.
Based on the above, EPA is proposing
to regulate the same constituents in F037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters that
are currently regulated in the
corresponding wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K051. Similarly,
those constituents currently regulated in
K048 wastes are proposed for regulation
in F038 wastes. A detailed discussion of
those constituents proposed for
regulation and those for which EPA
lacks characterization data can be found
in the Proposed BOAT Background
Document for F037 andJ?038.
The specific constituents proposed for
regulation in F037 and F038 wastes
along with their treatment standards.
are presented in the tables at the end of
this section. EPA believes that, by
requiring treatment of these
constituents, all other constituents being
present will also be treated. Some of the
proposed constituents are believed to be
at detectable levels in F038 and F037
and thus, may deserve regulation as in
K048 and K051. EPA also believes that
the constituents proposed for regulation
are as difficult to treat as other
constituents of the same type that may
be present in F037 and F038. Also, EPA
does not expect that either the proposed
or any other constituents would
interfere with the treatment of the
regulated constituents. In addition, there
is available information that K048-K052,
F037, and F038 can be and may have
been co-treated in the same or similar
treatment units. As such, EPA believes
that regulating the same constituents
present in K048 and K051 should reduce
the administrative requirements and
compliance efforts for all of these
petroleum wastes.
2. Identification of Technologies
Capable of Complying with BDAT
Standards for F037 and F038
F037 and F038 are generated by the
petroleum refining industry in units
similar in design and purpose to API
separators and DAF float units
generating K048 and K051. Also, F037
and F038 result from the processing of
similar raw materials (i.e., petroleum
products) and from the treatment of
similar wastewaters. Owing to these
similarities, all of the applicable and
demonstrated technologies for K048 and
K051 wastes are also believed to be
applicable to F037 and F038 wastes. EPA
requested comment on this point in the
May 30,1991 ANPR. While several
commenters generally concurred with
this observation, others pointed out that
F037 and F038 are likely to show "higher
percentages of soil particles and lower
concentrations of oil." They believe,
therefore, that these wastes could be
"characteristically different from K048
and K051 wastes." They also pointed out
that the heat content of F037 and F038 is
variable and is typically under 5,000
BTU/lb. Based on these physical and
chemical characteristics, some
commenters appear to believe that F037
and F038 could be less suitable for
recovery and fuel burning practices.
EPA's data show that many
hazardous wastes (including K048-K052)
are routinely commingled for the
purpose of treatment by technologies
such as incineration and fuel
substitution. The commingling of K048-
K052 wastes may also occur for
recovery purposes in units such as
solvent recovery, thermal desorption, or
high temperature thermal distillation.
Therefore. F037 and F038 can
presumably be commingled with K048-
K052 for the purpose of treatment or
recovery.
The practice of commingling Fnj7 and
F038 with K048-K052 for incineration or
fuel substitutional purposes appears to
be supported by at least one commenier.
In addition, several commenters pointed
out similarities between the physical
and chemical behaviors of F037 and
F038 to K051 and K048 when treated by
incineration or when burned in cement
kilns. Based on waste characterization
data, F037 and F038 also appear to be
amenable to incineration, fuel
substitution, and recovery technologies.
EPA thus believes these two wastes are
amenable to all these treatment
technologies on which the existing
K048-K052 treatment standards for
organics are based.
Envex and Southern Thermal
Dynamics (STD) submitted comments to
the ANPR describing thermal processes
that may enable the recovery of
valuable organics from petroleum
wastes as well as volume reduction of
those wastes needing land disposal.
None of these recovery technologies are
prohibited from being used to treat
K048-K052, F037. or F038, provided all
treatment residues from these processes
comply with all applicable treatment
standards. EPA lacks performance data
for evaluating Envex's recovery process
at this time.
EPA has received two data sets from
STO. One data set, submitted on July 1,
1991, was previously submitted to EPA
during the development of K048-K052
treatment standards (55 FR 22595 (June
1,1990)). These data are based on the
performance of STD's high temperature
thermal distillation unit (identified as
the "HT-5" process) on simulated
petroleum wastes. For K048-K052
wastes, EPA determined that STD's HT-
5 process (formerly owned, exclusively,
by T.D.I. Systems, Inc.) could achieve
the treatment standards promulgated for
K048-K052 wastes and, as such, was
considered to be an equivalent BDAT
technology to incineration and solvent
extraction. (See June 1,1990 (55 FR
22596)). The second data set, submitted
on August 21,1991, consists of 17 hour
composite samples characterizing
untreated and treated K051 wastes using
the HT-5 process. These preliminary
data also appear to indicate that this
process can achieve the treatment
standards promulgated on June 1,1990.
These two data sets are also part of our
data base and are subject to further
review and analysis.
CF Systems submitted performance
data to EPA during the Third Third
rulemaking showing that wastes having
lower concentrations of organics, such
as those in F037 and F038, can also be
treated by their solvent extraction
process to the levels proposed today. CF
has submitted additional data in
response to EPA's ANPR. These data
are currently under review and
available for public comment' Other
solvent extraction processes and
incineration (both of which are
considered BDAT for K048-K052
wastes) have also been demonstrated on
sludges that have similar physical and
chemical characteristics to F037 and
F038.
It appears from these data (including
data supporting K048-K052 treatment
standards) that F037 and F038 can be
treated to meet the treatment standards
applicable to K048-K052 and that these
proposed treatment standards may
substantially reduce the mobility and
toxicity of hazardous constituents in
F037 and F038. As a result EPA is
-------
964
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
proposing to transfer K051 and K048
nonwastevvater performance data to
1-037 and F038 nonwastewaters.
Treatment standards for the metals in
KO-18-K052 nonwastewaters were based
on the performance of stabilization as
BOAT. Owing to the similarities in
waste composition of F037 and F039 to
KO18-K052, stabilization is also
considered BDAT for the metals in F037
and F038 nonwastewaters.
In today's rule, EPA, is also proposing
to revise existing treatment standards
for organic constituents in K048-K052
wastewaters (see Section IV.B. of
today's preamble). The existing K048- .
K052 vvastewater treatment standards
are based on the levels of detection that
organic constituents achieved in
Incineration scrubber waters. The
proposed revisions, if adopted, would
promulgate instead, treatment standards
that are based on the levels the organics
of concern can achieve in treated
wastewater effluents resulting from one
or more wasetwater treatment
processes. Thus, consistent with today's
proposed revisions for wastewater
forms of K051 and K048, EPA is
proposing the transfer of wastewater
treatment performance data that were
used to develop treatment standards for
organics in F039 wastewaters as the
basis of the proposed wastewater
treatment standards for wastewater
forms of F037 and F038. In the May 30,
1991, ANPR, EPA requested comment on
this transfer of wastewater performance
data to F037 and F038 (as well as to
KG48--K052). The ANPR also specifically
requested comments documenting the
treatment of organics in wastewater
lorms of F037 and F038 by biological
treatment, carbon adsorption, PACT
treatment, and wet air oxidation.
Wastewater treatment data available
on the constituents known or believed to
be present in F037 and F038 wastes
indicate that biological treatment would
be able to treat the organics in F037 and
F038. Comments from the American
Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum
Environmental Research Forum to the
ANPR appear to support this conclusion.
For metals in wastewater forms of
K048-K052. BDAT was determined to be
chemical precipitation with lime and
sulfide followed by vacuum filtration,
EPA does not expect any constituents in
F037 and F038 to interfere or behave
differently from those constituents in
K048 and K051.
Since EPA is proposing concentration
levels as the treatment standards for all
forms of F037 and F038, other treatment
or recovery technologies capable of
reaching the proposed treatment
standards would not be precluded from
being used except where achieved
through impermissible dilution.
3. Potential Overlap with the TC
PROPOSED BDAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR F037—Continued
[Nonwastewaters]
The rule expanding the universe of
wastes exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic (TC) became effective on
September 25, 1990, large-quantity
generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. The rule became
effective on March 29, 1991, for small-
quantity generators. Because a sizable
number of the F037 and F038 sludges
and/or the wastewaters from which
these sludges are generated also may
exhibit the TC, some of these wastes
may have been regulated as hazardous
under the TC rule before the F037 and
F038 listing riile became effective. The
percentage of wastes that will exhibit
the TC is uncertain, and depends largely
on the behavior of oily waste in the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP).
EPA believes that some refineries may
have responded to the TC rule and/or
the F037 and:F038 listings by
reconfiguring their wastewater
treatment process such that the wastes '
are no longer hazardous or are managed
in API separators or hi DAF units and,
as such, are considered K048 or K051
wastes, which are already subject to the
LDR treatment standards. The exact
quantities of newly identified F037 and
F038 sludge that are currently being
managed in this manner (or may be
managed this way in the future) is
unclear. As such, the Agency is
soliciting data and comment on these
potential changes in management of
F037 and F038 wastes, the resultant
increases in quantities of K048 and K051
wastes generated, and their effect on
demand in treatment capacity.
i
PROPOSED BDAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR F037
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Anthracene ,
Benzene ,
Bonzo(a)anthracone
Benzo{sjpyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene ,
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethyl benzene
Naphthalene „
Phenanlhrene
Phenol
Pyrene._
Xylenes (total)
Maximum (or
any single
grab
sample —
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
28
14
20
12
7.3
. 15
3.6
14
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total)
Maximum lor
any single
grab
sample —
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
1.8
Regulated constituent
Chromiun (total)
Nickel
Maximum (or
any single
grab
sample —
TCLP (mg/l)
1.7
0.20
PROPOSED BDAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR F037
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
i
Acenaphthene
Anthracene ...'.' . „ •
Benzo(a)anthracenG - ....... .
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene *•
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethyibenzene
Ruorene
Naphthalene
Phenantlirene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xytenes (total)
Cyanides (total)
Chromium (total)
Lead
Maximum (or
any single
grab
sample—
Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.059
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.061
0.28
. 0.059
0.057
0.057
0.059
0:059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
0.028
0.20
0.037
PROPOSED BDAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR F038
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexry)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrena
Phenol
Pvrene
Maximum (or
any single
grab
sample —
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
14"
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
42
34
3.6
36
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
965
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR F038—Continued
[Nonwasiewaters]
Regulated constituent
Toluene
Xytenes (total)
Cyanide (total)
Maximum tor
any single
grab
•ample—
Total
(mo/kg)
14
22
1.8
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total)
Nickel
Maximum for
any single
grab
sample —
TCLP (mg/I)
17
0.20
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR F038
CWastewater*]
Regulated constituent
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis<2-«thy!hexiy)phthalate
Chrysene _.__.___._
Di-n-butyl phthaiate .._... _.
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene . . ._.
Phenanthrene „
Phenol _
Pyrene ..'
Toluene__
Xytenes (total)
Cyanides (total)
Chromium (total) :
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab
sample-
Total
composition
(mo/0
0 14
0 061
0.28
0.059
0.057
0057
0059
0.059
0.059
0039
0067
0.32
0028
020
0.037
B. Wastes from the Production of
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
(K107-K110)
K107—Column bottoms from product
separation from the production of 1,1-
dimethylhydrazine from carboxylic acid
hydrazine. - -
K10&—Condensed column overheads from
product separation and condensed
reactor vent gases from the production of
1.1-dimethylhydrazine from carboxylic
acid hydrazine.
K109—Spent filter cartridge* from product
purification from the production of 1,1- .
dimethyihydrazine from carboxylic acid .
intermediates. .-...' . ..•
Kno—Condensed column overhead* from.
intermediate separation from the
production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine from
carboxylic acid intermediates.
Four wastes generated in the
production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine
(UDMH) salts from carboxylic acid
hydrazides were listed as hazardous on
May 2.1990 (55 FR18496]. (For a
detailed, description of wastes K107
through K110, refer to the final rule
listing these wastes as hazardous and
the associated listing background
document)
The Agency has also proposed to list
two additional wastes, K137 and K133,
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 in response to the
proposed listings of K107-K110 (49 FR
49556). 8 For a detailed description of
K137 and K138, refer to the Federal
Register notice proposing to list these
wastes as hazardous (155 FR 18507).
EPA is proposing to regulate wastes
from the production of unsymmetrical
imethylhydrazine by setting methods of
treatment as the standard. This is based
on the decision to regulate U098—the -
listing for off-specification, out-dated, or
discarded 1,1-dimethylhydrazine—as set
forth in the Final Rule for Third Third
wastes (55 FR 22520 (June 1,1990)). In
that rule, the treatment standards for
U098 wastes were established that
specify the use of thermal or chemical
treatment as BDAT. In particular, the
standards specified the use of
incineration as a method for
nonwastewater forms of U098, and
incineration or chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption for
wastewater forms of U098. EPA believes
that specifying methods of treatment
appears to be the most appropriate type
of standard for wastes containing
primarily UDMH due to its relative
instability in water and the resultant
difficulties in accurate quantification in
treatment residues. (In fact, the Third
Thirds rulemaking classified U098.1,1-
dimethylhydrazine, as a reactive waste
rather than a toxic organic waste based
on its instability in water and
amenability to oxidation.) While certain
analytical methods were used
successfully in the investigations that
supported the listing of these wastes as
hazardous, these methods were
designed to measure UDMH present at
high concentrations rather than at levels
* A proposed consent decree batwegq EPA and
the Environmental Defense Fund pladgop EPA to
determine whether K137 and K138 are to be
generated anytime between the signature of the
Consent Decree and July SI, 19B7: if this U the case.
EPA must list these wastes as hazardous wastes by
July 31,1998 and promulgate final treatment
standards by January 31,1999.
near the detection limit (as expected in
residues from treatment).
While preliminary contacts with
industry did not confirm that any facility
is currently generating these UDMH
wastes, the Agency is proposing
standards in the event that these wastes
may be generated some time in the
future.
In the May 30,1991 Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, EPA solicited
detailed comment about the
compositions of these waste streams,
performance data from attempts to treat
these or similar waste streams by
thermal, biological or other treatment
processes, and analytical problems
encountered or anticipated in
quantifying constituents in these wastes.
EPA received no comments specific to
these wastes.
C. Waste from the Production of
Dinitrotoluene and Toluenediamine
(Kill andKllZ)
Kill—Product wash waters from the
production of dinitrotoluene via nitration
of toluene.
K112—Reaction byproducts from the drying
column in the production of •
toluenediamine via hydrogenatipn of
dinitrotoluene.
On October 23,1985. six wastes (Kill
through K116) generated in the
production of dinitrotoluene (DMT),
toluenediamine (TDA), and toluene
diisocyanate (TDI) were listed as
hazardous (50 FR 42936). (For a detailed
description of the wastes, refer to the
final rule listing these wastes as
hazardous and the associated listing
background document.) Treatment
standard* for four of the six wastes.
K113 through IC11S, .were promulgated in
the Second Third final rule (54 FR
26623). The Agency is now developing
treatment standards for the two
, remaining wastes, Kill and K112.
Kill wastes—defined as product
wash waters from the production of
dinitrotoluene via nitration of toluene—
are generated at facilities engaged in
manufacturing inorganic chemicals, dyes
and pigments, explosives, and organic
chemicals in the course of organic
synthesis operations. K112 wastes—
defined as reaction by-product water
from the drying column in the
production pf toluenediamine via the
hydrogenatiori of dinitrotoluene—are
generated in intermediate processes at
fadlitie8;engag'ea fa^nranufecturing
photographic chemicals, jilastics and
resins, organic chemicals, textiles and
polyuretharie, as well as in the
production of toluenediamine as an end
product.
-------
966
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6, / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
Characterization information
indicates that Kill wastes are
generated as aqueous liquids with
significant quantities of sulfuric and
nitric acids, and are likely to be
corrosive. As corrosive wastes meeting
the D002 definition criteria (40 CFR
201.22) such streams are already subject
to land disposal restrictions. Other
organic components that could be
present and potentially used as
surrogates for concentration-based
standards are nitrocresols, nitrophenols,
nitrobenzoic acid and the more stable
dinitrotoluenes. 1(112 is an aqueous
liquid with small quantities of
toluenediamines. Kill and K112 wastes
also may include metals such as nickel
(from catalysts).
EPA is proposing to regulate Kill and
K112 wastewaters and nonwastewaters
by specifying methods of treatment as
standards. This is primarily due to the
fact that the major organic constituents
of Kill and K112 (the dinitrotoluenes
and toluidines) are relatively unstable in
water, and SW-848 (and equivalent) test
methods cannot quantify them reliably
^so that the regulated community can
'analyze these wastes and their
treatment residues on a routine basis to
demonstrate complia'nce.
The alternative to establishing
treatment standards expressed as
required methods is to develop
concentration-based standards.
Concentration-based standards for the
organics in Kill and K112 wastes (as
stated above) appear to be
inappropriate because the toxic organics
anticipated to be present are not
amenable to quantification in complex
matrices.
However, if surrogate organics could
be identified that could be used to
demonstrate that these organic
constituents of concern could be treated,
the Agency would consider developing
concentration-based standards. In fact,
EPA solicited analytical data on the
composition of these streams in the May,
30 ANPR, in order to determine whether
they contain constituents that can act as
analytical surrogates to verify
destruction of the organic constituents
of concern, but received no response on '•
this issue. : •
Thus, incineration for
nonwastewaters, and incineration or
chemical oxidation followed by
activated carbon adsorption for " '
wostcwaters are being proposed'as
treatment standards for'Kill and K112
wastes. One commenter responding-to •
the May 30 ANPR, SB FR 24462. , ',;" '
suggested that Kill may.be explosive .
because of the high DNT concentration
and that incineration is therefore not an
appropriate method of treatment. This
commenter also provided EPA with
preliminary treatability data for Kill
and K112 wastes in biological treatment
systems. EPA has solicited additional
treatability data from this commenter
and is currently evaluating whether
standards based on biological treatment
are appropriate. EPA requests data
characterizing the treatability of these
wastes in biological systems from other
commenters.
D. Wastes from the Production of
Ethylene Dibromide (K117, K1I8. and
K136J
K117 — Wastewater production frqm the
reactor vent gas scrubber in the
production of ethylene dibromide via
bromination of ethylene.
K118 — Spent adsorbent solids from
purification of ethylene dibromide via
bromination of ethylene dibromide via
bromination of ethylene.
K136 — Still bottoms from the purification of
ethylene dibromide in the production of
ethylene dibromide via bromination of
ethylene.
Three wastes generated in the
production of ethylene dibromide (EDB)
were listed as hazardous on February
13, 1988 (51 FR 5327). (For a detailed
description of K117.K118. and K136. . .
refer to the final rule listing these wastes
as hazardous and the associated listing
background document.) Although EPA
banned the use of ethylene dibromide
(EDB) in theUS, EPA believes that EDB
wastes may still be generated by
pesticide manufacturers intending to sell
EDB overseas. '
K117 is a liquid stream containing
ethylene dibromide, bromoethane,
bromochlorcethane and chloroform.
K118 is a solid waste consisting of spent
adsorbents saturated with ethylene
dibromide, 1,1,2-tribromomethane,
bromochloroe thane, bromome thane and
bis(2-bromo}ethyl ether. K138 is an
organic liquid with high concentrations
of ethylene dibromide.
Information available to the Agency
suggests that only one facility generates
K118 and reports disposing Of it in a': "• '
hazardous waste permitted landfill. This
facility also reports recycling its K117
stream, a briny high-bromine stream •
that it returns to the bromine production
-: , .,;•. :...;:-;.. '.. .- ;,;.,-, .-. ;
The EDB wastes K117. K118 and K136
resemble very closely the
organobromine wastes U029 :
(bromomethane), U030 (4-bromophenyl
phenyl ether), U066 (l,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane), U067 (ethylene
dibromide, EDB), U068
(dibromomethane) and U225
(bromoform) regulated in the Third
Third final rule. Therefore,
concentration-based standards have
been developed for K117, K118 and K136
wastes based on a transfer of data used
to calculate the U029, U030, U066, U067,
U088 and U225 Third Third standards;
these data were based on incineration of
EDB wastes performed'and monitored
by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances
(see the two table's at the end of this
section for the proposed standards).
Incinerating brominated organic
compounds raises the issue of
preventing emissions of molecular
bromine (Br2) from the incinerator by
shifting the combustion reaction product
equilibrium to favor the formation of
hydrogen bromide (HBr). These
concerns can be addressed on a site
specific basis through the omnibus
permitting provision. Limited data
available to EPA suggest that adding
sulfur to the combustion mixture.
prevents generation and subsequent
emissions of molecular bromine. EPA
also realizes that organobromine wastes
also offer, opportunities for recycling—at
least one facility is known to recover
bromine from brominated wastes by
. 'thermal processing. ,' . . ,
'In response to the May, 1991, Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
soliciting comment and data on the .
composition and treatment, of these
wastes, a commenter discussed the
difficulties in incinerating brominated
wastes, but presented no engineering
data describing how an incinerator
could be. designed or operated to reduce
bromine emissions.;One commenter also
indicated that (steam stripping could also
be used to treat these wastes. As a
result, EPA is currently evaluating
performance data submitted on steam-
i stripping and may specify its use as
BOAT for K117 and K118 or promulgate
a numerical treatment standard based .
on these data as an alternative to the
• incineratipn-Jjased 'numbers proposed
here. These, data are included in the •
public record for the ANPR. •:' • •.' :
Comments from another facility
described a process for recycling K117
which includes bromine recovery! This
commenter requested EPA tp set
incineration followed by bromine
reclamation from the incinerator
scrubber water as BOAT. EPA solicits
comment oh'this. •".' : f|4 "
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
967
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR K117. K118, AND K136
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Ethylene dibromide
Bromomethane „.„.._„._
Chloroform „._ „ .
1 , 1 ,2-Tribromomethane _
Maximum for
any single
grab
sample —
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
15
15
5.6
15
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR K117, K118, AND K136
fWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Ethylene dSxomide
Bromomethane _._ .
Chloroform . .. __..
1 ,1 ,2-Tribromomethane
Maximum for
any single
grab
sample —
Total
composition
(mg/1)
0.028
0.11
0.046
0.63
E. Wastes from the Production of " ..
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acld(Kl23r
K126) .
K123—Process wastewater (including
supernatants, filtrates and wash waters)
from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its
salts.
K124—Reactor vent scrubber water from the
production of ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
acid and its salts.
K125—Purification solids (including filtration,
evaporation and centrifugation solids)
from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its
salts.
K126—Baghouse dust and floor sweepings in
milling and packaging operations from -
the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its
salts.
Four wastes generated in the
production and formulation of the
fungicide ethylenebisdithiocarbamic •
acid (EBDC) and its salts were listed as
hazardous on October 24,1988 (51FR -
37725). (For a detailed description of ,
K123 through K128, refer to the final rule
listing these wastes as hazardous and
the associated listing background • '
document). • • .-•..'•
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 appears to be the
primary organic component of all four
wastes.
The Agency's preliminary contacts
with industry indicate that one facility
generates these wastes; this facility
currently sends them to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) after
neutralization to an appropriate pH.
Methods of treatment are being
proposed for K123, K124, K125, and K126
wastes because the principal organic
components of these wastes are
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (EBDC)
and ethylene thiourea, both of which are
relatively unstable in water and thus
appear to be particularly difficult to
quantify. EDBC and ethylene thiourea
were regulated in the Third Third
rulemaking U114 and U116 respectively,
both with methods of treatment as
standards.
Concentration-based standards are an
alternative to'specifying treatment
methods. EPA will, however, only set
concentration-based standards for
organics in K123 through K128 wastes if
reliable analytical information shows
the wastes contain significant
concentrations of organics that are
consistently amenable to quantification
in complex matrices (i.e., the treatment
residues) or if surrogate treatment
parameters can be identified. Available
data suggest that none of the hazardous
organic constituents of concern in K123
through K126 wastes are easily
quantified in treatment residues from
treatment of other types of wastes.
Nevertheless, to determine whether
concentration-based standards are
appropriate for the organics in these
four wastes, EPA solicited analytical
data on their composition in both
treated and untreated wastes in the May
30,1991, ANPR, 56 FR 24483. Based on
the lack of comments received, other
constituents or parameters could not
specifically be identified that could act
as analytical surrogates (i.e., indicators
to verify destruction of the organic
constituents of the stream that are
difficult to analyze). Consequently, "EPA
could not propose concentration-based
standards using surrogates. EPA is,
therefore, proposing thermal and
chemical methods of treatment as '
standards for K123, K124, K125 and
K126. These methods of treatment,
incineration for nonwastewaters and
incineration or chemical oxidation
followed by either biological treatment
or carbon adsorption for wastewaters,
appear to be appropriate standards for
these wastes'.'" "•'"
In the May 30,1991 Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, EPA solicited
detailed comment about the
compositions of these waste streams,
performance data from attempts to treat
these or similar waste streams by
thermal, biological or other treatment
processes, and analytical problems
encountered or anticipated in
quantifying constituents in these wastes.
EPA received no comments specific to
these wastes.
F. Wastes from the Production of
Metliyl Bromide (K131 andKl32)
K131—Wastewater from the reactor and
spent sulfuric acid from the acid dryer
from the production of methyl bromide.
K132—Spent adsorbent and wastewater
separator solids from the production of
• methyl bromides.
Two wastes generated during the
production of methyl, bromide were
listed has hazardous on October 6,1989
(54 FR 41402). For a more detailed
description of wastes^Kl31 and K132,
please refer to the October 1989 rule for
the initial listing of these wastes and the
associated listing background
documents.4
K131 wastes are extremely acidic
aqueous liquids containing methyl
bromide,' dimethyl sulfate and sulfuric
acid, plus other brominated ethanes and
methane?- and ethanerbased alcohols
and ethers. K132 wastes consist of
adsorbent solids saturated with liquids
containing methyl bromide.
The methyl bromide wastes resemble
the organobromine wastes U029, U030,
U066, U067, U068 and U225 regulated in
the May 1990 Third Third final rule.
Because of this similarity, EPA is
proposing to regulate methyl bromide in
the K131 and K132 waste, streams with
the standards promulgated for U029
(methyl bromide) in the Third Thirds
rulemaking: 0.11 mg/1 in wastewaters
and 15 mg/kg in nonwastewaters. BOAT
for these wastes is incineration.
However, responses to the May, 1991,
Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, in which EPA solicited .
detailed comment about these waste
streams in terms of composition,
feasibility of analysis and treatabili ty,
indicate that the one generator of these
wastes uses steam stripping to treat
these waste's. EPA is currently . -
evaluating steam-stripping performance
data from this commenter in order to
evaluate steam stripping as BDAT foi
these wastes. Therefore, EPA may
designate gteamjstripping as BOAT for
4 One plant recycles a particular methyl bromide
stream in a way that may not Involve discarding.
EPA requested, and obtained a voluntary remand
to investigate further whether such stream is a
RCRA aoUd waste. Today's proposal:would not
apply to this material if it is ultimately determined
not to be a solid waste, and also does not apply
during the period the Agency is studying the issue.
-------
Ofifl
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
K131 and K132 and promulgate a set of
numerical treatment standards based on
steam stripping rather than the
incineration-based numbers proposed
here.
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT .
STANDARDS FOR K131 AND K132
[Nonwastowalere]
Rceutatedconrttowr
Qnxnamcthane (nxrthyl bromide)
Maxi-
mum tor
single
rampfe
Total
compo-
sition
(mg/kg)
15
PROPOSED BOAT TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR K131 AND K132
CWastewatersl
Roaototod constituent
Btonxxnothano (roomy! bromide)
Maxt-
nwrnfor
any
single
orajS
•ampfe
Total
compo-
sition
(n>9/1)
0.11
G. Additional Organic U Wastes (U328,
U3S3, and U3S9)
This section addresses the
investigation of BOAT for three specific
wastes listed under 40 CFR 26133 since
November, 1984. These are identified
with the alphanumeric waste code that
starts with a "U".
1. Ortho-toluidine and Pura-toluidine
(U328 and U353)
Ortho-toluidine and para-toluidine,
which when discarded become U328 '
and 1)353. arc manufactured from
processes similar to those used in
. "jnanufacturing dtnitrotoluene and
t6luenediamine. U328 and U353, thus,
may be similar to wastes identified as
Kill and K112. The textile 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 adds
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
ylucose analyses.
EPA is proposing methods of
treatment as the standards for U328 and
U353 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Methods of treatment, rather than
treatment levels, 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 such that consistent
quantification of o-toluidine and p-
toluidine in raw wastes and treated
residuals may preclude the development
of a concentration-based standard for
these wastes, i.e:, the alternative to
specifying methods of treatment. In
addition, these two organic compounds
resemble other organic compounds,
namely 4-chloro-o-toluidine (U049) and
o-toluidine hydrochloride (U222) for
which similar standards have been
promulgated.
The Agency, therefore, is proposing
incineration or thermal destruction as
required methods of treatment for the
nonwastewater forms of these wastes, .
and chemical oxidation followed by
either-biological treatment or carbon
adsorption for the wastewater forms of
these wastes. (Although not a primary
technology for wastewaters,
incineration could be proposed as an
alternative method of treatment for
wastewaters.)
The molecular structures of these
compounds—but not their stability in
water—resemble U049,4-chloro-o-
toluidine and U222, o-toluidine
hydrochloride. U049 and U222 are
•amenable to analytical quantification
and were demonstrated to be amenable
to treatment by incineration by data
from EPA'»incinerator tests performed
to support earlier rulemaking. Therefore
EPA believes that incineration as a
method of treatment is the appropriate
standard for these wastes.*
The Agency's preliminary contacts
with industry indicate that one facility
generates both U328 and U353. This
facility estimates U328 generation at
4000 Ib/yr and U353 generation at 1000
Ib/yr but did not say how they disposed
of these wastes.
In the May, 1891, Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, EPA solicited
detailed comment about the
compositions, of these waste streams, %
performance data from attempts to treat
these or similar waste streams by
thermal, biological or other treatment
processes, and analytical problems
encountered or anticipated in
quantifying constituents in these wastes.
EPA received no comments specific to
these wastes.
2. 2-Ethoxyethanol, U359
U359 is generated in the printing,
organic chemical manufacturing and
leather and tanning industries and,then
used in various other processes in paint
removers, cleansing solutions and dye
baths, as a solvent for inks, duplicating
fluids, nitrocellulose, lacquers and other
substances, as a chemical intermediate
in 2-ethoxyacetate manufacture and in
the process of leather finishing. EPA
anticipates this waste to be co-treated
and co-disposed with FOOS wastes listed
for 2-ethoxyethanol.
The Agency's preliminary contacts
with industry indicate that only two
facilities generate U359. One reports
generating U359 as minimal spills and
other losses during handling and also as
laboratory waste (about 100 gallons a
year); the facility sends these wastes
off-site-for treatment and disposal. The
other reports generating unspecified
quantities of U359 from spill cleanups
and other'sources; these wastes are
treated by incineration and biological
treatment depending on water content
EPA is proposing to regulate U359
wastewaters and nonwastewaters by
setting methods of thermal and chemical
treatment as the standard. Methods of
treatment, namely (1) incineration for
nonwastewaters and (2) incineration or
chemical oxidation followed by either
biological treatment or carbon
adsorption for wastewaters, appear to
be appropriate standards for this waste
because no SW-846 methods exist for
quantifying 2-ethoxyethanol which is
unstable in water and thus- particularly
difficult to. quantify.
• The proposed .treatment standards for
U359 wastes are-the same treatment
methods set in the Third Thirds
rulemaking for U154, methanol
wastewater* ami nonwaiitewaters,
namely (1) incineration for
nonwastewaters and (2) incineration or
chemical-oxidation with carbon
adsorption or biodegradation for
wastewaters. Furthermore, in
incineration tests performed to support
previous rutemaldngs, incineration was
demonstrated to reduce butanol to
levels near the analytical limit of
detection. -
In the May, 1891. Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, EPA solicited
detailed comment about the
compositions of 2-ethoxyethanol waste
streams, performance data from
attempts to treat these or similar waste
streams by thermal, biological or other
treatment processes, and analytical
problems encountered or anticipated in
quantifying constituents in these wastes.
One commenter offered to work with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
969
EPA to develop an analytical method to
quantify 2-ethoxyethanol in
wastewaters. This commenter submitted
preliminary data from biological
treatment of a wastewater high in 2-
ethoxyethanol and encouraged EPA to
develop numerical treatment standards
for 2-ethoxyethanol. EPA is currently
soliciting further information from this
commenter.
IV. Detailed Discussion of Today's
Proposed Rule: Changes to Existing
Regulations
A. Proposed Revisions to the FOO1-F005
Spent Solvent Treatment Standards
FOOl—The following spent halogenated
solvents used in degreasing:
Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated
fluorocarbons; all spent solvent
mixtures/blends used in degreasing
containing, before use, a total of 10
percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above halogenated solvents
or those solvents listed in F002, F004, and
F005 and still bottoms from the recovery
of these spent solvents and spent solvent
mixtures.
F002—The following spent holgenated
solvents: Tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-
trichloro-l,l,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane,
and 1,2,2-trichloroethane; all spent
solvent mixtures/blends containing,
before use, a total of 10 percent or more
of the above halogenated solvents or
those listed in FOOl, F004, or F005; and
still bottoms from the recovery of these
spent solvents and spent solvent
mixtures.
K003—The following spent nonhalogenated
solvents: Xylene acetone, ethyl acetate,
ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl
isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol,
cyclohexanone, and methanol; all spent
solvent mixtures/blends containing,
before use, only the above spent
nonhalogenated solvents; and all spent
solvent mixtures/blends containing
before use, one or more of the above
nonhalogenated solvents, and a total of
10 percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of those solvents listed in FOOl,
F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms.
from the recovery of these spent solvents
and spent solvent mixtures.
f 004-r-The following spent nonhalogenated
solvents: Cresol and cresylic acid and
nitrobenzene; all spent solvent mixtures/
blends containing, before use, a total of
10 percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above nonhalogenated
solvents or those solvents listed in FOOl,
F002, and F005; and still bottoms from
the recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures.
F005—The following spent nonhalogenated
solvents: Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine,
benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nitropropane; all spent solvent mixtures/
blends containing before use, a total of
10 percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above nonhalogenated
solvents or those solvents listed in FOOl,
F002, or F004; and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures.
The agency is, today, proposing
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 the proposed
changes to the treatment standards as
well as any treatment data that may be
available to assist in further refinement
of the treatment standards.
1. Regulatory Background
a. Listing definitions. On May 19,1980
(45 FR 33119), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) listed 27
commonly used organic solvents as
hazardous wastes when spent or
discarded. The solvents were listed as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FOOl, F002,
F003. F004, and F005. These listed
wastes included certain spent
halogenated and nonhalogenated
solvents, including still bottoms from the
recovery of these solvents.
On December 31,1985 (50 FR 53315),
the Agency promulgated an amendment
to the listings to include mixtures
containing a total of 10 percent or more
(by volume) of one or more of the listed
solvents (the 10 percent threshold
always applied to solvent mixtures
before use). The Agency believed that
establishing a threshold level well
below the minimum solvent
concentration typically used in solvent
formulations would bring the majority of
solvent mixtures used in commerce into
the hazardous waste management
system, while excluding dilute mixtures.
Furthermore, data showed that, at
concentrations above 10 percent,
solvents have been demonstrated to
cause substantial harm to human health.
The Agency also received numerous
comments regarding the scope to the
spent solvent listings. As clarified in the
December 31,1985, Federal Register (50
FR 53315), the listings cover only those
solvents that are used for their "solvent"
properties, i.e., to solubilize (dissolve) or
mobilize other constituents.
Manufacturing process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of
commercial chemical products are not
covered by the listing.
The final definition of the spent
solvents listing did not include four
solvents that were added to the F001-
F005 listing on February 25,1986:
. Benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-
nitropropane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(51 FR 40607).
b. F001-F005 Treatment Standards.
The Agency promulgated treatment
standards for F001-F005 spent solvent
wastes on November 7,1988 (51 FR
40593). Lab packs containing these
solvents were also subject to these
treatment standards. The Agency did
not include treatment standards for
commercial chemical products,
manufacturing chemical intermediates,
and off-specification commercial
chemical products (U and P wastes) that
corresponded to the F001-F005 listings.
The rule also did not cover the four
newly listed solvents in the F001-F005
listings: Benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-
nitropropane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(51 FR 6537).
The Agency promulgated the TCLP
{i.e., the leaching procedure itself, but
not the characteristic) in the final rule
specifically for evaluation of the solvent
and dioxin-containing wastes. As stated
in 53 FR 17584, EPA's land disposal
restrictions for solvent waste codes
F001-F005 (51 FR 40572) uses the TCLP
value as a measure of performance. At
the time that EPA promulgated the
treatment standards for F001-F005,
useful data were not available on total
constituent concentrations in treated
residuals, and as a result, the TCLP data
were considered to be the best measure
of performance.
However, for all organic constituents
whose treatment standards have been
promulgated after the November 7,1986
rule, EPA has based the treatment
standards on the total constituent
concentration found in the treated
waste. EPA has based its decision on
the fact that these technologies exist to
destroy the various organic compounds.
Accordingly, the best measure of
performance should reflect the extent to
which the various organic compounds
have been destroyed or die total amount
of constituent remaining after treatment.
c. Methylene chloride standard
revised. As part of the First Third rule,
the Agency revised and promulgated the
BOAT treatment standard for methylene
chloride in F001-F005 wastewaters from
the pharmaceutical industry (53 FR
31152). The revised treatment standard
was based on the transfer of treatment
data for wastewater from agricultural
facilities. The revised treatment
standard was based on steam stripping
data for methylene chloride and was
based on total constituent analysis.
-------
970
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
d. Amendment to F001-F005listing
definition. In the Third Third rule (55 FR
22570). the Agency promulgated
treatment standards for 1,1,2-
trichloroelhane, benzene, 2-
c'hoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane for
(he F002 and F005 spent solvents. These
four organic constituents were added as
hazardous constituents to the F002 and
F005 hazardous waste listings in 1986
(see 51 FR 6737, February 25,1988). EPA
did not amend treatment standards for
the other solvent constituents in F002
und F005. The Agency promulgated
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater forms of 1,1.2-
trichloroelhane and benzene based on
performance data generated from one,
or u combination of two or more, of the
following BOAT technologies: Biological
treatment, steam stripping, carbon -
adsorption, and liquid extraction, among
others. The treatment standards
promulgated for 1,1,2-lrichloroethane
and benzene in nonwastewater forms of
F002 and F005 were based on
performance data from incineration.
These treatment standards are
expressed as concentration-based
standards in the treated waste.
EPA had determined that the
available data were insufficient to
establish concentration-based treatment
c!;.nd:iru3 for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of F005 containing
2-nitropropane and 2-ethoxyethanol and
instead promulgated methods of
troatment as the treatment standards.
2. Overlap Between F001-F005 Solvents
and Other BDAT Standards
Many of the solvent constituents that
ure regulated in F001-F005 wastes are
also regulated in the First, Second, and
Third Third rules. In the April 18,1988
and the May 17,1388 proposed First
Third rules, treatment standards for the
following K wastes, containing solvent
constituents also regulated in F001-F005
wastes, were proposed: K001, K015,
KOI 6, K018. K019. K020, K021. K022,
K025, K030. K037. K048, K049, K050.
K051. K052, K088. K087, K103, and K110.
The treatment standards for these
wastes were promulgated on August 17.
1938.
In the Second Third proposed rule.
treatment standards for the following K
wastes containing constituents that are
also regulated in F001-F005 wastes were
proposed: K011, K013. K014, K028, K029,
K060, and K098. These treatment
standards were promulgated on June 23,
1989.
In the November 22,1989 proposed
rule for the Third Third wastes, EPA
proposed two alternative sets of
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater forms of the
majority of the U and P wastes, many of
which were solvent constituents found
in F001-F005 wastes. One set of
treatment standards was based on the
concentration of each constituent in
incinerator scrubber water. The second
set of standards was based on
wastewater treatment performance data
for each constituent On the basis of
comments received, the Agency
established and promulgated treatment
standards for wastewater forms of the
Third Third waste codes based on
wastewater treatment performance
data. These treatment standards were
promulgated [on June 1,1990 (55 FR
22601). The solvent wastes affected by
this change included: Acetone (UO02), n-
butyl alcohol (U031), carbon disulfide
(P022), carbon tetrachloride (U211),
chlorobenzene (U037), cresols and
cresylic acid (U052), cyclohexanone
(U057), 1,2-dichlorobenzene, ethyl
acetate (U112), ethylbenzene, ethyl ether
(U117), isobutanol (U140), methanoL
methylene chloride (U080), methyl ethyl
ketone (U161), methyl isobutyl ketone
(U161), nitrobenzene (U169), pyridine
(U196), tetrachloroethylene (U210),
toluene (U22Q)| 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(U226), l,l^-trichloro-lA2-
trifluoroethane, trichloroethylene (U228),
trichlorofluoromethane. and xylene
(U239).
The Agency also proposed treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of U
and P wastes on November 22,1989.
(The U wastes that contain constituents
regulated in the F001-F005 final rule are
the same as the Third Third U wastes
discussed above.) After the comment
period, the Agency revised the proposed
treatment standards for approximately
75 constituents. These changes were
based on three data sources: The
Interlaboratory Ash Study, an in-house
study by EPA's Office of Research and
• Development, and EPA's revaluation of
its own calculation and methodology.
These changes took the form of either
different numerical values for •
concentration-based standards or
promulgating incineration as a method
of treatment for wastes for which EPA
had not proposed concentration-based
standards. The nonwastewater
concentration-based standards,
promulgated on June 1,1990, reflect the
performance of well-designed and well-
operated incineration systems and were
developed primarily using the results
from 14 incineration test burns (55 FR
22604). . .
Treatment standards for the following
F and K wastes containing solvent
constituents present in F001-F006
solvent wastes were also proposed and
promulgated in the Third Third: F025,
K001, K011, K013. K014, K01S, K021.
K022, K025, K026, K029. K035. K037.
K042, K048, K049, K050, K051, K060.
K073, K083, K085, K086, K095, K090. and
K105.
3. Comments Received from the May 30,
1991, Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on Revisions to Standards
for F001-F005 Solvent Wastes
The Agency received a number of
comments on the proposed rulemaking
revisions to the F001-F005 solvent waste
treatment standards that were outlined
in the ANPR; all the comments were
generally favorable to the idea of basing
the nonwastewater treatment standards
for organic constituents in F001-F005
spent solvents from the existing TCLP
standards to standards based on total
concentrations as an alternative to the
existing TCLP standards,
4. Proposed Changes to the F001-F005
Treatment Standards
The Agency is today proposing to
revise the treatment standards for both
nonwastewater and wastewater forms
of F001-F005 wastes. (See Table at end
of this section for specific treatment
levels.) The methodology used to
develop ihe treatment standards for
both nonwastewater and wastewater
forms of F039 (nmltisource leachate)
was used in determining the revised
treatment standards for the F001-F005
spent solvents. These revisions do not,
however, include the four solvents that
were added to the solvents listings:
Benzene, 2-exthoxyethanol, 2-
nitropropane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
Treatment standards for these
constituents were promulgated in the
Third Third final rule in accordance
with the previously mentioned
methodology.
In addition, the Agency is changing
the measure of performance for F001-
F005 solvents from treatment standards
based on the TCLP to standards based
on total concentration of organic
constituent in the waste. This is
appropriate in that EPA has previously
determined that treatment technologies
for organics exist to destroy the various
organic compounds. Accordingly, the
best measure of performance is the
extent to which the various organic
compounds have been destroyed or the
total amount of constituent remaining
after treatment.
a. Revisions to the Standards for
Cresols. In the Solvents and Diqxins
rule, the Agency promulgated BDAT
treatment standards for "cresols." At
that time, the Agency did not distinguish
.between the various isomere that are
present in cresols. As a result, the
Agency promulgated a concentration-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No, 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
971
based treatment standard for cresol
wastewaters of 2.82 mg/1 baaed on the
performance of activated carbon
adsorption. For nonwastewa.ters, the
Agency had no data on TCUP extracts of
residues from the incineration of cresols
(cresylic acid] to use in the derivation of
the BDAT treatment standard. EPA.
instead, used chemical structure as the
basis for transferring the treatment data
to cresols (cresylic acid) spent solvents.
The data from which the treatment
standard for incineration of methylethyl
ketone was derived was transferred to
cresols {cresylic acid). The treatment
standard of 0.75 mg/1 for
nonwastewaters is based on the
transferred data.
In the Third Third rule, EPA
promulgated treatment standards for
U052 waste. U052 is listed as "cresols
(cresylic acid}." Cresylic acid is the
name given to a mixture of three
isomeric cresols (methyl phenols), in
which the meta-cresol predominates.
U052 typically contains various levels of
ortho-cresol, metacresol, and para-
cresol. Analytical methods are usually
reported for o-cresol (CAS No. 95-48-7)
and a combination of m- and p-cresols,
because m-cresol and p-cresol cannot be
distinguished by the analytical methods.
Thus, the Agency promulgated
concentration-based standards for U052
based on an analysis for o-cresol and
Ihe mixture of m-cresol and p-cresol.
Based on this, the Agency is today
proposing to modify the current
treatment standards for the constituent
"cresols" in F001-F005 wastes. The
Agency is proposing to transfer the
treatment standards from U052 wastes
for o-cresol and a mixture of m-cresol
and p-cresol wastewaters and
nonwastewatera to F001-F005 wastes
based on total concentration of
constituents) in the waste stream.
b. Modification to the Regulatory
Placement of FVOl-fO05 Standards. Tie
Agency is also proposing to p.hangt» the
regulatory table as it pertains to FOG1-
F005 wastes. The Agency has identified
a placement error for F001-F005 spent
solvent wastewaters. The regulated
hazardous constituents in FOOL-WOS
and their respective wastewater
treatment standards are in Table
CCWE—Constituent Concentrations in
Waste Extract (40 CFR 268.4)! However,
this placement is in error; the correct
location for these standards should be in
Table CCW—Constituent
Concentrations in Wastes (40 CFR
268.43). As such, the tables will be
changed accordingly. Furthermore, in
that the Agency is proposing to change
the nonwastewater treatment standards
from the TCLP standard to a total
concentration-based standards, this part
of the table will also change (if the
proposal is finalized) by placing the
nonwastewater standards for F001-F005
spent solvents in Table CCW—
Constituent Concentrations in Wastes.
PROPOSED REVISIONS . TO TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR RXH-f005 SPENT
SOLVENT WASTES
RegUata}
constituent
Acetone
n-ButyJ alcohol,.
Carbon
disulfide.
Carbon
tetrachiorida
Chlorobenzene..
Cresol (m- and
p-isomers.
o-Oeaol
CydohexanonB_
1.2-
Dichtoroben-
zene.
Ethyl acetate-. —
Ethyl benzsno....
Ethyl ether
Isobuty) alcohol..
Methanol
Methytene
chloride.
Methyl ethyl
ketone.
Methyfbobutyl
ketone.
Nitrobenzene
Pyridinft..
Tetrachlo-
roethylene.
Toluene
1.1.V
Trichlo-
roethane.
Trichlo-
roethytaoe.
1.1.2-Triehloro-
1.2,2-
triflooro- '
ethane.
Trichhw
monoflu-
orometnane.
Xylenes (total)....
Hot
Treat-
ment
BT
BT
BT
BT
BT
AS
BT
8T
.BT
AS
BT
BO
BT
BT
SS
BT
BT
SS+
AC
ANFF
SS
SS
SS
SS
Ae+Hl
UL+SS
+AC
WAO
OMCr taMbWV
Wastewater
"(rns/t)
0.28
5.6
0.014
0.057
0.057
0.7T
0.1t
0.36
0.088
0.34
0.057
0.12
5.6
5.6
•0.089
aza
0.14
0.06S
0.014
0.056
• OJOB,
0054
0.054
0.057
OQ2
0.32
**taodant
Non-
wastewater
(ms/fcoJ
160
2.6
NR
M
5.7
3.2
£ (E
yjo
NR
&2
33
6.0
160
170
Ma
npi
33
36
33
14
18
5.6
28
5.6
5.6
28
33
28
treaimaai technologies on which &e-
es on wc e-
treatment standards were based are indicated in this
column; all of the nonwastewaler treatment stand-
ards were based on incineration.
»Themethytene chloride treatment standard for
wastewatars generated from pharmaceutical plants
Ifi 0-.44- n>Q/ 1.
NR: Not repulatad.
Key to TfMtotent Technotogiee
AC— AcJhMlad carbon; ANFF— Anaerobic fixed
film biological treatment: As— Activated sludge bio-
logical treatment; BT— Biological treatment; GAC—
Granulated Activated Carbon; Fil— Filtration: LL—
Lxjmd liquid extraction; PACT— Powdered Activated
Carbon Treatment; HO— Reverse osmosis; SS—
Steam stopping; WAO— Wet air oxidation.
B. Conversion of Wastewater Standards
Based on Scrubber Water
KOI5 — Still bottoms from the distillation of
benzyl chloride.
K016—Heavy cods or diitillatkm residues
from the production of carbon
tetrachloride.
K018—Heavy ends from the fractionation
column, in ethyl chloride production.
K019—-Heavy ends from the distillation of
ethyiene dichforide in ethytene
dichloride production.
K020—Heavy ends from the distillation of
vinyl chloride in vinyl chloride
production.
K023-4)iiUiUation light eada from the
production of phthalic anhydride from
naphthalene-
K024—DistiTlatjoabottom tara from the
production of phthalic anhydride from
naphthalene.
K02&—Spent catalyst from the
hydrochiorinator reactor in the
production of 1,14-trrehloroethane.
10130—Column bottoma or heavy ends from
the conbiaed production of
tricbioroefchylene and perehtoroethylene.
K048—Dissolved air flotation (DAJ?) float
from the petroleum refining industry.
K049—Slop oil emulsion solids from the
petroleum refining industry.
K050—Heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum, refining
industry.1' • ''' • • '• •-"'•'••••
K051—AI9 separator ahtdge from the
K052— Tank bottom* (leaded} from the
petroiemn refining inductry.
K087— Decanter tank tar sludge froaa coking
operatione,
K093— DisiillaSioa light end* fc»m the
production of phtbalic anhydride from
ortho-xylene.
K094— Dfstitlaaon bottoms from the
production of phthalic anhydride from
ortho-xylene. "'
U08S— Dt»-butjil pbtbatae.
U102— Duneti^rl pb&alate,
U190— Phthafic anhydride (nteaaured as
Phthalic acid}.
On November 22, 1989 [54 FR 48372),
EPA proposed as part of the Third Third
rule concentration-based treatment
standard* for nuseroa* tided wastes
based on the performaace of
incineration. For the wastewaters, the
treatment standards were based on the
concentration of the constituents of
concern in incineration scrubber waters,
In the final rule 155 FR 22520). Jiowever,
EPA altered Mr approach facetting these
standards and promulgated treatment
standards for wastewaters based on
actual wastewater treatment data for
the constituents of concern. This change
was adopted for a number of reasons.
First, it was stated hi the final rule for
the Second Third wastes (54 FR 26629]
and reiterated in. the final rule for Third
Third wastes (65 FR 22577) that, when
the Agency had appropriate wastewater
treatment data from well-designed and
well-operated wastewater treatment
-------
972
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
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
wastewatera. In addition, alternative
standards were proposed in the Third
Third notice for multisource leachate
(K039) wastewaters based on a transfer
of performance data from various
sources, including: The Office of Water's
Industrial Technology Division (ITD)
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 BOAT data
(from previous land disposal restriction
rules); and additional wastewater
treatment data from articles on wet air
oxidation (WAO) 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 when EPA had
performance data from technologies
treating wastewaters containing the
same or similar constituents that EPA
could use it 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,
comments on the proposed rules for the
1 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
in 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 (FQ39)." 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 in 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,
K048, K049, K050, K051, K052, K087,
K093, K0494. U028, U069, U088. U102,
U107, and U190). These wastewater
treatment standards were based on data
from incineration scrubber waters. Upon
review of all available data and
comments, the Agency believes that the
best demonstrated available technology
for these wastewaters is better
represented by concentration-based
treatment standards based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber waters. Therefore, the Agency
is proposing to modify the ,
concentration-based treatment
standards for these wastewaters. The
waters affected by this change come
primarily from three general treatability
groups: chlorinated organics, petroleum
wastes, and phthalate wastes. The
Agency believes that this proposed
change is consistent with' the changes
made to the wastewater standards in
the final Third Third rule. It should be
noted, however, that any technology not
otherwise prohibited (e.g., impermissible
dilution) may be used to meet the
concentration-based treatment standard
for these wastewaters, including
incineration.
Finally, during the development of the
Third Third rule, the Agency determined
that for pentachloroethane (a regulated
constituent in K018, K02S, and K031), .
complications arose in terms of how
reliably the constituent could be
quantified (55 FR 22611). As such, the:
Agency made a decision to promulgate.
technology-specific treatment standards
(i.e., a method (or methods) of
treatment) rather than a constituent
specific standard. As such, the Agency
is today proposing to delete
pentachloroethane from further
regulation in the wastewater forms of
K018, K028, and K030, and to rely on
other constituents to act as surrogates
for the.treatment of pentachloroethane.
COMPARISON OF PROMULGATED WASTEWATER STANDARDS TO THE PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR VARIOUS F AND K WASTES
Waste code and regulated organic constituent
K015— Anthraceos™ ._ • ' ' •
B«cztl eWorld* ._ ' .._:_.
Bflnzo {b and/or k) flooranthene : .....;..
Phonanthrone .„„...... „. „„„
TC"!i!on«............. „._.._.„ _. _ .
K016— HoxacMorobenzene „„ „._.„ _ ,
H«x*chtof obuladlooe ... „ ;
Haxaehtorocydopflntadiene
H ox achtor oo lhano . t_
Te&achloroflthena. , „ „
K018— Chtoroethana-, _ , . ..
Chloronwthtn* „„,..,....,...„.
1.1-Dichloroothan* _
1.2-D»ch!ofo«th»rw :. . . ,
Haxachlorobenzan* ; .
Hexachlorobutadisna _ _ •
P«ntachkxo«tnan«
1.1.1-Trichloroatriano
' Promulgated
standard (mg/ .
.0
10
028
0.29
027
015
0033
' 0007
0007
0033
0007
0007
0007
0007
0007
0,033
0007'
0.007
0.007
Proposed
'revision (mg/l)
• • "•• • ' 00' J9
0 20
O.OS5
0059
0000
0055
0055
00*57
0055
O0')6
027
0 19
0 059
021
0055
• 00*>5
NR
0.054
Technology •
basis (or BOAT
8T
AS
BT
SS
AS+Fil
AS -f Fit
BT
AS+Fil
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
AS+Fil
ACS i pi!
SS
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
973
COMPARJSON OF PROMULGATED WASTEWATER STANDARDS TO THE PROPOSED REVISKJMS FOR VAIUOMS F AND K WASTES-
(VinMruiarl
Wast* coda and regulated organic constituent
Promulgated
standard (rog/
"'ooosed
revision (mg/l)
Technology
basis for BOAT
Hexachloroethane._ .................. _____
*ether ......... . ..... __ ................ ZZZZ!~ -------------------- " ...........................
r. ..... __ ................ ----- ' -------------------- ....................
Chloroform ______ ................. " ---------------- ............. - ..... 0.00ft
1,2-Dichloroethane _______ ZZZZIZZZZZZZZ"ZT ..... """'I ------------------------ ................ ...... " .............. 0-007
p-Dichlorobenzene_ . .................. " ..... ............. --------- 0.007
Fluorene ...... ....... _. .......... ZZZ™" ........................................... ----------------------------------------- ........................... °-ooft
Hexachloroetharte ...... " ...... " ......................... .......... .................................................. °-007
Naphthalene __________ ................ ..................... — ................. --------------- ...... " -----------
Phenantrweiw ______ ..... ~ ......... " ....... ..................... ---------------------------------------- ..................... - ................ ...... °.007
1 ,2.4,5-Te«rachloroberaene ....I" ................... "" ............ --------- * ------------------------ .................................. °-007
Tetrachloroetrwn*.. ..... _ J .................. " ............ " ......... --------- ...................... ------ .............................. °-M7
1,2,4-Trichlorobenene ...... '_ ..................... ....... " .............. ---------------------------- ' -------- ...................... a007
1,1.1-Trichloroethane ............. """' 1 .................. ......... ---------------- .............................. 0.023
K020 -1,2-DJcNoroethane.... ............................. ------- ...... ------------------ ................................................ - 0.007
1J.-.^Te1rachtoroethane...ZZZZ .................................... ------------------------------- ...... " ............. ~ .................. a007
Tetrachloroettiene. _____ .............. ....... ---------- [[[ O-007
K023-Phthalic anhydride (measured"^ ph"mafc"acki) ....... ~ ............ .................................. """ ........................... S'007
K024-Phthalic anhydride (measured as phthalic acid) ~ [[[ a54
K028— 1,1-Dichloroetrwroe ....... [[[ a54
trans 1 ,2-dJchioroemane ...... [[[ °-°°7
Hexachlorobutadiene .............. ................... [[[ O-033
Hexachloroethane ______ ....... [[[ " ................. " [[[ O-007
Pentachloroethane ........... .............................. " ............................... -------------------------- ................................ 0.033
1,t,1.2-Tetrachloroe«hane . ...................................... " .................... ------------ ............................................. ao33
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroathane "" .................... ................... ................................. ~ .......................................... O-007
Tetrachloroethene._. ' ............................... ........ ------------------------- ............................ ------ 0-007
1,1,1-Trichtoroetriane ...... ........... ~ ...................... ..... ------------- ................................. O-007
1,1,2-TricWoroethane ........ ........ ~ ...................... ............................ --------- ..... ------- — ................................ 0-007
K030— o-Dichlorobenezne ............... ...... ZZZZZ .................... ............... -------------------- ........................................ a007
p-Dichlorobenzene .......... ....................... " ...................... " ..................... ---------- ......................................... 0.00ft
Hexachlorobutadiene ............ [[[ ----------- v— ........................................... 0.00ft
Hexachtoroethaiw ............... ... 1 .................................... -------- ....... ------------ [[[ 0.007
PerrtacWoroethane .......... .................. .................................................. 0-033
1.2,4,5-TetrachlocoberBanB ___ """"' .................... !""""" " ------ ~ -------- ....... ........................................... 0.007
TetracWoroethene ................. • -------- • -------------------- 0*17
1,2,4,-Trichlorobenzene ........... ........... " ............................ '. ................. : ------------- " ............................................ 0.007
K048— Benzene ................................. [[[ • ........... ; ................... ' 0.023
Benzo(a)pyrene ............... " [[[ - 0.011
Bis(2-eiiiytriexyl)phthalate ___ ZZZZ ............. " ........................... ' ................ """" [[[ O-047
Chrysans ____ .._ ___ __ ~~" ~ - ----- • ------------- ..... QMS
Di-n-bu^l phthalate ______ L_Z_ ..... ' ~~ - ' — ' -- "fi-" ------------- ....... O-0^
Ethylbenze.ne..... ....... ........ '• ~~ ........................... " — T""~ — • ---------------------------- 0.08
Flourens... .................. .'. ___________ '"" ........ ' [[[ - .................................. OjQIt
Napthatene _________________ : ""'"""' ...................................... : .......................... ------- ...................... 0.05
Phenanthrane _________ ~ ~ " ........ ~ ------------- — • --- ; --------------------- .......... 0.033
Phenol ........... ______ ....... ______ '" '"" ......... -------- ; - • --------------- . --------- ,-.,..... 0.039
Pyrene ------ .......... _ ............ ZZZZZI7 """ .............. ------ ~'r~', ----- '"""" '~' --------- ............. — ..... " ...... " ..... °-047
Toluene. -- _ __ .....—..- ......... ...... ..................... t ._i.._.^ ------ ..................... ----- ............................ 0.045
Xylanes (totaJ). ----------- _' __ ....ZZZT ................... ---------------- - ----- ..... O^1
K049— Anthracena., ---------- ......... • --------- • ---------- ...... . 0.011
Benzene ...„ ......................... ' .............................. ~" ------ .......... ------- •••: ------ ........ - ............... 0.039
Benzo(a)pyrene .............................. I "'~~ ..... ' ........................ ~ ...................................... • ...................................... 0.011
Bis(2-ethylhexyt)phaiatete ___ ---"'T~Z ..... " ............. ..... -------------------------- ' — ........... """ °-**7
Carbon disutfide ________ , ____ ,_..... ....... "!"""" — "*•""* -- '«•*• -- ~ ---- -r — --------- ...... .'.'•• O.048
Chrysaoe...: _______________ ;_ _ ........... ~ -" • . ' ...i --—. — ; — r- ........... • ------------- 0.011
2.4-Dimetnyfprienol _______________ :~Z. ' " ............................ " ...... — ................ ~ ..... ------- ..... --- : -------- O-043
Ethyfcenzerw -------- Z .'"""" ..... ~ .................... : ......... - ...... """- ............ - ...................... '• ................. 0.033
Napthatene -------------- ZZ ........... --------------------------------- O-*1*
Prtenanthrene ______ _ •_ _ " ........ ~ ------- "—•"• --------------------------------- 0.033
Phenol ............ .: ........ .......... „.." ' __ " ................. ---------------------------------------- 0.039
Pyrene ------ ......... _ ......... _ .............. " ................ ------- * -- ..... - ........... - ..... ------ ....... - ..... - .................. 0.047
Toluene -------- ZZZZZZZII [[[ OMS
Xyleoes (total) ___________ ........... ---------------------------------- 0.011
K050— Benzo(a)pyrene _______________ „ • ~ ........... ~ ------ : --------------------- ...... 0.011
Phenol — : ------- . ____ .............. __ : ....... r-rr-T
-------
974
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 /: Proposed IRules
COMPARISON OF PROMULGATED WASTEWATER STANDARDS TO THE-PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR VARIOUS F AND K WASTES—
Continued
Wasta cod* «nd regulated organic constituent
phAf\Ql . .
p!---., "" ' '
Tnlynfla ' fc . , _ „,...._.
Etftylbenzene _....„..............
NlpftthSlene It Tf , :. ...1......'...'. ..,:n.«...H.M.». »
phefiol j
Xylenes /infan .„,,.,.. „»». »..».». »
K087— Acenaphthatone „„ „ __„ , ;
Xvienes (lotaO . •«• ' i ' i *»
K094— PMhaXc anhydride (measured as Phthalic add) : .'.
U069— C»-rvbutyl phthalita _. ~ . - ....... „ ~ '. -—•
U088— Oiottiyl phthalate ~ . ..._........... -....- ~ -«.••
U102 — Pimatbyi phtnaltle , ,,..,.„,.„.„ „—'- ,•—
UI07— Cto-octyl phthaUte „ __ __.~ _._ - _,...,.__......._ ,.„.„ _.,.:.....-. :
U190-Ftith»fc anyhdride (measured as phthaBc add) ,.......„_„.„......„.............„ ....
Promulgated
standard (mg/
1)
0.047
O.Q47
0.045
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.047
0.011
0.011
0.033
0.011
0.033
0.039
. 0.047
0.011
0.011
0.028
0.014
0.028
0.028
. 0.028
0.028
0.028
0.008
0.014
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
,0.54 .
0.54
0,54
0,54 .
Proposed
revision (mg/l)
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
0.14
0.061
0.11
0.77
0.036
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.080
0.32
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.063
0.055
0.059
0.059
. 0.080
0.32.
0.069
0.069
0.028
0.057
02
O.S47
•0.017
0.069
Technology
basis for BOAT
BT
3T
WAO+PACT
SS
WAO
SS
BT
BT
AS
BT
BT
BT
BT
BT
SS
WAO
BT
,SS
BT
BT .
AS
BT
BT.
SS
WAO
BT
BT
BT.
BT
BT
BT- -.-
AS ,.i. •
BT . ,
Key to Treatment Technologies: AC-Activated Carbon; ANFF—Anaerobic fixed film biological treatment; As-Actr
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
975
for vanadium. Consequently, EPA
reserved the vanadium treatment
standard to give facilities an opportunity
to gather and submit data on vanadium.
The proposed standard shown below as
developed based on available HTMR
performance data for vanadium. The
Agency encourages those commenters
who indicated difficulties achieving the
vanadium level to submit data.
PROPOSED TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K061 (Low AND HIGH ZINC SUBCATE-
GORIES)
[ Nonwastewaters J
Regulated constituent
Antimony
Arsenic „ _ .
Barium „
Beryllium
Cadmium.
Chromium (Total)
Lead _
Mercury
Nickel _.
Selenium
Silver .
Thallium .. ...
Vanadium. ..„.
Zinc
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample —
TCLP (mg/l)
2 1
0055
7 6
0014
• 0 19
033
0.37
0009
sn
0 16
030
0078
023
c q
2. Alternative Treatment Standards for
F006 and K062 Nonwastewaters Based
on HTMR
The Agency is proposing alternative
treatment standards based on HTMR as
BOAT for F006 and K062
nohwastewaters with recoverable
• amounts of metals (e.g., greater than 1.5
percent chromium and nickel -
combination). In addition. EPA is
proposing a new regulatory section (40
CFR 268,46) for such alternative .
standards. This section would be used .
for any, treatment standards that would
serve as alternatives for compliance
with standards in 40 CFR 268.41, .42, and
.43, These alternative standards are
being proposed in order to achieve the
same goal of treatment using BOAT, but
generally are designed to provide
alternative means of compliance with
the promulgated standards.
The Agency has received data and
comment indicating that other listed '
metal-bearing wastes, such as F006 and
K062 containing chromium and nickel,
have sufficient concentrations of metals
and low concentrations of interfering
chemicals that make them amenable for
recovery of metals in various types of
HTMR units. Data indicate that residues
from their recovery (the require land
disposal) can apparently achieve the
BOAT standards based on HTMR that
were recently promulgated for high zinc
K061 nonwastewatera, but for a few
constituents cannot achieve the
treatment standards based on
stabilization for F006 and K062. EPA
believes that because the stabilization
performance data represented treatment
of less concentrated wastes than the
HTMR data (e.g., average FOOB nickel
concentrations of 6450 mg/kg compared
to 18Q.400 .mgVkg), and beqause HTMR
recovers metals (e.g., 99 percent of the
nickel), treatment standards for 14
metals based on HTMR will provide a
better level of protection to human
health and the environment than the
treatment standards based on
stabilization.
The Agency is not proposing these
standards as replacement of the existing
standards for F008 and K062 wastes, but
rather as alternatives to them. While
many F006 and K062 wastes are
amenable to recovery, the Agency does
. not have sufficient waste
characterization information to
specifically define the universe of F006
and K062 wastes that are recoverable.
However, by establishing generic
exclusion levels (see below) and
alternative treatment standards for
HTMR residues from the recovery of
these wastes, EPA is providing a
mechanism that will encourage recovery
of metals rather than land disposal. (See
also the discussion of how these generic
exclusion levels apply to HTMR
residues rather than stabilized K061
wastes in the final rule for K061 high
zinc subcategory.)
The Agency is proposing to establish
HTMR as an alternative BOAT for F006
and K062 nonwastewasters and is
proposing to transfer the treatment
performance of HTMR for high zinc
K061 wastes to F006 and K062 as
alternative treatment standards. Some
HTMR data submitted for the
development of standards for the high
zinc K061 wastes also represented
treatment of K062 and F006 (i.e., influent
to the HTMR process contained a
mixture of K061 (both high and low zinc
subcategories), K062, and F006).
Furthermore, it appears to be common to
mix different metal waste types to
achieve specific feed mixtures as a
means of optimizing metals recovery.
ForFOOe nonwastewaters, the Agency
is also proposing to establish a
treatment level for cyanide because it is
a common constituent in most FOOB
wastes. While the Agency has no
specific performance data on the
destruction of cyanides in HTMR units,
HTMR provides technical similarities to
incineration and is expected to achieve
a level of destruction similar to
incineration. (In fact, HTMR occurs at
higher temperatures than incineration:
Approximately 1200-1600°C versus less
than 1100'C.)
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K062
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Antimony _ „..
Arsenic -
Barium ;..
Beryllium ..„.;.._ :....
Cadmium.,.-.-..... ...... _..
Chromium (total)
Lead
Mercury ...._„..„.......
Nickel r. .„...:.....:.
Selenium....'™'.;.
Sj}Ver ,,',.;,7,,',,,') WI. * '
Thallium .......
Vanadium. «.«
Zinc
Proposed
alternative
treatment
standards
based on
. HTMR
performance
maximum lor
composite
sample
TCLP
Img/l)
2.1
• 0055
7.6
•'• ' 0.014'
0.19
0.33
0.37
0.009
50
0.16
0.30
0.078
0.23
5.3
Promulgated
treatment
standards
based on
stabilization
maximum for
any single
grab sample
TCLP
(mg/l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.094
0.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
.. NA
NA .
NA
NAr-Not Applicable
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
'[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Antimony —
Arsenic
Barium .......„..„'..
Beryllium
Cadmium „_
Chromium (Total)
Lead „..
Mercury
•Nickel
Selenium _...: .
Silver
Thallium — ,....,«.„
vanadium.'....;:..™..:.!...
Zinc :.'.™..:.-m....l..-;_.
Proposed
alternative
treatment
standards
based on
HTMR
performance
maximum for
composite
sample
TCLP.
.(mg/l)
2.1
0.055
7.6
0014
0.19
0.33
037
0.009
50
0.16
0.30
. Q.078
0.23 .
• ' '•' 5.3 "
Promulgated
treatment
standards
based on
stabilization
maximum for
any single
grab sample
TCLP
(mg/l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.066
5.2
0 51
NA
•' 032
.NA
. , 0.072
'.NA
. NA
•NA
-------
Q7R
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
Regulated coottihwnl
Cyftowos (Tola!) ___
C/amios (Amenable) —
Proposed
atanative
tr&ilment
standard*
baMdon
HTMR
pecfoon-
HK«
maximum
kxtny
•ingle
composita
sample
(mg/fcfl)
13
NA
Promulgat-
ed
treatment
tUndard*
• b«od oo
aikaltna
cNonnertion
mwumufn
(or any
afootf!?*
mnpi0
(mg/kg)
590
30
NA—Not Appfoabto
3. Generic Exclusion of F006 and K062
11TMR Nonwastewater Residues
The Agency is proposing to exclude
nunwastewater residues generated by
I iTMR of F006 and K062 wastes in units
identified as rotary kilns, flame reactors,
electric furnaces, plasma arc furnaces,
sing reactors, and rotary hearth furnace/
electric furnace combinations or ^
industrial furnaces (as defined in 40 CFR
200.10) from the hazardous waste
regulations when disposed in a subtitle
D unit, provided the residues meet the
generic exclusion levels and part 268
treatment standards for all constituents,
and provided the residues do not exhibit
one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics.
Generic exclusion levels have already
been established for K061 and EPA
believes that a similar rationale can be
'• used to develop exclusion levels for
, 7000 and K062. The Agency concluded
in the final rulemaking for K061 high
zinc wastes that K06I (both low and
high zinc) HTMR nonwastewater
•fcsidues that meet the generic exclusion
• levels and part 268 treatment standards
for all constituents and that exhibit no
characteristics will not be hazardous.
The decision to gcnerically exclude
nonwastewater HTMR K061 residues
was based on the fact that the treatment
process is well-defined and thus does
not require an in-depth evaluation of
uach facility's processes. The Agency
determined that the "derived-from"
rule's presumption of hazardousness no
longer should apply to HTMR K061
residues with toxic metals treated to
specified levels. The Agency made this
determination after considering the
factors in section 3001(f) specified for
delisting decisions and after satisfying
the underlying philosophy of the
delisting provisions.
The proposed generic exclusion levels
include all of the Appendix Vm and
indicator metals that might reasonably
be expected to be present in the HTMR
nomvatstewater residues from
processing FOOO and K062 wastes by
HTMR. (This is consistent with RCRA
section 3001(f) requiring EPA to evaluate
whether toxic constituents in addition to
those for which, a waste is listed could
make a waste hazardous.)
The Agency evaluated the treatment
standard levels using its vertical and
horizontal spread (VHS) landfill model,
which predicts the potential for
groundwater contamination from wastes
that are landfilled. See 50 PR at 7882
(Feb. 28,1985), 50 FR at 48896 (Nov. 27,
1985), and the RCRA public docket for
this notice for a detailed description of
the VHS model and its parameters.
Using the health-based levels developed
for delisting (i.e.. removing a listed
waste from 40 CFR part 261) and a
waste volume of greater than 8,000 cubic
yards per facility which corresponds to
a dilution factor of 63 (a worst case
estimate for purposes of the VHS
model), EPA determined the "generic"
concentration levels which it considers
safe to human health and the
environment. •
The BOAT and VHS-based levels are
not identical, since each set was
calculated for a different purpose: The
BDAT standards are technology-based
levels, while the VHS results derive
from health-based modeling. The
Agency determined that to .be eligible
for this generic exclusion, the residues
must meet the lower of the two se.ts of
standards for each constituent, because
the exclusion was not site-specific and
the difference between the technology
•• and health-based levels was quite small
(see 56 FR at 41170, August 19,1901 for ,.
more detail about this determination).
Since the high zinc rulemaking, EPA
has proposed to use the EPA Composite
Model for. Landfills (The."EP.ACML")
instead of the VHS model to evaluate
hazardous waste delisting petitions. 56
FR at 32993 (July 19,1991). If this new .
model is finally adopted and replaces
the VHS model, it may be used to
establish generic exclusion levels for
K061, K062.aEdF006.HTMR
nonwastewater residues. At this time,
however, the Agency has decided to
propose the generic exclusion levels
developed using the VHS model.
The proposed exclusion levels would
apply only if die residues are land
disposed in,a eubtitle D unit The
residues would remain a hazardous •
waste if used in a manner constituting
disposal because EPA does not yet have
proper means of evaluating hn?rnT^ff .
posed by uses, since the VHS or •
EPACML models do not evaluate the
potential exposure pathways posed by
these uses. •
It is important to point out that the
current vanadium exclusion level for
HTMR residues (i.e., the level finalized
in the K081 high zinc rulemaking) is
health-based since the treatment
standard was reserved. Also, the
Agency is proposing to add an exclusion
level for zinc. Using the health based
level of 7 mg/1 for zinc (see 1990 Health
Effects Assessment Summary Table,
Third Quarter, OERR. 920p.b-3Q3-(90-3))
multiplied by the 6.3 dilution factor, a
concentration level of 44 mg/1 is
calculated using the VHS model.
For F006 nonwastewaters, the Agency
is not proposing exclusion levels for
organics although they can be common
constituents in F006 wastes. While the
Agency has no specific performance
data on the destruction of organics in
HTMR units, HTMR operates at higher
temperatures and longer residence times
than incineration; hence, HTMR is
expected to achieve a level of
destruction similar to or better than
incineration. Consequently, the Agency
believes that regulation of organic
. constituents in HTMR residues is not
required since any organic constituents
will be destroyed to nondetectable
levels in the HTMR residents, and that
regulation of the fourteen metals and
cyanide will ensure proper operation of
the HTMR system. The following tables
present .the proposed concentration
levels which must be met to qualify for
the generic exclusion.'
Finally, the Agency requests comment
on requiring those who seek to exclude
their F008 and K062 nonwastewater
HTMR residues from-Subtitle C
regulation through the proposed generic
exclusion, to cany the burden of proving
their compliance with the generic
exclusion requirements by ''clear and
convincing" evidence. This standard of
proof is a widely recognized legal •
concept that requires proof beyond a
slight balance (a standard often referred
to as proof by a "preponderance" of the
evidence). However, this standard is
less than the "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard applied in criminal
cases. • • :• •
Although the exclusion criteria clearly
require HTMR treatment and disposal in
a Subtitle D unit, it may not always be
clear that the HTMR residues meet the
specified exclusion levels and treatment
standards, and do not exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste.
Under this allocation of the burden of
proof, if EPA raises significant questions
(e.g., whether testing was performed
according to proper protocols), those
seeking to exclude their waste would be
required to satisfy EPA that the terms of
the exclusion have been met. (This could
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
977
be particularly appropriate where the
relevant information is in the control of
those seeking to exclude their waste.)
No additional procedures or
submissions necessarily would be
required to implement this approach.
However, EPA seeks comment on
appropriate procedures, if any, should
the Agency finalize this approach.
PROPOSED GENERIC EXCLUSION LEVELS
FOR K061 AND K062 HTMR RESIDUES
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Antimony
Arsenic „
Barium „. _
Beryllium „.. .'.
Cadmium _ J
Chromium (total).
Lead „
Mercury _.
Nickel
Selenium ..
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium.
Zinc _
Maximum (or
any single
composite
sample —
TCLP (mg/l)
0063
0055
63
00063
0032
033
0095
0009
063
0.16
030
0013
0.23
440
PROPOSED GENERIC EXCLUSION LEVELS
FOR F006 HTMR RESIDUES
[Nonwastewaters}
Constituent
Antimony _
Arsenic .„ „_._..... ..„_.
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium __
Chromium (total)
Lead ;.
Mercury
Nickel _
Selenium
Silver
Thallium „
Vanadium...:.
Zinc
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample
TCLP'mg/
0063
0.055
00063
0.032
0.33
0.095
0.009
063 *
016
030
0013
O 23
44 0
Regulated constituent
Cyanide (Total).......
Maximum
for any
single
composite
sample
-------
978
Federal'Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 /. Proponed Rules
comment on its proposal and on several
alternatives. . •. •
EPA proposes to require that, in the.
case of characteristic waste that meets
the treatment standards and is no longer
hazardous and for K061 residues that
meet the generic exclusion levels, the
initial generator or treatment facility
prepare a one-time notification and
certification to be kept dn-site, but not
sent to EPA or the states. The
notification and certification would
need to be updated if the process
generating the waste changed and/or if
the Substitle D facility receiving the
waste changed. The rationale for
proposing the change is that it may not
be necessary for EPA or the states to be
notified of K061 that meets generic
exclusion levels or characteristic wastes
that meet treatment standards and are
nonhazardous; however, EPA and the
states still need to be able to verify such
treatment and shipments when
conducting inspections of waste
management operations.
EPA requests comment on this
proposal and on the following three
alternatives. The first alternative would
be to require the initial generator or
treatment facility to send a one-time
notice to the EPA Regional
Administrator or authorized state with a
new notice if the waste changes. This
would reduce the paperwork burden of.'
the current notification requirement for.
each shipment, while still keeping
regulatory authorities informed when a
particular wacte type that is treated and
nonhazardous is disposed. The second
alternative would be to require the %
initial generator or treatment facility to •
maintain records on-aite for each
shipment. Facilities would be saved the
trouble of notifying regulatory
authorities, yet would provide EPA with
a meanii to measure volumes of the
treated wastes. This alternative would,
however, still impose the burden of
keeping records for each shipment. The
last alternative would be a periodic
notification and certification submitted
by the generator and/or treatment
facility to the EPA Region or authorized
state on a monthly, quarterly, or annual
basis. Such a report would include
information on all treated waste that
was shipped to a Subtitle D facility
during the reporting period. Periodic
reporting would reduce the frequency of
reports over the current per-shipment
requirement, while still allowing EPA
and the states to assess waste volumes.
F. Applicability of Part 288 for Certain, '
Waste Mixtures No Longer Exhibiting a
Characteristic
EPA is proposing a clarification
regarding the applicability of the part
268 treatment standards'to certain waste
mixtures described at 40 CFR ' •
261.3(a)(2)(iii); "a mixture of a solid
waste and a hazardous waste that is
listed in subpart D (of Part 261} solely
because it exhibits one or more
characteristics of hazardous waste as,
identified in subpart C, (but which) no
longer exhibits a characteristic." The
issue concerns the standards which
must be met before a waste listed for a
characteristic in in compliance with the
land disposal restrictions.
In the preamble to the technical
amendment to the Third Third rule, the
Agency stated that even after the
characteristic is removed from a waste
listed for a characteristic, the waste
must be treated to meet part 268
treatment standards' (56 FR 3871,
January 31,1991). This would mean, for
example, that Wastes such as F003 must
meet the numerical standards set for
those wastes. Today's proposal would
further clarify the point by amending
S 261.3(a)(2)(ui) to indicate, consistently.
that the same requirement applies to
mixtures involving these wastes. As
stated in the technical amendment to the
Third Third rule (56 FR 3871. January 31,
1991). for waste listed for a
characteristic, once the characteristic is
removed and part 268 treatment
standards are met, the waste need not
be disposed in a Subtitle C disposal unit.
G. Storage and Treatment in
Containment Buildings
In some cases, hazardous wastes that
are prohibited from land disposal must
be stored or treated for short periods of
time to facilitate recycling, recovery,
treatment, or transport off site to meet
LDR standards. Some of these
hazardous wastes are generated in large
volumes (often in batches), contain no or
very small quantities of free liquids, and
may not easily be amenable to
management in RCRA tanks or
containers. Rather, this type of
hazardous waste is sometimes stored or
treated on concrete pads inside a
building. EPA currently classifies this
type of management unit as an indoor
waste pile, which is considered
prohibited land disposal (see section
3004(k)). Lead slags and spent potliners
from primary aluminum production are
examples of hazardous wastes that may
be managed in such units; contaminated
debris may also be managed in such
units. Many believe that if a hazardous
• waste is managed inside a unit that is •
designed .and operated to contain the
- hazardous waste within the unit, akin to
storage in a RCRA tank or container,
this mode of hazardous waste
management does not pose* the types of
potential harm!) Congress sought to
address in defining land disposal, such
as uncertainties an to containment of
hazardous constituents placed nn the
land, the goal of initial appropriate
management of the waste, and the
potential lor persistence, toxicity,
mobility and bioaccumulation' of
hazardous wastes placed on the land.
See section 3004(d)(a)(A>-{C).
Therefore, in order to examine this issue
fully. EPA is proposing that the -
management of hazardous wastes such .
as lead slags, spent potliners, and
contaminated debris within' such units,
to be termed "contaminant buildings,"
would not be viewed as placement on
the land and consequently not land
disposal if this proposal is finalized. To
allow storage, and treatment of
prohibited wastes in containment
buildings, EPA is proposing to establish
a new definition of containment
building, amend the existing definition
of pile to exclude containment buildings,
and include containment buildings
within the storage prohibition of
8 268.40. Also, EPA is proposing to
establish specific design and operating
standards for such units under parts 264
and 265 and also; to aUow generators'
containment buildings to be eligible,
under 9 262.34, for a 90-day generator
exemption from permitting if their
unit(s) meets all of the technical
requirements for containment buildings.
(It should be noted that this proposal, if1
adopted, would also remove such units
at generator sites from the scope of the
loss of interim status provisions in
section 3005(e) (2) and (3).) EPA requests
public comment 021 the appropriateness
of establishing a new unit—
"containment building"—to manage
hazardous wastes. EPA is also
considering and seeking comment on
other ways to accomplish the same goal
of allowing protective management of
wastes in indoor buildings without
necessitating compliance with the LDR
treatment standards.
1. Revised Definition of Pile
EPA is proposing to revise the
regulatory definition of pile to exclude
containment buildings. Specifically, the
Agency proposes to revise the definition
of "pile" explicitly to exclude
containment buildings that accumulate
or treat prohibited wastes under the
proposed requirements of parts 264 and
265. Although the Agency has previously
classified roofed structures used to
manage dry wastes as indoor waste
piles, the Agency believes that there
could be distinctions between an indoor
waste pile that constitutes land'
• placement and a containment building.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 67,.No. 8 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
979
Under existing 9 284.250, indoor waste
piles are required to exclude liquids or .
material containing free liquids,, be
protected from surface water run-on,
control dispersal of waste by means
other than wetting, and not generate
leachate through decomposition or other
reactions. In contrast, the containment
building design and operating standards
(discussed below) generally provide a
higher level of containment and may be
in many ways comparable to RCRA
tanks—that is, the hazardous waste is
contained during storage or treatment
For example, containment buildings
would be fully enclosed, have self-
supporting wall and floor systems, are
equipped with a secondary containment
system if the hazardous waste contains
very small quantities of free liquids, and
are provided with fugitive dust emission
controls.
2. Definition of Containment Building
EPA is proposing to define in § 260.10
a new unit, "containment building," that
is used to store or treat hazardous
wastes and that is designed and
operated in compliance with special.
requirements that ensure containment
(Although EPA is defining containment
buildings to allow storage and treatment.
of certain types of prohibited wastes.
hazardous wastes that are not yet
prohibited may also be managed in such
units subject to the special requirements
discussed below.)
3. Applicability of the 90-Day
Accumulation Exclusion in § 282.34
Under § 262.34, a generator may
accumulate hazardous waste on-site for
90 days or less without a permit or
without having interim status provided,
among other requirements, that he
complies with the subject I, J, or W
requirements in 40 CFR part 265. To
date, the Agency has limited
applicability of the 90-day provision to
containers, tanks, or drip pads (see 55
FR 50450, December 6,1990). EPA
solicits comment on the association of
containment buildings with generator
production activities. See 45 FR 12730
(February 26, I960). EPA today proposes
to extend the 90-day generator
exemption in § 262.34 to containment
buildings.
Under today's proposal, a!l
containment buildings would have to
meet the same technical standards and,
consequently, provide the same level of
protection to human health and the
environment. As such, EPA today is
proposing to require that containment
buildings operating under the proposed
Part 265, Subpart DD interim status
standards be designed, operated, and
maintained to meet the same technical
requirements as permitted containment
buildings. ' •-•••-.• :
EPA is requesting comment on
whether generators who store or treat
hazardous waste in containment
buildings pursuant to the 90-day
accumulator exemption should be
required to maintain, on site for the
operating life of the' containment
building, a description of all procedures
that would be followed to ensure that all
wastes are removed from the
containment building at least once every
90 days. Documentation of each waste'
removal would be required to be in the
generator's on site files recording, at a
minimum, the quantity of waste-
removed, and the date and time of
removal. The Agency is aware that
certain operations, for example, the
continuous processing of wastes, or
blending of wastes, may complicate the
generator's ability to determine and thus
document when a waste ceased to be
accumulated within the containment
building. EPA is requesting public
comment on how best to ensure and
document that a generator complies
with the requirement limiting the time
any waste is accumulated within the
containment building to less than 90
days.
If the generator can not meet the 90-
day time limit or if a hazardous waste is
stored or treated in a containment
building off site, the unit must be
permitted in accordance'with the
existing permitting regulations.
It is anticipated that some existing
units, previously classified as piles,
would, aa a result of today's proposal,
be modified so as to be converted to a
containment building. It is feasible that
there may be releases of hazardous
wastes that could be impacted by
today's proposal. An issue that EPA is
evaluating is whether the Agency will or
should retain RCRA corrective action
authority at new units and at those
existing interim status or permitted units
that subsequently become 90-day
generators with containment buildings
as their only RCRA activity. The Agency
points out that, even without RCRA.
corrective action authority, generators
would still be liable for any releases
under the provisions of CERCLA. Also,
EPA solicits comments oh the extent
facility wide corrective action authority
for releases of hazardous constituents
for solid waste management units at
generator facilities will be forgone under
this proposal. Public comment regarding
the issue of corrective actions at .
generators' containment buildings,
particularly for indoor pile* that have
been or will be converted to •
containment buildings, is welcome. In
addition EPA, requests public comment
on whether She 90-day generator
accumulation provision should be
extended to containment buildings or
whether all such containment building
should be required to be RCRA-
permitted under subtitle C. In providing
comments on this point the Agency
specifically requests commentors to
articulate the rationale for requiring all
containment buildings to be RCRA-
permitted under subtitle C.
4. Special Requirements
The special requirements for
containment buildings restrict the types
of hazardous wastes that may be stored
or treated in the unit and-specify
performance standards for the design
and operation of the unit to ensure 'a
measure of protection of human health
and the environment greater .than that •
provided by an indoor waste pile. See
proposed subpart DD, parts 264 and 26S.
(a) Acceptable Wastes. EPA intends
that containment buildings be used to
store or treat only dry wastes, i.e., those
with no free liquids or those hazardous
wastes that contain very small
quantities of free liquids. The
containment standards discussed below
will, ensure that hazardous waste that is
dry or contains, very small quantities of
liquids will not pose a hazard to human
health of the environment. The Agency's
intent regarding the meaning of a very
small quantity of liquid may best be ,
indicated by the following example.
Example: A secondary, lead smelting
facility processes used lead-acid batteries to
recover the lead. One of the steps involved in
this process, battery cracking, necessarily
generates wet lead-bearing materials. For
process efficiency, among other reasons, free
liquids are removed to the extent feasible •
prior to the materials being staged for furnace
feed. However, some residual moisture (free
liquid) remains and cannot easily be
removed. In this example, although an .
attempt has been made to eliminate free
liquid*, the nature of the material precludes
the complete removal of such liquid and, as
such, can be viewed as incidental.
If liquids cannot be removed from the
hazardous waste to a very small level,
the hazardous waste stored in such a
building would be considered a waste
pile, a form of land disposal. Also,
please note that if EPA allows very
small quantities of liquids in hazardous
waste to be stored in a containment
building, the Agency would be making a
distinction between these units and
indoor waste piles which must only be
used to manage no free-liquid wastes.
Public comment is invited on the
Agency's proposal to allow hazardous
waste containing Very small quantities
of free liquids to be stored in • . •
-------
980
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
containment buildings and, If so, how
KPA should define the term "very
small." The Agency specifically requests
<:ommenl on whether the liquids release
tost or paint filter liquids test should be
used for testing wastes to be stored.
(b) Design and Operating Standards.
KPA is proposing the following design
und operating standards for both
permitted units and units operated
under interim status. (See proposed
subpurt DD, parts 264 and 265.)
Hazardous wastes managed in these
units must be fully contained within the
unit. As such, the Agency believes the
unit must be completely enclosed with a
floor, walls and a roof to prevent
exposure to precipitation and wind.
Many of the hazardous wastes presently
managed in these units may have a
significant volume of fine participates.
Enclosure within a structure will prevent
the escape of these fine participates
from the unit. Contact of the waste with
precipitation also needs to be avoided to
prevent the formation of and migration
of leachate which could potentially
result in release of hazardous waste into
the environment. Also, exposure to
precipitation could cause chemical
reactions, including corrosion of the
. unit, to occur.
The unit would need to be constructed
of man-made materials with sufficient '
structural strength to support itself, the
waste contents, and any personnel and '
heavy equipment that operate within the
unit. Factors such as settlement, frost-
heave, and exposure to wind force need
to be taken into consideration in
designing the unit. Any surface that is to
be in contact with the hazardous waste
should be chemically compatible with
the waste. Because the intended use for
these units is storage or treatment, the
unit would have to be designed to
accommodate appropriate levels of
loading and unloading activity during its
operating lifetime.
As previously stated, this proposal
requires a containment building to be
designed and operated in a manner so
that any hazardous waste placed inside
the unit be contained. EPA is proposing
several measures to ensure that the
hazardous waste does not escape into
the environment Although these units
ure Intended for dry hazardous wastes
(i.e., those with no free liquids), the
Agency realizes that very small
quantities of free liquids may be
associated with certain hazardous
wastes not capable of storage/treatment
in a tank or container. Containment .
buildings used to store/treat hazardous
wastes with very small quantities of free
liquids would have to be provided with
a means by which to manage any such
liquid that collects on the containment
building floor. Surfaces (e.g., the floor)
that would be in contact with free
liquids must inhibit the migration of
liquid into the concrete matrix and
facilitate the collection and removal of
such liquid. For example, concrete
surfaces must be provided with a
penetrating sealer or a coating that
inhibits the migration of liquid into the
concrete matrix. EPA requests comment
on appropriate methods for ensuring
compliance with this criteria.
Containment buildings used to manage
hazardous wastes containing very small
amounts of free liquid also would need
to be provided with secondary
containment that is capable of detecting,
collecting, and holding any leaks/
accumulated liquid until the collected
material is removed. A secondary
containment system for a containment
building that manages hazardous waste
with very small levels of liquids must
meet the same performance standards
as required for a hazardous waste tank
system under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.
subpart J. EPA is proposing that
secondary containment only need be
provided if the containment building
will be used,to manage hazardous waste
containing a very small quantity of free
liquid. The Agency invites public
comment on whether secondary
containment should be a requirement for
every containment building, including
those that only will be used to store or
treat hazardous waste containing no
free liquids. Under this approach, if
hazardous wastes with more than very
small quantities of free liquids or
hazardous wastes that decompose and
generate free liquids are stored in a unit
that otherwise meets the special
requirements for a containment building,
the unit would be subject to regulation
as a waste pile land disposal unit.
Another measure to ensure
containment of hazardous waste
managed in these units is a requirement
that the level of the waste inside the unit
cannot exceed the height of the unit's
walls intended to come in contact with
the hazardous waste. The Agency
believes it is a good housekeeping
practice to prevent stored/treated
hazardous waste from spilling over the
walls of the unit and, in the case of
certain hazardous wastes, to be able to
contain any potential "landsliding" of
material out of the unit. It is important to
note that the walls being referred to in
this provision are those walls, or
portions of the unit's walls, that have
been designed and constructed to be in
contact with the hazardous waste and
capable of supporting the weight of the
waste. The following example makes
this distinction.
Example: A facility has constructed a
containment building to accumulate its
hazardous waste prior to conducting
treatment to meet LDR standards. The unit
has a reinforced concrete floor and 10-foot ;
high reinforced concrete walls. The
remainder of the sidewalls, built atop the
concrete wall and extending to the roof, is
steel framing with fiberglass panels. In this
example, the hazardous waste stored/treated
inside the unit must not be piled any higher
than the 10-fopt reinforced concrete walls.
The remainder or upper portion of the walls
are not designed to nupport the weight of the
waste and may not provide adequate
containment of the waste, i.e., hazardous
waste may escape through the panel joints.
Yet another concern that needs to be
addressed regarding wall construction is
the issue of specifications for doors and
other openings that are part of a wall
and used for equipment and/or
personnel. EPA believes these doors and
openings should be capable of providing
the same level of structural support and
containment as the rest of the wall.
Although EPA today is not proposing .
specific standards for doors and
openings that are part of .a wall
providing support and containment of
hazardous'waste managed within a
containment building, public comment is
invited on this issue.
As noted earlier, EPA believes the
routine handling of hazardous waste
within these units demands the frequent,
if not constant, presence ojf personnel
and handling equipment, e.g., front-end
loaders, cranes. As such, particularly
when the hazardous waste is comprised
of small particulates or where handling
of the hazardous waste generates dust,
the potential for tracking hazardous
waste out of the unit may be significant.
A containment building must contain
any hazardous waste stored/treated
inside it. Therefore, EPA is proposing
that measures be taken to ensure the
containment of hazardous waste within
the unit. Washing-down of vehicles prior
to exiting the unit and dedicating
vehicles for the sole purpose of
operating within the unit are examples
of measures that owners/operators of
these units would need to take when the
potential exists for tracking.of
hazardous waste out of the unit. (These
measures could only occur, however, if
EPA decides to allow the introduction of
free liquids in containment buildings as
part of treatment.)
Given the dusty nature of certain
hazardous wastes that may be managed
in these units and/or the dusty
conditions that may be caused by the
handling of the hazardous waste within
the unit, EPA is proposing that measures'
also be taken to control fugitive dust
emissions. In these situations, the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
991
owner/operator would be required to
install and operate a system whereby a
negative pressure is maintained within
the unit and participates are collected,
e.g., by fabric filter or electrostatic
precipitator. Such a system would be
designed and operated to function
effectively at all times, including those
periods when doors are opened for
vehicle entry/departure.
An important goal of an inspection
plan is the need to ensure the unit is
operating as designed This goal is
achieved through the establishment of
an inspection program that ensures
maintenance of the structural integrity
of the unit and leaks/releases will be
promptly detected, should they occur.
EPA is proposing that an inspection
schedule for these units be adhered to
whereby, at least once each operating
day (as is required for tanks and tank
systems), monitoring/leak detection
equipment, the containment building,
and the area surrounding the
containment building is checked to
ensure the unit is being properly ;
operated and that no leaks/releases
have occurred. These observations
would need to be recorded in the
facility's opera ling log. Comment on the
applicability and adequacy of each of
the design and operating measures
discussed above is welcomed. A
requirement that the Agency is
considering but is not proposing today is
the written certification by an
independent registered professional
engineer (i.e., one who is not an
employee of the company, or of its
parent or subsidiary); the benefit of such
a certification would be to ensure that
any new or existing containment
building is designed and constructed
with sufficient structural integrity to
safely manage and contain the
hazardous waste. Public comment is
requested on the need for this
certification and which factors should
be considered in an assessment of the
integrity of the unit
Finally, EPA is aware that in certain
situations, such as hazardous waste site
remediation efforts, a containment
building can serve to enhance the
performance of bioremediation
treatment technologies; however,
because such structures for site
remediation are likely to be temporary
in nature, they currently are not
constructed with floors or sidewalls that
would meet performance standards
proposed today. EPA is evaluating if
such temporary containment buildings
should be designed and constructed to
the same standards as more permanent
containment buildings or whether
perhaps a separate subcategory of
design and operating requirements is
merited for these bioremediation
treatment buildings. Public comment is
invited on this issue. In particular, EPA
solicits comment on whether less
stringent requirements, such as allowing
the use of synthetic liners and non-load
bearing walls, can be considered
adequately protective.
As noted elsewhere in today's
preamble, EPA would allow wastes to
be treated as well as stored in
containment buildings. Examples of
such treatment could include the various
types of technologies that are discussed
in Appendix I to this preamble for
treatment of contaminated debris.
Because many of these technologies
require the use of liquid, the Agency
proposes to allow such technologies to
be conducted in containment buildings.
In some cases, such treatment would be
conducted hi tanks or containers in such
buildings. When this occurs, the
standards for tanks and containers
would also apply. For example, a
treatment system to treat debris waste
could include a containment building
with a tank inside that is used for
stabilization; following treatment the
waste may be stored in the containment
building (subject to all existing storage
requirements). In this example, the tank
standards would have precedence in
regard to the debris being treated in the
tank, while the containment building
standards would have precedence in
regard to the treated debris that is being
stored in the containment building.
In other cases, treatment in tanks and
containers may not be possible. For
example, personnel may not be able to
apply safely many of the prescribed
debris treatment technologies to large
bulky debris in confined tanks and
containers. Therefore, EPA is also
proposing to allow the actual treatment
in containment buildings that utilizes the
addition of liquid as part of BOAT
treatment. Where this is done,
appropriate mechanisms need to be.
provided to control liquids utilized
during the treatment of waste. The
design standards EPA proposes today
include primary containment via walls
and floors along with secondary
containment. Also, any drainage or
accumulation of liquids applied to
contaminated debris must comply with
relevant statutes and regulations. For
example, if debris liquid residuals are
land disposed from the containment
building they must first be treated to
meet the F039 treatment standards. EPA
believes that liquids should be removed
from the containment building at the
earliest practicable time that protects
human health and the environment. EPA
also solicits comments as to what other,
if any. performance standards may be
necessary to ensure that liquids in
containment buildings are managed to
protect human health and the
environment. The Agency specifically
requests comments on how often liquid
application as part of contaminated
debris treatment occurs or may occur.
Also, the Agency requests comment on
whether treatment utilizing the addition
of liquid should be done in a dedicated
portion of the containment building or
whether the whole building could be
used.
5. Wastes Eligible for Accumulation/
Treatment in Containment Buildings
Under this proposal many land
disposal prohibited wastes potentially
may be eligible to be stored or treated in
containment buildings in order to
facilitate/accomplish compliance with
the prescribed BOAT standards. EPA
considered two options regarding which
hazardous wastes should be eligible for
management in these units: (1) All
hazardous wastes, including
contaminated debris; and (2) only
contaminated debris and certain
additional bulky, high volume hazardous
wastes that the Agency currently
understands cannot be practicably
stored/treated in tanks or containers.
Prior to being incorporated into this
proposal, EPA was considering
developing a Policy Directive whereby
certain hazardous wastes, i.e., aluminum
spent potliners, recycled lead batteries,
and possibly electric arc furnace dusts,
were definitively identified as
candidates for management within
containment buildings. Although EPA
believes other hazardous wastes with no
or very small quantities of liquids could
also be more practicably managed in
containment buildings rather than tanks
or containers, information on such
wastes was and remains lacking. EPA
requests data on other hazardous
wastes that could qualify for
management within containment
buildings.
EPA is proposing today to allow any
hazardous waste, including
contaminated debris, that is dry or
contains only very small quantities of
liquids to be stored/treated in
containment buildings. Although EPA
conceived these units to manage dry,
bulky land disposal restricted wastes
whose volume and/or physical
characteristics make storage or
treatment in a tank or container
infeasible or impractical, the Agency
sees no reason to restrict the eligibility
of hazardous wastes for management in
these units only to those hazardous
-------
992
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
wastes for which EPA has data
iivoilahle (or even only to land disposal
prohibited wastes), no matter what type
of hazardous waste is accumulated. A
containment building managing any
hazardous waste that is dry or
containing only very small incidental
quantities of liquids, when designed and
operated in accordance with the
standards being proposed today, should
ensure protection of human health and
the environment. Nevertheless, the
Agency requests comment on whether
the applicability of this particular
provision should be limited to certain
types of wastes; if so, please indicate
which wastes.
ti. Amendment of § 268.50 Storage
Prohibition and Permit Requirements
Under existing § 268.50, the storage of
hazardous wastes prohibited from land
disposal is also prohibited unless,
among other requirements, the waste is
stored in tanks or containers on site
solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as necessary to
facilitate recovery, treatment, or
disposal. At the time EPA adopted this
provision, tanks and containers were the
only types of storage units that did not
also involve land disposal. Under
today's proposal, there would be other
types of storage units (i.e., containment
buildings, subpart X storage units) not ,
involving land disposal EPA is thus
proposing to conform § 268.50 to include
these units.
Today's rule also proposes to amend
Appendix I of 5 270.42 by adding section
M which will classify permit
modifications for containment buildings.
In addition, today's proposal would
amend the modifications for enclosed
waste piles by adding an item which
classifies a modification to an enclosed
•waste pile to meet the standards for a
containment building as a Class 2
modification. EPA believes that many
facilities will make modifications to
their permitted enclosed waste piles to
meet the standards for containment
buildings. For more information on these
permit modification procedures, see 53
FR 37912, September 28.1988.
V. Detailed Discussion of Today's
Proposed Rule: Contaminated Debris
A. Overview
Debris that is contaminated with a
prohibited waste or that exhibits a
prohibited characteristic is presently
subject to the treatment standard for, .
that listed waste or characteristic. See,
u.g.. 55 FR 22649 and RCRA section
3004(e){3). However, although
contaminated debris (as well as
contaminated media) are subject to the
LDR prohibitions, there is no
requirement that they have the same
treatment standards as the wastes with
which they are contaminated. Indeed,
because contaminated debris may be a
matrix significantly different from the
underlying prohibited waste, it is
appropriate as a technical matter to
investigate whether different treatment
standards are needed.
Today, EPA is proposing separate
treatment standards for contaminated
debris, so that, in effect, contaminated
debris would be dealt with as a separate
treatability group. Under today's
proposal, contaminated debris must be
treated by specified technologies based
on the type of debris and type of
contaminant(s) present. In addition, as
described more fully below, debris also
may be treated by any method (other
than impermissible dilution) and would
no longer be a prohibited waste or a
hazardous waste if it achieves levels at
which debris no longer "contains"
hazardous waste. If the debris already
achieves those levels as generated, it
also would not be a hazardous waste or
require treatment.
EPA has sought to specify a group of
BDAT technologies for each type of
debris, with the choice of which
technology from within the group left up
to the person managing the waste. The
technologies in each group include
widely used treatment methods. EPA is
thus seeking to preserve as much
flexibility for treatment of debris as
possible. •
Contaminated debris would be
defined as debris that exhibits a
prohibited characteristic of hazardous
waste or that is contaminated with a
prohibited listed waste. Contaminated
debris must be treated by one of the
specified treatment technologies for
each "contaminant subject to treatment"
defined as: (1) For debris contaminated
with a prohibited listed waste, the
BDAT constituents for the listed waste
and any Appendix VIII, part 261,
constituent that the owner or operator
could reasonably know may be
contaminating the debris'; and (2) for
debris exhibiting the Extraction
Procedure 8 toxicity characteristic, the
* If debris if a hazardous waste solely because It
exhibits the toxicity characteristic for any of the 40
constituents listed in 1281.24. it would be defined
as contaminated debris, only if it exhibited the
toxicity characteristic for one or more of the 14
constituents of the EP toxidty characteristic.
Further, today's proposal would require such debris
to be treated only lor those EP constituents for
which it exhibited the toxicity characteristic. EPA Is
proceeding in this fashion because it prefers to deal
with all issues relating to prohibitions for wastes '
identified by the expanded toxicity characteristic in
one single proceeding. See 56 FR 55168-172 (October
constituent(s) for which it fails the
characteristic. (The Agency is also
requesting comment on requiring
treatment of any appendix VIII, part 261,
constituent that the owner or operator
could reasonably know may be
contaminating any contaminated
debris—i.e., debris that exhibits a
prohibited characteristic as well as
debris that is contaminated with a
prohibited listed waste.) An owner or
operator need not identify
"contaminants subject to 'treatment"-if a
generic treatment technology is used. A
generic treatment technology is one that
the Agency believes will provide
effective treatment for all Appendix VIII
constituents. EPA is proposing six such.
technologies in this rule.
To ensure effective treatment, the
treatment unit would be required to
meet performance standards or design '
and operating conditions specified in the
rule. In addition, the treatment unit
would be subject to the part 264 and 265
standards for treatment facilities to
ensure protection of human health and
the environment.
As noted above, the proposal
addresses not only the issue of when
contaminated debris is sufficiently
treated, but the further question of when
it is a hazardous waste. Under the
proposal, treated debris would be'
conditionally excluded from the:
definition of hazardous waste. The
exclusion is conditioned on: (1) The use
of an extraction or destruction treatment
technology rather than an
immobilization technology; and (2) the
treated debris must not exhibit a
characteristic of a hazardous waste. If
an immobilization technology is used,
the treated debris remains.subject to
Subtitle C regulation.9 .
In addition, EPA may determine on a
case-by-case basis that untreated
contaminated debris, or contaminated
debris treated by a technology other
than that specified by the proposed rule
(and other than impermissible dilution),
is not mixed with, or does not contain
hazardous waste and, thus, need not be
managed as a hazardous waste. The
rule, if adopted, would thus codify the
contained-in principle that the Agency.
currently applies on a case-by-case
basis. If toxic constituents are not
present at levels that could pose a
hazard to human health or the .
24,1901} soliciting 'data to'be used In developing • •
treatment-standards far wastes identified by the TC.
• See section V.E.1. where-EPA requests comment
and data to support, the design of performance
standards for immobilization technologies that
would be sufficient to allow contaminated debris
treated by such technologies to bo excluded from
Subtitle C management
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
983
environment (and if the debris does not
exhibit a characteristic), the debris
would be excluded .from the definition of
hazardous waste. EPA seeks comment
on further criteria to be applied in
making this case-by-case exclusion
determination.
Residuals generated by treatment of
contaminated debris would be subject to
the numerical LDR standards EPA
established for waste code F039 (multi-
source leachate wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards)
under §§ 268.41 and 268.43. Unlike the
debris treated using extraction or
destruction technologies, these residuals
are not excluded from the hazardous
waste rules—that is, after these
residuals meet the LDR standards, they
must be managed at a subtitle C facility,
unless the residuals are no longer.
defined as a hazardous waste.7
B. Definitions
Before discussing the specific
standards that are being proposed today
for contaminated debris, it is necessary
to first define several terms.
1. Definition of Debris
Debris is defined as solid material
that: (1) 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
wastewaters, or air pollution control
devices; or (2) is plant or animal matter;
or (3) is natural geologic material
exceeding a 9.5 mm sieve size including
gravel, cobbles, and boulders (sizes as
classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service), or is an inseparable mixture of
such materials with soil, liquid, sludge,
or other solid waste materials (i.e.,
inseparable by simple mechanical
removal processes). See proposed
amendment to § 268.2. (This definition
would essentially incorporate the
existing regulatory definition of
inorganic solid debris in § 268.2, and
adds further categories of materials that
can legitimately be viewed as debris.)
EPA requests comment on the proposed
definition of debris, and particularly on
the terms or phrases "solid material,"
"originally manufactured or processed,"
and "simple mechanical removal."
We identified the.following six
categories of debris—in essence, six
treatability groups. The groups are
specifically designed to reflect the
ability of treatment technologies to
decontaminate them: (1) Metal objects;
(2) brick, concrete, rock, and pavement;
(3) glass; (4) wood; (5) paper and cloth;
and (6) rubber and plastic. The
' See footnote 8.
treatment standards discussed in
Section V.F below are established as a
function of these debris categories as
well as the type of contaminant(s)
present (see Section V.C below).
Debris can be generated from a wide
variety of activities including remedial
actions at Superfund and RCRA
corrective action sites, routine
generation (e.g., discarded drums and
containers), and sporadically generated
debris (e.g., building demolition
materials). Debris includes many
different objects, such as concrete
blocks and bricks, structural, steel,
drums and tanks, glass and plastic
bottles, cloth, paper, appliances, battery
cases, tires, and gas cylinders. A survey
of the types of debris found at over 200
waste sites (primarily Superfund sites)
revealed that the most frequently found
debris consists of metal objects
(typically drums and tanks), brick,
concrete, and rock.
Categories of debris at hazardous
waste, sites, in order of decreasing
frequency of occurrence, are:
• .Metal objects, including drums,
tanks, pipes, iron bars; and steel beams;
• Brick, concrete, rock, and pavement,
including concrete blocks, concrete
foundations, cinder blocks, concrete
sidewalks, and asphalt pavement;
• Wood, including wood furniture,
pallets, plywood, wood walls, wood
floors, leaves, live vegetation,- wood
telephone poles, trees, and railroad ties;
• Rubber and plastic, including tires,
hoses, battery cases, PVC piping, plastic
bags, fiberglass tanks, and plastic
sheets;
• Paper and cloth, including books,
magazines, cardboard, paper packing,
paper insulation, fiber drums, rags, and
mattresses; and
• Glass, including bottles, windows,
beads, glass bricks, and glass
containers.
In addition to the six categories of
debris listed above, EPA identified other
miscellaneous types of debris (PCB-
contaminated debris and debris
contaminated with radioactive
materials, see Sections V.H.2 and
V.H.4). Special standards would apply
to these types of debris. In addition,
EPA determined late in the development
of today's proposed rule that standards
are needed for asbestos debris.
Accordingly, the Agency is requesting
comment on technologies that would be
considered BOAT for contaminated
asbestos debris. See Section V.H.3.
Finally, EPA specifically requests
comment on whether there are other '
types of debris for which treatment
standards'should be established.
2. Definition of Contaminated Debris
The Agency is proposing to define
contaminated debris as debris that
contains a hazardous waste listed in
subpart D of part 261 for which land
disposal restriction (LDR) standards
have been promulgated under 40 CFR
part 268, or that exhibits a characteristic
of hazardous waste identified in subpart
C of part 261 for which LDR standards
have been promulgated under part 268.8
The Agency is proposing to define
"contains RCRA hazardous wastes" to
mean that RCRA listed hazardous
wastes are contained on the surface or
contained in the pore structure of the
debris. This proposed definition would
to a large extent codify the Agency's
current interpretations of when debris
would be a hazardous waste, and
obviously does not alter the fact that
such contaminated debris is already
subject to regulation under the Subtitle
C rules. See Chemical Waste
Management y. EPA, 869 F.2d 1526,
1539-40 (D.C. Cir. 1989) upholding as a
reasonable interpretation of the mixture
and derived from rules EPA's conclusion
that environmental media contaminated
with listed wastes remain subject to
regulation as hazardous waste.
We note that material-specific LDR
standards have already been
established for some materials that meet
the definition of contaminated debris
(e.g., lead acid batteries). In such cases.
the LDR standard for the specific debris
would take precedence over the
standards proposed today.
A person who generates debris must
determine if the debris is contaminated.
The debris is contaminated if it contains
a prohibited listed waste or if it exhibits
a prohibited characteristic of hazardous
waste. For newly-generated debris, the
generator can readily determine if the
debris is contaminated with a listed
hazardous waste. For debris that has
been re-generated by, for example, a
Superfund clean-up or RCRA Corrective
Action, the generator must use all
information that is reasonably available
to determine if the debris is
contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste,9 To determine whether the
•Although debris that exhibits the TC (see
1281.24) for'any of the 4O constituents regulated
under the TC is a hazardous waate. only debris that
exhibits the TC for the 14 Extraction Procedure (EP)
constituents would be defined by today's proposal
as contaminated debris subject to the proposed
treatment standards. When the Agency proposes
BD4T standards for wastes that exhibit the TC for
the remaining 26 constituents, we plan also to
propose to expand the definition of contaminated
debris to include debris exhibiting the TC for those
additional constituents.
8 See, e.g.. the preamble to the National
Contingency Plan (55 FR 8666 (March 8,1990}).
-------
984
Federal Register / Vol..57. No. 6 / Thursday > January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rides
debris exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste, the generator must use
either best professional judgment or. as
practicable, analysis of a representative
sample of debris.
3. Debris Subject to the Proposed Rule
As summarized above, EPA is
proposing that all debris that is
contaminated with (1) prohibited listed
wastes and (2) listed wastes for which
EPA is proposing prohibitions and
treatment standards in today's rule, be
subject to the debris treatment
standards proposed here. In addition,
any debris exhibiting the characteristic
of ignitability, conrosivity (probably
impossible, since only liquids can be
corrosive, see § 261.22(a)). or reactivity
would be covered, as would wastes
identified by the toxicity characteristic
that also exhibit the old EP
characteristic. The types of
contaminated debris not covered in this
rule may be amenable to the same
approach proposed here, but EPA
prefers to defer these issues until such
time at the debris becomes prohibited
from land disposal. Given the time
constraints of the May 8,1992 lapsing of
national capacity variances for already
prohibited debris, the Agency believes it
appropriate not to increase the scope of
this rulemaking.
C. Contaminant Categories
To develop treatment standards for
contaminated debris, the Agency
divided the toxic constituents that may
contaminate debris into 10 categories
based on similar physical and chemical
properties:
* Halogenated pesticides and
aromatics;
• Dioxins, furans, and their
precursors;
• Halogenated aliphatic compounds;
• Nitrated compounds;
• Non-polar aromatics, heterocycles,
and other organic compounds;
• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons;
• Other nonhalogenated polar organic
compounds;
* Nonvolatile metals;
• Volatile metals; and
• Non-metal inorganics'.
These contaminant categories take
into account differences in the
applicability and effectiveness of
treatment technologies for those
particular contaminants. EPA proposes
to assign all toxic constituents listed in
Appendix VIII, part 261, except for
radionuclides (see Section V.H.4), to
these contaminant categories as
indicated in Table 2 of proposed
§ 208.45. (In addition, we note that
proposed Table 2 contains several
constituents that are not on Appendix
VIII, part 261. As discussed in Section D
below, contaminated debris that is
contaminated with a prohibited listed
waste must be treated for the BDAT
constituents fpr that listed waste. For
reasons discussed in Section D below,
some BDAT constituents are not on
Appendix Vffl.)
One determines the contaminant
category for which the debris must be
treated by the type of hazardous
constituent with which the waste is
contaminated. For example, if debris is
contaminated'with FOOl solvents, the
debris must be treated using a
technology specified in proposed Table
1 of § 268.45 (see discussion in Section
V.F.2 below) as acceptable for
halogenated aliphatics. This ia
determined by identifying the BDAT
constituents for FOOl in existing
§ § 268.41 and 268.43 and determining
from Table 2 Of proposed § 268.45 that
they all are included in the halogenated
aliphatics contaminant category. If the
debris also exhibits EP toxicity for
cadmium, for example, the debris must
also be treated using a technology
specified in Table 1 of § 268.45 as
acceptable for nonvolatile metals,
because proposed Table 2, § 268.45,
assigns cadmium to the nonvolatile
metal category. This approach allows
EPA to regulate debris contaminated
with any prohibited listed waste without
individually addressing every RCRA
listed waste.
EPA specifically requests comment on
whether the proposed contaminant
categories and the assignment of
constituents to those categories as
proposed in Table 2 of § 268.45 is an
appropriate scheme for assigning
constituents to similar treatability
groups. We note that one alternative
approach is the 'Table of Treatability
Groups Used to Develop the Proposed
Treatment Standards for U and P Waste
Codes" that the Agency previously
developed. See 54 FR 48392^-48418 (Nov.
22.1989].
D. Determining Contaminants Subject to
Treatment
Contaminated debris must be treated
for each contaminant category (e.g.,
polynuclear aromatics; volatile metals)
represented by each contaminant that is
"subject to treatment." See proposed
Table 2 to § 268.45. The contaminants
that are "subject'to treatment" are: (1)
For each listed hazardous waste known
to contaminate the debris, the
constituents for which LDR
concentration limits have been ;
established (i.e., "BDAT constituents")
that are present at detectable levels as
well as all constituents on Appendix
VIII, part 261,'that an owner or operator
of a treatment facility could reasonably
know may contaminate the debris at
detectable levels; (2) for debris that
exhibits the Toxicity Characteristic
(TC), those constituents for which the
debris exhibits the Extraction Procedure
(EP)10 toxicity characteristic; and (3) for
debris that exhibits the reactivity
characteristic due to presence of
cyanide, cyanide.
When debris is contaminated with a
prohibited listed waste, EPA is
proposing that,the debris be treated for
any Appendix VIIL Part 261, constituent
that the owner or operator could
reasonably know may contaminate the
debris at levels of analytical detection
(using procedures prescribed in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods", EPA
Publication SW-846 (Second Edition,
1982 as amended by Update I (April
1984), and Update II (April 1985))
because the Agency wants to ensure '
treatment of all toxic constituents given
that the treated debris is conditionally
excluded from Subpart C regulation.11
See section V.E. below. If, for example,
an owner or operator of a treatment
facility could reasonably know that a
debris is contaminated with a solid
waste that may contain Appendix VIII
constituents (fpr example, because a
particular material was produced or
used at a site), and if the debris could
subsequently be contaminated with
detectable levels of those Appendix VIII
constituents, the debris must be treated
for the contaminants. EPA requests
comment on how to define what
"reasonably know" means in regard to
appendix VIII constituents that may be
contaminating debris.
Further, the Agency specifically
requests comment on whether the rule
10 See footnote 8.
1' EPA requests comment on whether hi the final
rule to waive the requirement to identify a*
contaminant* tubjec'l to treatment any Appendix
VIII constituent that an owner or operator could
reasonably know may contaminate the debris at
levels of analytical detection if an owner or
operator elects to continue to manage the treated
debris as haiardoua waste. In addition, EPA
requests comment on whether Appendix VUI
constituents that an owner or operator could
reasonably know may contaminate the debris
should be considered "contaminants subject to
treatment" only if they ate present at levels of
potential haaltb significance rather than merely at
detectable Itvels at proposed. Commenters. should
provide supporting rationales for measures of
significance. On* potisibility on which EPA solicits
comment are the EOJD levels, which correspond to
the level* thai reskhits from debris treatment would
meet in order to be jiind, disposed (albttt in Subtitle
C facilities). Ultimately; EPA would use the de
minimi's levels, assuming it proves technically
feasible to develop such levels, as the measure of
when treatment of hazardous constituents is
unnecessary See 55 FR 6642 (February 26,1991).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 /Proposed Rules 995
should also require that debris that is
hazardous solely because it exhibits a
characteristic (i.e., toxicity, ignitability,
or reactivity) be treated for all
constituents on appendix VIII, part 261.
that an owner or operator of a treatment
facility could reasonably know may
contaminate the debris at detectable
levels. The Agency noted in the Third
Third rule that it would seek to adopt
this approach where feasible. See 55 FR
22654. This approach clearly fulfills the
statutory goal of requiring treatment that
minimizes short- and long-term threats
posed by land disposal of hazardous
waste. See section 3004(m) and 55 FR
22652. In the Third Third rule, EPA was
able to develop such treatment
standards for only a few characteristic
wastes (certain reactive cyanides, lead
batteries, certain mercury wastes, and
high TOG ignitable liquids) due partially
to time constraints, and to the
formidable technical problems of
determining appropriate treatment
levels for all possible hazardous
constituents found in the huge variety of
characteristic waste matrices'.
It appears that the technical task may
be easier for characteristic debris. There
are fewer matrices to consider (there is
probably no corrosive debris, and little
ignitable debris, since these
characteristics identify chiefly liquid
wastes), and there may be little reactive
debris. Also, because the treatment
standards for debris consist of treatment
methods, and treatment of residues to
F039 levels, the problem in the Third
Third of determining a priori SL whole.
range of treatment concentrations is not
present here.12 EPA solicits comment on
these points, and also notes (as
discussed more fully below) that today's
rule applies the Third Third approach to
reactive cyanide debris by requiring
effective treatment of cyanide in both
the debris and treatment residues so
that, for at least this waste, EPA
anticipates a standard resulting in
treatment that removes a characteristic
and treats hazardous constituents.
To determine whether debris
contaminated with a listed prohibited
waste may be contaminated with
appendix VIII constituents (other than
the BDAT constituents for the prohibited
waste) at levels of analytical detection,
an owner or operator of a treatment
1 * Under the Third Third, however, residue from
treating characteristic debris would not require
further treatment if the residue was a new
instability group not exhibiting a characteristic
See 55 FR 22661. If the debris and residue are
considered to be the same nonwastewater
treatability group, however, then the residue would
remain prohibited. If EPA were to take this view
the F039 standards would appear to be the
appropriate treatment standards.
facility must make a reasonable effort to
identify the generator of the debris. If
the generator can be identified,
generator or other information (e.g.,
general knowledge about the types and
concentrations of chemicals used by the
generator that may be in waste or other
materials that may contaminate debris)
must be used to identify Appendix VIII
constituents that may contaminate the
debris at detectable levels. Sampling
and analysis of the debris is not
required given the difficulty of obtaining
representative samples of complicated
matrices (e.g., mixtures of debris types
such as stumps, plastic or metal piping,
boulders, lumber).
EPA solicits comment on
documentation to support the
determination of contaminants subject
to treatment In particular. EPA requests
comment on whether documentation
must include a description of efforts to
identify the generator of the debris and
determinations regarding the types of
appendix VIII constituents that are
present at the site of generation and that
may be contaminating the debris, and
whether such documentation must be
provided in the operating record for the
treatment facility (or for debris treated
on site, in a generator's waste analysis
plan developed pursuant to
§ 268.7(a)(4)).
EPA notes that an owner or operator
need not make determinations regarding
the presence of contaminants subject to
treatment if a treatment technology that
effectively treats all appendix VIII
constituents is used. Such generic
treatment technologies (for one or more
debris categories) are identified in
proposed appendix X to the rule. (Note
that the generic treatment technologies
are generic for all contaminants but are
not generic for all debris types.) We are
proposing that five surface removal
technologies and thermal destruction be
considered generic technologies. Surface
removal technologies (e.g.t abrasive
blasting, scarification and grinding)
effectively treat all types of
contaminants because the contaminants
are removed from the debris with the
surface layer. As noted hi proposed
appendix X (see discussion in Section
V.F.3 below), EPA believes that many
debris types can be effectively treated
by these technologies (i.e., when the
performance standards of proposed
appendix IX are met). EPA considers
thermal destruction to be a generic
technology because organic
contaminants are destroyed and metal
contaminants partition to the ash
residue which is subject to the F039
treatment standards (see Section V.G
below). Thermal destruction would be a
generic technology for organic debris
types only, however, because if
inorganic-debris contaminated with a
metal contaminant of concern is
treatment by thermal destruction, the
inert debris that may be separated from
the residue would continue to be
considered contaminated debris subject
to. treatment for the metal. Thus, when
an inert debris contaminated with a
metal contaminant is treated by thermal
destruction, a treatment train is required
to treat the inert debris remaining for
the metal contaminant Given that
presence of a metal contaminant subject
to treatment drives this decision,
thermal destruction cannot be a generic
treatment technology for inert debris.
E. Exclusion of Contaminated Debris
from Subtitle C
Under today's proposed rule,
contaminated debris may be excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
by either: (1) Treatment by the
technology specified in proposed
§ 268.45 and appendix IX (see Section
V.F below), provided that the technology
is an extraction or destruction
technology ls and that the treated
debris does not exhibit a hazardous
characteristic; or (2) a case-by-case
determination by EPA upon request of
the generator or treatment facility owner
or operator that an untreated debris, or
a debris treated by a technology other
than specified in § 268.45 and appendix
IX, is a solid waste (e.g., discarded
concrete, metal or plastic drums, or
piping) that is not mixed with a
hazardous waste, or is not a solid waste
(e.g., rock) that does not contain
hazardous waste at significant levels.
The latter approach would codify the
Agency's existing practice with respect
to when hazardous wastes are
"contained-in" or mixed with debris.
EPA is proposing the following
decision rules regarding the interplay of
the debris treatment standards and the
contained-in policy. First, if debris is
found not to contain or be mixed with a
hazardous waste it need not be treated
by a prescribed method of treatment.
The debris may be deemed not to
contain or be mixed with a hazardous
waste as a result of treatment (which
need not be a prescribed treatment
method) or as generated. The level could
not be achieved by impermissible
dilution. The legal basis for this decision
rule is that the Agency tentatively
believes that these levels could be
viewed as levels at which potential
threat to human health and the
environment are minimized and
"See footnote 8.
-------
986
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
therefore that further treatment is
unnecessary. See section 3004(m).
Second, the same principles apply in
the case of toxic characteristic debris
(I.e.. debris that exhibits both TC and EP
toxicity, plus the type of reactive debris
known to be contaminated with toxic
constituents, namely reactive cyanide
debris). Thus, such debris, if found to no
longer be contaminated with hazardous
constituents at the contained-in level,
would not require further treatment in
order to be land disposed and would not
be a hazardous waste. On the other
hand, merely removing the
characteristic but not treating by a
prescribed method (or determining that
the debris does not contain hazardous
constituents at the contained-in level)
would not be sufficient. Although such
debris would no longer be a hazardous
waste, it could not be legally land
disposed. See generally 55 FR 22651-654
(June 1,1990). Such a result appears
necessary here if the prescribed
treatment methods are to have any
practical applicability to toxic
characteristic debris. The result is also
needed to prevent dilution to remove the
characteristic in lieu of treatment that
adequately minimizes threats posed by
the contaminated debris.
EPA is thus proposing to allow two
alternatives that can be followed so that
contaminated debris is no longer
prohibited from land disposal and is no
longer a hazardous waste. The first is to
treat by one of the methods specifically
listed m the rule (see proposed.
§ 208.45)l* in accordance with the
conditions set out in proposed Appendix
IX (or by an alternative equivalent
method approved on a case-by-case
basis). The other is to treat by a
different method and obtain a
determination that the debris no longer
contains hazardous waste, or to obtain
that demonstration before treating the
waste. See proposed 5 281.3(e). The
levels could not be achieved by
impermissible dilution. Residues from
treating debris contaminated with listed
wastes would still be listed wastes and
could not be land disposed unless and
until they meet the F039 treatment
standards. In addition, such residues
would remain hazardous wastes unless
and until deliated.
1. When Debris Stops Being a
Hazardous Waste
As Just discussed, the first way
contaminated debris would no longer be
u hazardous waste would be to treat the
debris with an extraction or destruction
technology1& according to the
provisions of the proposed rule (and for
the debris not to exhibit a hazardous
characteristic after treatment). The
Agency believes that, based on
literature surveys, data analyses, and
engineering judgment, the extraction
and destruction technologies specified
in today's proposed rule under § 268.45
when certified by the owner or operator
to be designed and operated in
compliance with the standards of
appendix IX. coupled with the oversight
by EPA [or authorized State) will
effectively reduce the hazardous waste
contaminant in or on the debris to levels
that will not pose a hazard to human
health or the environment absent
Subtitle C control16
EPA is also considering extending the
proposed exclusion from Subtitle C
management for debris that is treated by
extraction and destruction technologies
to debris that is treated by
immobilization technologies. However,
the Agency does not have sufficient data
or information to support such an
outcome at the time of this proposal.
Therefore, we specifically solicit
comment and data to support the design
of performance standards for
immobilization technologies that would
be sufficient to allow contaminated
debris treated by such technologies to
be excluded from Subtitle C
management. If such information is
provided, the Agency will extend the
exclusion accordingly.
EPA is also soliciting comment on the
issue of whether certain.types of treated
debris should remain within the Subtitle
C program. In particular, there may be
debris that is contaminated with
hazardous constituents, such as dioxins,
that adhere strongly to debris surfaces
and so are leas amenable to surface
removal treatment technologies such as
water washing or spelling. Thus, it may
be that the final role will differentiate
among certain debris types,
contaminants, and removal (and
conceivably destruction) technologies in
determining which types of treated
debris are no longer subject to Subtitle
C regulation following BOAT treatment.
(The foregoing discussion assumes, of
course, that no case-by-case contained-
in demonstration is made for the treated
debris.)
The Agency's "contained-in" policy
states that environmental media
(groundwate?, soil, and sediment)
contaminated with a RCRA listed
hazardous waste must be managed as if
the media were a hazardous waste until
"See footnotes.
19 See footnote 6.
'• Note that hJ be excluded, treated-debris may
nol exhibit a hazardous characterUtic.
it no longer "contains" the hazardous
waste. The Agency has interpreted the
contained-im policy to apply to media
and debris that contain a waste (such as
contaminated soil, groundwater,
clothing, and rock). Currently, media
that are contaminated with hazardous
waste must be managed as if they were
hazardous wastes until they no longer
"contain" the listed waste, no longer
exhibit a characteristic, or are deUsted.
The Agency has not issued any general
rules as to when, or at what levels,
environmental media or debris
contaminated with hazardous wastes
are no longer considered to "contain"
those hazardous wastes. EPA believes
that such levels for media are most
appropriately determined on a site-
specific basis by the EPA Region (or
authorized State) overseeing the cleanup
of such materials, such as a Superfund
or Corrective Action remediation. Such
levels for media are generally
determined according to risk.
Under a close reading of existing
rules, debris (such as concrete or piping)
is a solid waste when discarded. If the
debris is contaminated with a listed
hazardous waste, it remains in the
Subtitle C system unless and until
delisted. (See § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (the
mixture rule).) Other debris is not a
"solid waste" and so would not be
subject to the mixture rule when
contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste. Such debris would stop being
managed as a hazardous waste once it
no longer "contains" a listed waste (see
further discussion below). 53 FR 31147
(August 17,1988) and Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 869 F.2d 1356 (B.C.
Cir. 1989).
EPA is proposing to deal with these
two classes of debris (i.e., debris that is
a solid waste and debris that is not a
solid waste) in the same manner in this
rule. By doing so, the debris would no
longer be subject to Subtitle C if it is
treated in accord with the methods
designated in the rule, or no longer has
listed wastes present at concentrations
at which the debris would be considered
to contain hazardous waste. EPA is
proposing this result because there may
be no environmental difference between
solid waste debris and debris that is not
a solid waste, and so the same rules as
to when the debris no longer should be
subjected to Subtitle C regulation could
apply in either case. It simply appears to
make no sense that two classes of
debris which appear environmentally
indistinguishable be subject to very
different regulatory regimes for exiting
the hazardous, waste system (i.e.,
delisting for one class, but case-specific
determinations for the other). (In
-------
Federal Register / VoL S7. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1902 / Proposed Rules
9*7
addition. EPA wit! refer to both classes
of debris as "contaminated debris" from
this point on in this notice.) EPA also
requests comment on an alternative
approach, which wo«ld continue to
apply the "derived from" and "mixture"
rules to contaminated debris that is
composed of soKd waste and listed
hazardous waste.
EPA also requests comment on
requiring the generator or owner or
operator to maintain the burden of
demonstrating compliance with the
treatment and certification
requirements.
2. Case-by-Case Determination that
Untreated Debris fs Excluded from
Subtitle C
Some contaminated debris may
contain or be mixed with very low
levels of toxie (appendix VIII. part 261}
constituents, even before treatment In
addition, an owner or operator of a
treatment facility may choose to treat
contaminated debris by a technology
that does not meet the requirements of
§ 268.45 and appendix IX. In either case,
today's rule would codify the existing
contained-in policy. Toe owner or
operator of the treatment facility (or any
person in possession of the debris, such
as the generator} thus may request from
EPA (or an authorized State} a case-by-
case determination that the levels of
toxic constituents present will not pose
a hazard to human health and. the
environment absent Subtitle C control
F. Contaminated Debris Treatment
Standards
In this section, we discuss: [1] The 18
treatment technologies proposed as
BDAT; (2) the debris treatment.
standards as a function of debris and
contaminant category; (3J performance
standards that must be met to ensure
effective treatment and to comply with
the BDAT standards; (4J how the rule
would apply to mixtures of contaminant
categories; (5] how the rule would apply
to mixtures of debris categories; (6)
deactivab'on of characteristic debris; £7}
standards for debris that is inherently
toxic (i.e., it fails the TC and EP for
metal contamination because it is
fabricated from a toxic metal}; and (8}
mixtures of soil and contaminated
debris.
l. Identification of BDAT Treatment
Technologies
The Agency has identified 18
treatment technologies as Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) for one or more debris types
and contaminant categories. We
considered a treatment technology to be
";! vaiiable" if the technology itself or the
services of the technology are able to be
purchased, asd the technology. .
substantially diminishes the toxidty of
the waste or reduces the likelihood of
migration of the waste's hazardous
constituents. The technologies identified
in today's notice have bees used to treat
contaminated debris at Superfund Kites,
to remove radioactive metals from
debris, to treat debris-like material .
contaminated with compounds similar •
to one or more of the compounds in the
debris contaminant categories or. based
on engineering judgment, are applicable
to debris.
A technology is considered to be
demonstrated for a particular waste if
the technology currently is in
commercial operation for treatment of
the waste or constituent of interest or
similar wastes or constituents of
interest, including wastes not regulated
under RCRA. such as PCBs and
radioactive waste. For some of the
debris/contaminant combinations
identified in today's proposal. EPA
identified demonstrated technologies
either through a review of the literature
in which current waste treatment
practices were discussed, or through
information provided by specific • *
facilities currently treating the waste or
similar wastes. EPA also considered as
demonstrated technologies those used to
separate or otherwise process chemicals
and other materials which are similar to
the waste or constituent of interest. Due
to the variable nature of debris and the
number of combinations of
contaminants which may exist on . '
debris, no single technology is
identifiable as BDAT for all possible ;
cases within each specific debris/
contaminant combination: EPA is ,.. ••
proposing to identify more than one
technology as the BDAT standard for
debris/contaminant combinations in,
order to give the regulated community
flexibility in addressing particular
contaminated debris Wastes.
To identify BDAT technologies, the
Agency also reviewed the properties of :
debris which may directly affect the '
efficiency of treatment technologies. -
Debris characteristics which may affect •
the performance of effectiveness of
treatment technologies Id clean various
types of debris include: ' :
DestructfbiKty;
Hardness and brfttleness;
Moisture content;
Permeability;
Size, homogeneity, and location fin
situ versus ex site}; ~
Surface texture; and
Total organic carbon (TOC).
All treatment standards for debris in
today's rule are expressed a»a
treatment method. EPA considered
establishingooneentralion4>a3ed.
standards whereby a numerical
treatment level would be required for
the treated debris. A concentratioa-
based treatment standard would
provide BUHdmmn flexibiiHy in the
choice of treatment technology because
any effective treatment, indudiog
recycling or any combination of
treatment technologies, unless:
prohibited fe-g.. impermissible dilution)
or unless designed as land disposal (eg.,
land treatment), could be used to
achieve the standards. However, the
Agency did not have a means of
calculating valid concentration-based
standards given the matrix variations of
debris and the difficulties in campling
and analyzing many debris types. By
identifying numerous technologies that
qualify as BDAT, the Agency is seeking
to provide substantial flexibility.
The Agency is today proposing that
the following 18 treatment technologies
are BDAT for contaminated debris for
specific combinations •* of
contaminants and debris types;
•Extraction Technologies;
—Abrasive Wasting
—Acid washing
r^EJectropoilshing
—Liquid phase solvent extraction
—Thermal desorption
-^Scarification and Grinding .
r-SpaJKng
—rVapor phase solvent extraction
—Vibratory finishing
—Water washing arid spraying •
•. Destruction Technologies.
—Biodegradation
.—Chemical oxidation
—Chemical reduction
—Photochemical treatment
—Thermal destruction
• Immobilization Technologies
—Macroeneopsulation
—ftfiicroencapsulation
Additional information on these
technologies cart be found in Appendix I
of today's, preamble. Detailed
information on the various treatment
technqlogfeB can be found in the
Technical Support Document.18
2.eontaminatedi Debris. Treatment
Standards
EPA has grouped the 18 treatment
technologies that EPA is proposing as
BDAT (see section V.F) into three
" We note that'EPA consider* Ax lechnotogtea
(see proposed Appendix.X to«w rate) to b«r generic
treatment tachmolagies that can effectively beat a)i
' '• See U.S." EPA, technical Support Document for
the Contaminated Debris Proposed Rule. November • -
1991. •• . : ......
-------
988
Federal Rooster / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules'
general families of technologies: (1)
Extraction; (2) destruction; and (3)
immobilization. Based on-an extensive
review of the available technical
literature, data received following the
May 30,1991ANPR, contacts with trade
associations, and the Agency's best
engineering judgment, EPA developed a
Debris Treatment Standards table
(proposed Table 1 to § 268.45)
establishing which specific technologies
are BOAT for specific combinations of
debris and contaminant categories.
When marked "YES" on that table, the
Agency believes that a treatment
technology operated in compliance with
the design and operating standards or
the performance standards provided by
appendix IX, part 268, will effectively
treat the debris contaminated with one
or more contaminants from the
designated contaminant category.19
When marked "NO", the Agency
believes that the technology is not
appropriate or acceptable for that
debris/contaminant combination and
may not provide adequate treatment of
toxic constituents. Note that
technologies marked "YES" may not
always be appropriate (e.g., operator
safety concerns, equipment damage) for
the debris/contaminant category, but
the Agency believes they will effectively
remove or destroy the contaminant.
Contaminants that may present a safety
hazard to workers when using a
particular treatment technology are
noted in appendix IX where the design
and operating or performance standards
arc specified.
Technologies marked "NO" in Table 1
are not prohibited from being used on
debris as a pretreatment step, but do not
qualify as BOAT. Use for initial
treatment will allow mixtures of debris
or debris contaminated with many
contaminants to be treated for all
debris/contaminant combinations using
a treatment train. For example, crushed
metal drums that are contaminated with
both metal and organic contaminants
subject to treatment may be treated with
a treatment train using an extraction
technology (e.g., thermal desorption) to
remove the organic contaminants
followed by an immobilization
technology (e.g., macroencapsulation) to
treat the metal contaminants.
The proposed technology-based
approach offers the regulated
community flexibility in selecting
technologies for treatment of debris.
I lowever, until EPA can develop
performance standards for
immobilization technologies, EPA
prefers extraction and destruction
technologies over immobilization
because the contaminants are either
removed or destroyed.*' When a
treatment train is employed which .
involves an immobilization technology,
for obvious reasons, immobilization
must be the final treatment employed.
See proposed 1268.45(a)(3). Further
treatment of immobilized products
would result in a deterioration of the
immobilized waste and an increase in
the likelihood that the immobilization
product will leach hazardous
constituents.
Further, as discussed below, because
the contaminants have been removed or
destroyed, most contaminated debris
treated by extraction or destruction
technologies in compliance with the
standards of proposed appendix IX, part
268, would no longer be considered to be
contaminated (unless it exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste), and
would be excluded from the definition of
hazardous waste. Contaminated debris
treated by immobilization technologies
are still considered to contain a
hazardous waste, and thus must be land'
disposed in a Subtitle C facility.81
'EPA recommends that the owner or
operator of the treatment facility
consider the thermal, chemical, physical,
and biological properties of the debris
and the contaminants on the debris
before selecting a treatment technology.
The Agency plans to develop a
nonregulatory implementation
assistance document to provide
assistance on how to select the most
appropriate technologies for a given
debris/contaminant combination.
3. Requirements to Ensure Effective
Treatment !
To ensure effective treatment and that
the debris no longer contains hazardous
• waste and, thus, is excluded from the
definition of hazardous waste (provided
that an extraction or destruction
technology is Used and that the treated
debris does not exhibit a hazardous
characteristic), the rule would require
that the treatment technology meet
specific performance standards or be
designed and operated under specific
operating conditions. See Appendix IX
to the proposed rule. In addition, we are
requesting comment on whether to
require a treatment facility owner or
operator that intends to claim the
exclusion for the treated debris to
submit to EPA a one-time written notice
at least 30 days prior to first treating a
debris/contaminant category stating
that the owner or operator intends to
"Sec footnote 13.
10 See footnote 6.
" See footnote 6.
claim the exclusion and certifying that
the treatment technology will be
operated in compliance with the design
and operating or-performance standards
provided by .appendix IX. These issues
are discussed below.
a. Performance and design and
operating standards. The Agency
developed performance standards or
design and operating requirements for
each of the treatment technologies
based on an analysis of the supporting
data base.2' The data base was
developed by conducting an extensive
review of the available technical
literature, reviewing the data received
following the May 30,1991 ANPR, and
contacting vendors and trade
associations to obtain reports describing
treatment of contaminated debris at
waste sites in the United States. The
literature search identified the types of
debris and types of contaminants on
debris typically found at waste sites,
and treatment technologies applicable
for debris treatment. In particular, the
Agency searched the Record of Decision
data base and the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information
Center data base for information on
debris treatment methods, contacted '
Remedial Project Managers and other
governmental officials at the State level
to discuss debris treatment technologies
in use or under evaluation in their '
Region or State, and contacted over 50
vendors to collect information about the
operation, performance, and
effectiveness of their technology. The
Agency summarized the design and
operating and performance standards
for successfully demonstrated treatment
operations and incorporated them into
proposed Appendix IX to part 268.
When data were not available for
treatment of specific debris/
contaminant combinations, the Agency
used best engineering judgment to.
transfer design and operating and
performance standards from
technologies that are expected to be
effective on'those specific debris/
• contaminant combinations.
The Agency is proposing performance
standards rather than design and
operating standards for a technology
where supporting data are available. An
example of a performance standard is
the requirement that abrasive blasting of
metal debris must remove all paint,
surface coating, rust, visible cracks and
crevices, scale, corrosion, and visible
staining to leave a white metal finish.
An example of design and, operating
standards are the standards for
biodegradation thai specify the pH,
" See footnote 13.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 37. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
389
temperature, moisture Level, and oxygen
concentration of the slurry- We are
proposing performance standards where
possible because performance standards
may provide more effective treatment
for a debris/contaminant category given
the variability in physical forms of
debris within a category. Further.
performance standards give the owner
and operator the flexibility to tailor the
design and operation of the treatment
unit to the specific debris being treated
to ensure effective treatment as
demonstrated by compliance with a
performance standard.
EPA specifically requests comments
and supporting data on whether the
standards proposed in appendix IX will
ensure completely effective treatment—
leaving a nonhazardoua debris as well
as significantly reducing the toxicity and
mobility of hazardous constituents—for
the debris/contaminant categories
specified in § 268.45. Further. EPA
specifically requests data or information
supporting the development of
performance standards for those
technologies where the Agency is
currently able to propose primarily
design and operating requirements only.
if EPA determines based on public
comments and further analysis that the
performance standards for a particular
technology may not ensure effective
treatment for particular debris types or
contaminant categories specified in
proposed Table 1 of § 268.45 as
acceptable, the final rule could provide
either that such technology is not BDAT
in that situation or that the treated
dobris could be land disposed but would
not be excluded from Subtitle C
regulation.
Late in the process of developing
today's proposed rule, we realized that
the performance standards proposed in
appendix IX. part 268. may preclude the
need for specifying acceptable
technologies as a function of debris type
as provided by Table 1 of § 268.45.
Appendix IX provides performance
standards that vary, when necessary,
according to type of debris. Thus, it may
be redundant to specify acceptable
technologies by debris category in Table
I.23 Table 1 could be revised in the final
" We also noted that »he performance standards
for a particular technology could be met for some
debris/contaminant category combinations even
tnotigh Table 2 would preclude use of the
technology. For example. Table 2 preclude* the use
ol abrasive blasting of plastic even though abrasive
blasting of rigid plastic pipe to remove surface
combination should be an effective treatment
technology and could meet the performance
standards specified in Appendix IX for
nonpermeable debris liie glass [La., removal of all
paint, surface coatings, scale, visible cracks and
crevices, and visible staining).
rule to specify acceptable technologies
solely as a function of contaminant
category.
We note further that the performance
standards and design and operating
conditions being proposed for the
various methods of treatment would not
be part 284 pi 265 standards and so need
not be implemented by means of permits
or interim status standards. Nor is the
Agency finding that performing these
types of treatment in these ways is
necessary to protect human health and
the environment.24 Rather, these
standards are adopted pursuant to
section 3004(m) to assure that treatment
minimizes the hazardous constituents'
toxicity or mobility. Furthermore, by
optimizing treatment, rather than simply
performing the treatment without any
criteria of how it is to be properly
operated, the Agency can find further
that most treated debris no longer
contains a hazardous waste, and so is
no longer subject to subtitle C regulation
(assuming that the treatment is an
extraction or destruction technology86).
b. Notification and certification
requirements. In addition to the
standards being proposed today, the
Agency also requests comment on
whether to apply new notification and
certification requirements in order for
EPA to provide oversight to ensure that
a treatment unit is meeting the design
and operating or performance standards
established in appendix IX, part 268,
EPA may need the opportunity to
provide such oversight for debris that
will be excluded from regulation [ije.,
debris that is treated with an extraction
or destruction technology and that does
not exhibit a hazardous characteristic}
upon treatment to ensure that the debris
is effectively treated. For contaminated
debris that remains within the subtitle C
hazardous waste management system
upon treatment, the existing notification
and certification requirements of § 288.7
will apply. For contaminated debris that
is no longer considered hazardous, EPA
proposes in § 268.7(d) a one-time
notification and certification to be kept
in the facility files for each combination
of debris/contaminant categories.
In particular, for debris that will be
excluded from Subtitle C upon
treatment, the Agency is requesting
comment on whether to require the
14 Although the performance standards are not
intended to provide protection of human health and
the enwroement (HHEJ from the treatment
operation itself, the standards, will ensure protection
of HHE when the treated debris becomes excluded
from Subtitle C and may be disposed of fa a
municipal waste landfill. Thus, EPA expects that
permit writers will add conditions to the permit to
ensure compliance with the performance standards.
"See footnote 8.
owner or operator of the treatment unit
to provide EPA a written notification
prior to. treating • debris/contaminant
category that provides certain
information (as discussed below) and
certifies that the technology will be
operated under the standards of
appendix DC, part 268. This would give
EPA the opportunity to review the
information and inspect the facility (if
considered necessary) where EPA has
questions on .whether the technology
will, in fact, be operated in compliance
with the standards because of factors
such as an unusual or difficult to treat
debris or contaminant, or the
enforcement history of the facility. In
providing comments, EPA specifically
requests suggestions on the timing of the
notice.
EPA could require that the following
information be included in the
notification to enable EPA to determine
the difficulty of meeting the standards of
appendix IX, part 288:
• Name and address of the owner and
operator of the facility as well as the
location of the treatment unit;
• Date that the notification is
submitted to EPA;
• Brief description of the treatment
technology;
• Types and quantities of debris to be
treated, and source of the debris; and
• Each contaminant for which the
debris is subject to treatment, and a
determination whether the untreated
.debris exhibits a hazardous
characteristic. •
4. Mixtures of Contaminant Categories
Today's treatment standards apply to
mixtures of different waste streams.
Where a waste mixture consists of
different debris or contaminant
categories and has more than one •
technology treatment standard, all
standards must be met prior to land
disposal See proposed § 266.45 {a)(3)
and (a)(4). This may result in the use of
a treatment train, in which several
technologies are employed to treat the
waste. In such cases, as noted
previously, immobilization, where
required, muat.be the last technology
employed. In the event that such a
waste mixture cannot feasibly be
treated by the. different treatment
methods, the Agency will accept
petitions for a variance from the
treatment standard pursuant to J 268.44.
5. Mixtures of Debris Categories
When debris is a mixture of debris
categories, treatment would be required
for each debris category according to
proposed 5 268.45(a}(3). The owner or
operator of the treatment facility may
-------
990
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
cither (1) Treat the debris using a
technology which qualifies as BOAT for
all debris/contaminant combinations
within the matrix, or (2) treat the debris
using a treatment train such that BOAT
for each debris/contaminant category is
achieved by at least one of the
technologies in the treatment train.
If a debris is a mixture of debris
categories but the application of the
specified treatment technology for one
debris category (normally the primary
debris category) will cause the
secondary debris category to be
removed from the primary debris in the
treatment residue in a form such that it
no longer meets the definition of debris,
the debris treatment standards have
been met. The treatment residue is
subject to the numerical F039 treatment
standards and remains subject to
Subtitle C (like all treatment residues).
An example is metal equipment that is
contaminated with a prohibited listed
waste, and has a paper label. If abrasive
blasting is used to treat the pipe, the
paper label will be removed and
shredded, and will become part of the
treatment residue.
6= Treatment of Characteristic Debris
Contaminated debris that exhibits
ignitabiiity or reactivity a8 must be
treated to deactivate the ignitabiiity or
reactivity characteristic. See proposed
§ 268.45(a)(2). If such debris is also
contaminated with "contaminants
subject to treatment," ST it must be
deactivated before the debris can be
treated for the contaminants subject to
treatment unless the treatment for the
contaminants also will deactivate the
debris.
As discussed above, EPA is also
soliciting comment as to whether there
should be treatment of "contaminants
subject to treatment" if debris that is
hazardous waste solely because it
exhibits the ignitabiiity or reactivity
characteristic is contaminated with
appendix VIII, part 261, constituents.
Effective treatment of such
contaminants would require
deactivation as an initial treatment step.
EPA also solicits comment on whether
dilution should be considered
*• We note that contaminated debrii cannot
exhibit contulvlty under I 261.22 because only
Iiquldi may exhibit corroilvlty while debris is
Oi'finud a* a tolld material. However, contaminated
(k'brii (!•«- dcbrU that li mixed with a listed waste
(it exhibit! a hazardous characteristic) may contain
u corrosive waste (e.g., crumpled drums containing
lorroilvo liquids). In this situation, not only would
the debris be subject to the debris treatment
technology requirements, but the corrosive waste
must be deactivated.
»' l,o, because il exhibits the TC and EP or is
cuntumltuilcd with • listed prohibited waste.
permissible treatment for ignitable and
reactive debris.
Debris that exhibits reactivity
because of the presence of cyanide,
howeveri would be subject to treatment
with a technology specified for cyanide.
Cyanides would be included in CC10
(nonmetal inorganics) in proposed Table
2 of § 268.45. We are proposing to
require treatment of cyanide rather than
simply deactivation" of the reactivity
characteristic because cyanide is a toxic
constituent. In addition, treating
cyanide-reactive waste for cyanide
would be consistent with the existing
land disposal restrictions. See existing
§ 268.43—Waste Code D003 (Reactive
cyanides subcategory identified by
§ 261.23(a)(5)).
7. Debris That Continues to Exhibit the
Toxicity Characteristic Due to
Fabrication With Toxic Metals
Some types of debris may continue to
exhibit the (prohibited) Extraction
Procedure (EP) toxicity characteristic.
Examples are: Refractory brick
containing metals such as chromium;
certain metal alloys containing nickel
and chromium, such as stainless steel;
treated wood that contains wood
preserving compounds such as
chromium, and arsenic; battery casings
that contain lead; lead pipe; and lead
paint chips. EPA is proposing rules
covering two possibilities: Where such
debris is contaminated with
contaminants subject to treatment, and
when the debris is not. Where the debris
is contaminated, EPA is proposing that
the contaminants be treated by the
appropriate method. If the debris
continued to exhibit a characteristic
because of its fabricated content (i.e.,
exhibited both the TC and EP for a
metal), it would have to be immobilized
before land disposal. An alternative,
however, would be to recycle the debris,
which in most cases would be scrap
metal (as defined in § 261.1) exempt
from further subtitle C regulation. See
§ 261.1(a)(3)(iv). EPA in fact is proposing
treatment of'contaminants subject to
treatment for this, type of characteristic
debris, but soliciting comment on this
alternative for other types of
characteristic debris, because of the
likelihood that most of the debris will be
managed in this unregulated mode as
recycled scrap metal. It is thus
important that other contaminants not .
be present to avoid environmental
contamination at unregulated sites and
also to avoid unexpected contaminants
in the recycling process itself.88
If the inherently hazardous debris is
not contaminated with contaminants
subject to treatment, it could either be
immobilized and disposed, or recycled,
and if scrap metal, be exempt from
further regulation.
To illustrate, suppose a restaurant is
demolished and several stainless steel
counters are the only metal included
among other debris consisting of
concrete, brick, wood, plaster, and glass.
There are no listed wastes present, and
the restaurant demolition debris does
not exhibit ignitabiiity, cprrosivity, or
reactivity. A representative sample of
the debris would include stainless steel,
concrete, brick, wood, plaster, and glass
in the same proportions as they are
found in the restaurant demolition
debris. Unless such a representative
sample exhibits the toxicity
characteristic under the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), the restaurant demolition debris
would not be considered hazardous.
However, if a representative sample
of the restaurant demolition debris
exhibits the toxicity characteristic for
chromium under the TCLP, due to the
presence of the stainless steel, all the
restaurant demolition debris would be
considered hazardous. Deliberate
dilution of the debris to obtain a sample
that would not exhibit the toxicity
characteristic is prohibited; such
deliberate dilution of a sample would
violate the sampling protocols of SW-
846 which are incorporated by reference
in 5 260.11. If the stainless steel in this
example is, segregated from the other
restaurant demolition debris, it may be
recycled as provided in § 261.6(a)(3)(iv)
without treatment under proposed
§ 268.45 because it is not contaminated
with any other contaminants subject to
treatment. The Agency suggests that
metal be removed from demolition sites
for recycling prior to demolition, to the
most cost effective extent possible,
particularly where the site does not
involve the production or use of listed
hazardous wastes;.in this way, the
potential for generating contaminated
debris may be lessened.
. EPA recognizes, however, that in
some situations where recycling is
impracticable, treatment with an
immobilization technology may also be
impracticable. EPA specifically requests
comment and supporting information on
situations where recycling is -
impracticable for inherently hazardous
debris and where immobilization is also
*• Residues from treating Inherently hazardous
debris, however, could be considered a new
treatabiiity group not exhibiting a characteristic and
therefore not prohibited. An alternative would be to
require treatment to F039 standards, viewing both
the debris and treatment residues as part of a
nonwastewater treatabiiity group.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
991
impracticable for such debris. Further,
EPA requests comment on regulatory
controls that may be applied to such
debris in a manner that is workable and
protective of human health and the
environment.
8. Mixtures of Soil and Contaminated
Debris
When soil is agglomerated on debris
or compacted/contained inside the
cracks and crevices of debris, it is
difficult to separate. Soil (e.g., clay)
adhering to debris is considered
contaminated soil if it is removed during
treatment of contaminated debris (e.g.,
water washing and spraying)!
Nonwastewater residuals containing
soil that are separated during the
treatment of residuals from debris
treatment will be subject to the
forthcoming contaminated soil
standards.
G. Regulation of Treatment Residuals
Four general categories of residuals
from the treatment of contaminated
debris have been identified: (1)
Nonwastewater residuals containing
soil; (2) treated debris; (3)
nonwastewater residuals derived from
the treatment of contaminated soil and
debris that are neither soil nor debris;
and (4) wastewater *• residuals derived
from the treatment of contaminated soil
and debris. (This discussion assumes
contamination with a listed waste.) The
Agency is today proposing to continue
to subject nonwastewater residuals -
containing soil to the existing LDR
standards, to conditionally exclude
treated debris from Subtitle C as
discussed previously, and to transfer the
F039 nonwastewater and wastewater
treatment standards to the non-soil, non-
debris, nonwastewater, and wastewater
residuals fi.e., categories 3 and 4)
generated by the treatment of
contaminated debris.
We also discuss in the section the
rationale for transferring the F039
multisource leachate standards to debris
treatment residues. Finally, we also
discuss the special requirements for
residues from the treatment of cyanide-
reactive debris and ignitable
nonwastewater resiHue.
1. Nonwastewater Residues Containing
Soil
Nonwastewater residuals containing
soil may be generated when soil is
removed from contaminated debris
during debris treatment operations (e.g..
28 Wastewaters are wastes that contain less than
1 percent by weight total organic carbon (TOC) and
less than 1 percent by weight total suspended solids
(TSS). See existing 5 28az(f).
water washing and spraying).
Nonwastewater residuals containing
soil that are separated from debris
during the treatment of contaminated
debris are subject to the existing LDR
standards for the listed waste that
contaminated the debris and the LDR
standards for the toxicity characteristic
that the debris exhibited until standards
specific for contaminated soil are
promulgated.
2. Treated Debris
Treatment technologies other than
thermal destruction of an organic debris
will generate a treated debris residue.
(See discussion below regarding residue
from thermal destruction.) If the debris
has been treated for all "contaminants
subject to treatment," the treated debris
is excluded from Subtitle C provided it
was treated with an extraction or
destruction technology 30 and the
treated debris does not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic.
3. Nonwastewater, Nonsoil, Nondebris
Residuals
Under today's proposed rule,
nonwastewater residuals that are
nonsoil and nondebris "would be subject
to the F039 nonwastewater treatment
residual standards. These residuals may
be land disposed after meeting the F039
standards, but are subject to Subtitle C.
The residue would be subject to the F039
nonwastewater treatment standards
under existing § 268.43 for all
contaminants subject to treatment (see
proposed 5 268.45(b)J and for all
constituents in appendix VIII, part 261,
that are added to the debris or residue
during treatment.
Note that EPA considers residue
generated by surface removal
technologies other than spalling (e.g.,
abrasive blasting, electropojishing, acid
washing, waster washing and spraying)
to be nonwastewater, nonsoil, nondebris
residue. Although the residue will
usually contain particles of debris (e.g.,
abrasive blasting of concrete) along with
the contaminants, we believe that it is
more appropriate to subject the residue
to the F039 standards rather than to
further treatment as .contaminated
debris. Such residues generally have the
physical characteristics of a treatment
residue (e.g., small particle size) rather
than the debris. Residue from spalling,
however, will generally .closely resemble
the debris and so would be subject to
further treatment as contaminated
debris.
We note further that the solid residue
from thermal treatment (e.g.,
incineration) may contain both inert
debris as well as ash resulting from
destruction of waste and organic debris.
If the contaminated debris is not
contaminated with a metal
"contaminant subject to treatment,"
inert debris that is separated from the
ash residue is considered treated debris
rather than residue subject to F039
standards.31 (The ash residue would be
subject to the F039 standards).
4. Wastewater Residuals
Wastewater residuals are liquid
residuals derived from the "treatment of
contaminated debris (e.g., rinsate from
acid washing operations) that are
neither soil nor debris. These
wastewater residuals would be subject
to the F039 wastewater treatment
residual standards under the proposed
rule. (Any nonwastewaters generated in
the course of treating the wastewater
such as precipitated solids will be
subject to the F039 nonwastewater
standards). As with nonwastewater
residuals, the wastewater residual
would be subject to the F039
wastewater treatment standards under
existing § 268.43 for all contaminants
subject .to treatment (see proposed
§ 268.45(b)) and for all constituents in
appendix VIII, part 261, that are added
to the debris or residue during
treatment.
5. Nonanalyzable Constituents
The Agency has also considered the
issue of nonanalyzable constituents.
Nonanalyzable constituents may be
identified as "contaminants subject to
treatment" if debris is contaminated
with a prohibited listed waste and the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility could reasonably know that the
debris is also (i.e., in addition to the
BOAT constituents for .the prohibited
ao See footnote 6.
31 We note that, although the separated inert
debris may be contaminated with the ash residue
through surface coating (e.g., dust) or by
entrainment within the debris (e.g.. pockets of ash
residue entrained in crumpled metal containers), the
inert debris will pose little hazard to human health
and the environment because the nonmetal toxi.c
contaminants in the debris have been destroyed. If
debris is contaminated with a metal contaminant'
subject to treatment, the inert debris remaining in
the residue from thermal treatment would be
•ubject to additional treatment (e-g., extraction,
immobilization) for the metal contaminant. We note
further that if organic debris (e.g., wood, cloth or
•paper, or rubber or plastic) remains after treatment
by thermal destruction, EPA considers such debris
to be contaminated debris subject to the treatment
standards. If the organic debris has not been
destroyed, EPA is concerned that the organic
contaminants'subject to treatment may not have
been destroyed (or metal contaminants subject to
treatment contaminating the organic debris may not
have been liberated and partitioned to the ash
residue (where they are subject to the F039
treatment standards)).
-------
992
Federal Register / Vol. S7, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed Ifrales
waste) contaminated with an appendix
V1H, part 281, constituent that is
nonanaly^able." Even though the
owner or operator will not be able to
determine whether the nonanaryzable
constituent contaminates the debris at
detectable levels, the Agency believes it
is reasonable to take the conservative
view to require treatment of such
nonanalyzable constituents.
Treatment residues must be treated to
meet the F039 multitource leachate
standards for all contaminants subject
to treatment. See proposed § 288.45(e).
When a prohibited hazardous-waste
containing a constituent without an
EPA-approved analytical method
contaminates the debris, EPA considers
the treatment residue to be treated for
the nonanalyzable constituent -when the
residue is shown to meet the F039
standards for the BDAT constituents for
the prohibited waste. This is because
the BDAT constituents act-as a
surrogate for the nonanalyzable
constituent. This is consistent with the
approach taken by the Agency daring
the regulation of F039 multisonree
leachate. At that time, the Agency
believed that the constituents with EPA-
approved analytical methods would act
as surrogates for constituents wfthotrt
EPA-approved methods.
6. Rationale for Transferring F039
Standards to Debris Treatment
Residuals
Limited characterization data are
available on the residuals from-debris
treatment and no specific treatment
performance data on debris residuals
are currently available. As part of the
F039 regulation effort, the Agency did
collect and summarize treatment
performance data on several
wastewater treatment technologies. For
nonwastewater F039, the Agency
compiled treatment performance data
from the incineration of many waste
codes subject to LDRs. These two
databases (the F039 wastewater and
nonwastewater databases) represent an
appropriate data source for transfer to
residuals from the treatment of
contaminated debris.
The advantage of using the F039
uusle water database is that this data
represents treatment performance of the
best demonstrated and available
"We note that the prohibited listed -waste may
Ml so contain toxic nonansfyzable constituent*. The
l.il of BOAT constrhients for the prohibited -waste.
however, accounts for the presence of
noimnalyzable constituent! fay,-in some cases,
designating astiDAT constituents nontoxfc.
surrogate constituents. When 1he prohibited -waste
(or contaminated debris) Is treated for-the surrogate
constituent. EPA believes that the nonanaryzaWe
foiuliluent will ilio be treated.
wastewater technologies currently in
use for treating various wastes. This
database represents treatment of wastes
with high variabilities of constituents
and constituent concentrations.
The FOS9 nonwastewater database
represents incineration treatment
performance data for various wastes
with high variabilities of constituents
and constituent concentrations.
Incineration has often been identified as
the best demonstrated and available
technology for the treatment of organic
constituents in-nonwaste waters. The use
of F039 treatment performance data to
determine concentration-based
treatment standards for contaminated
debris treatment residuals, therefore,
represents a feasible and
environmentally sotmd option. This
regulatory approach maximizes use of
the Agency's available treatment
performance data end "has been
promulgated successfully with the
multisource leachate regulation during
the Third Third ndemaking.
For those contaminants subject to
treatment that partition to the debris
treatment residual and that do not have
treatment standards under F039,
standards could be developed in the
future using a transfer of data from a
similar constituent in F039 or in another
waste code.This procedure is common
in the BDAT program and will allow all
of the debris contaminants subject to
treatment to have a concentration-based
residue treatment .standard. In the
interim, however, EPA believes that
constituents with approved analytical
methods would act as surrogates for
constituents that do not have such
approved methods. Thus, when the
residue is treated to meet the fO39
standards for contaminants with
approved .methods, the contaminants
without approved methods will also be
effectively treated.The Agency also
addressed this concern in the same
manner during the regulation of F039
multisource leachate.
There are several advantages to using
the R)39 transfer approach for the
regulation of contaminated debris
treatment residuals.The residuals likely
to be generated from the treatment of
contaminated debris will contain, in
many cases, treatable concentrations of
various contaminants that have been
removed during the debris treatment
process. Par example, extraction
technologies would include the removal
of contaminants from the debris
material. The contaminants removed
and any extraction chemicals used {e.g.,
spent solvent-wash or rinsing solution)
would constitute the contaminated
debris treatment residual.This residual
could «erttain any number of
contaminants at varying-concentrations.
This residual would re^uire additional
treatment before % would be safe to
land dispose.
As is the case with multisource
leachate, the iypeu of contaminants and
their concentrations in contaminated
debris treatment residuals will vary
greatly. The characterization of debris
treatment residuals will depend on
many factors, such 'as the hazardous
waste on the contaminated debris, the
degree to which the treatment
technology (such as extraction) removes
the contaminants, eta In addition, this
approach does not require that the
original waste codes contaminating the
debris be identified; only the
constituents of concern on/in the debris
that are likely to be in the residuals from
debris treatment must be identified. The
approach is thus consistent with the
universal treatment-standard approach
discussed in EPA's ANPR of May 30,
1991 {56 Ffi 24444).
The Agency also explored the
development of new treatment
standards for debris treatment residuals
but believes that this action would be
both costly and time consuming. Since
debris residuals are likely to be highly
variable, it would be very difficult to
characterize these wastes as a group.
The Agency also evaluated
establishing specified technology-based
treatment standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater Jerms -of these residuals.
However, this regulatory option is more
restrictive than-setting a numerical
treatment standard since it-would
require industry to use a specific
technology. Setting concaatratian-based
treatment *laad*Kfis allows industry
greater flexibility in choosing innovative
treatment iecknolqgies; it also helps to
promote the .development of aew
treatment technologies.
7. Special Requirements for Cyanide-
Reactive Residue
Residue from the treatment of debris
that is reactive because of cyanide
would.be subject to the F03fl standards
for cyanide wider ii 268.43 of this
chapter. As with .cyanide-reactive
waste, EPA believes that BDAT for
cyanide-reactive debris should require
treatment of cyanide because of its
toxicity.
8. Special •Requirements for Igniiable
Nonwastewater Residue
Today's.rule would subject ignitable
non waste water .residue containing equal
to or greater lhan 10 percent total
organic carbon to &te technology-based
standards for D001'. "ignitable Liquids
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 /Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
993
based on § 261;21(a)(l)" under § 268.42.
Those standards would require that the •
residue be treated by fuel substitution
(i.e., burning as fuel in a boiler or .
industrial furnace), recovery of organic
constituents (e.g., distillation, carbon
adsorption), or incineration. EPA has
established these technologies as BOAT
for high total organic carbon ignitable
liquids because they will effectively
remove or destroy toxic organic
constituents.
H. Other Provisions of the Rule
In this section, we discuss several
other provisions of the proposed rule: (1)
Waste codes for contaminated debris;
(2) relationship of the proposed rule to
existing TSCA rules for PCBs; (3}
standards for debris containing asbestos
and asbestos debris; (4) special
requirements for debris contaminated
with radioactive waste; (5) sham
contamination of debris with a waste to
avoid LDR number standards for the
waste; (6) sampling and analysis of
debris; (7) procedures for demonstrating
the equivalency of new technologies;
and (8) applicability of existing
treatment standards to contaminated
debris.
1. Waste Codes for Contaminated
Debris
The waste code applicable to
contaminated debris is determined
under the same approach used for other
hazardous waste. For example, if debris
is contaminated with a listed waste
F006, the contaminated debris carries
that waste code. If the debris exhibits
the toxicity characteristic for arsenic, it
carries waste code D004.
Contaminated debris that is treated
according to proposed § 268.45(a)(l) and
appendix IX, part 268, by an extraction
or destruction technology and that does
not exhibit a characteristic would no
longer be a hazardous waste (and would
no longer carry a waste code).
Contaminated debris that is treated by
an immobilization technology and
remains in Subtitle C s* would carry the
waste code for the-waste or the toxicity
characteristic for which it was
immobilized.
Although residues from the treatment
of contaminated debris are subject to
the LDR standards for F039, the residue
normally carries the waste code of the
contaminated debris. However, residue
from treating debris that is hazardous
solely because it exhibits a
characteristic would not carry the waste
code for the characteristic after
treatment to deactivate the residue.
" See footnote 8.
2. Relationship of Debris Rule to TSCA
PCB Rules
a; TSCA disposal requirements. Under
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), disposal of debris contaminated
with PCBs is regulated under 40 CFR
761.60. In addition, disposal of debris
and materials resulting from the cleanup
of certain PCB spills is subject to the
PCB Spill Cleanup Policy, as provided
under 40 CFR 761.125. On June 10,1991,
EPA published (56 FR 26738) an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking which, among other things,
asked for suggestions on how to amend
the current PCB disposal rules to
provide flexibility hi disposing of PCB
contaminated media (see l.A. Large
Volume, Non-Liquid Wastes). The
current PCB disposal rules .(40 CFR
761.60) were not designed to address
large volumes of non-liquid wastes, such
as certain classes of soils, sludges, and,
sediments. EPA is reviewing .the
comments submitted on the ANPR hi
anticipation of publishing a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking'.
b. Proposed approach for overlap of
RCRA and TSCA requirements. The
Agency is today proposing that RCRA
contaminated debris that is also a waste
PCB under 40 CFR part 761 be required
to comply with both the TSCA and
RCRA regulations, by satisfying the
more, stringent applicable requirements,
including incineration or treatment
followed by land disposal in a Subtitle C
facility. This is EPA's, consistent
approach to this issue. See 55 FR 22678
(June i, 1990), and 52 FR 25770 (July 8,
1987). . '
The Agency is today proposing the
use of specific treatment technologies as
standards for the treatment of
contaminated debris. These standards
also apply to debris contaminated with
PCBs and RCRA hazardous wastes.
Debris treated by an extraction or
destruction technology would remain
subject to TSCA rule's only, whereas
debris treated by an immobilization
technology would remain subject to
applicable requirements under both
statutes.
3. Treatment Standards for Asbestos
Debris
Asbestos is a naturally occurring
family of fibrous mineral substance. The
typical size of asbestos fibers is 0.1 to 10
micrometers in length, a size that is not
generally visible to the human eye.
Some longer fibers are used hi making
textile products. Asbestos is a popular
commercial product because it is
noncombustible, resistant to corrosion,
has a high tensile strength, and a low
electrical conductivity. When disturbed,
asbestos fibers may become suspended
in the air for many hours, thus • •.
increasing the extent of asbestos
exposure for individuals within the area;
Asbestos fibers have been mixed with
various types of binding materials to
create an estimated 3,000 different
commercial products. Asbestos has been
used hi brake linings, floor tile, sealants,
plastics, cement pipe, cement sheet,
paper products, textile products and
insulation, and other products such as
fireproof garments, curtains, and shields,
paper, insulating boards, and insulating
cements. The amount of asbestos
contained hi these products varies
significantly from 1 to 100 percent, but is
typically less than 50 percent
We determined late hi the process of
developing this proposed rule that
asbestos itself could also be
contaminated debris if it is mixed with a
prohibited waste or exhibits a
prohibited characteristic.3* However,
asbestos ia not included in the six
.categories of debris in proposed Table 1
to S 268,45 for which the Agency is
proposing treatment technologies as
BOAT. Consequently, we specifically
request, comment on whether the final
rule should include a column in
proposed Table 1 for asbestos debris.38
In addition, we request comment on.
whether the technology /contaminant
category combinations presented in
. appendix II to this preamble will
provide effective treatment for toxic
constituents hi asbestos debris. As
discussed below, although the treated
asbestos debris would be excluded from
Subtitle C if it was treated with an
extraction, or destruction technology and
the asbestos debris did not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic, the treated
debris will still be subject to applicable
controls under OSHA, NESHAPS, and
TSCA. .
a. Existing federal regulatory controls
on asbestos. The EPA and the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) have major
responsibility for the regulatory control
over exposure to asbestos. Emissions of
asbestos to the ambient air are
controlled under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, which •establishes the
National Emission Standards for
•Hazardous. Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
" Note that If asbestos which is not
contaminated with a prohibited waste and does not
exhibit a prohibited characteristic if separated from
contaminated debris, the asbestos debris would not
be subject to the proposed debris treatment
standards. , • , . . •
»• If a debris is, comprised of asbestos and
another type'of debris, the debris must be treated
for each debris category. See section V.E. 5 of the
text • • • •
-------
994
Federal Register,/ Vol. 57, No. 6 / Ifcuxsday, January 9, 1992 / ftnpaBed Rotes
The regulations specify control
requirements for mod asbestos
emissions, including work practices to
be followed to minimize the release of
asbestos fibers during handling of
asbestos waste materials. These
regulations do not identify a sale
threshold level for airborne asbestos
fibers.
The OSHA regulations are established
to protect workers handling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products. The
current OSHA regulations Include a
maximum workplace airborne asbestos
concentration limit of 0.2 fibers/cc on an
8-hour time weighted average basis, and
n ceiling limit of 10 fibers/cc in any 15-
minute period. The standards include
requirements for respiratory protection
and other safety equipment, and -work
practices to reduce indoor dust levels.
See 29 CFR part 1910.
The transport end disposal of
asbestos Is regulated by TSCA under 40
CFR part 763, subpart E, appendix E,
and by NESHAPi under 40 CFR part €1.
subpart WL The NESHAP requirements
for asbestos disposal begin at the point
of removal. The asbestos material must
be wet when removed -and should be
kept wet through the final disposal A
surfactant must be used in wetting of the
asbestos, if on asbestos waste is
removed dry, it must be wetted after
removal until it is collected and sealed
in leak-tight containers while wet The
recommended ojotasner is a leak-tights
millimeter thrick plastic bag. The void
space or air should be miitimized prior
to sealing the bag. Double bagging,
plastic lined cardboard, or plastic-lined
metal containers are considered to '
provide better containerization. Shinies
of asbestos waste can be contained in
leak tight drums if they are too heavy for
plastic bags. Both EPA and OSHA
specify that the containers be tagged
with a warning label, e.g., Caution:
Contains Asbestos Fibers. Avoid
Creating Dust. May Cause Serious
Bodily Harm.
An alternative handling method for
wet asbestos waste is to use a vacuum
(ruck. The slurry is transported in the
vacuum truck to the disposal site. Air
from the vacuum Intake is dried and
filtered through High. Efficiency
Particulate Air fHEPA) filter.
Improperly containerized waste is a
violation ol NESHAPs and the EPA
should be notified. As a form of
recordkeeping, a "cradle-to-grave"
system is established under TSCA by a
chain-oX-custody form.
At the disposal site, EPA requires •
either no visible emissions to the air-or
the minimization of emissions by
covering the containerized waste withia
24 hours of receipt with at least 6 inches
of * non-asbestos material or an
approved dust suppressing agent & is
recommended that the landfill operator
have a separate area Tor asbestos
disposal The final closure of an area
containing asbestos requires a cover of
an additional 3D indies of compacted
non-asbestos material to provide a 36
inch final cover. Other disposal site
requirements include the control of
public access 'by -the use of approved
warning signs and. if necessary physical
barriers. Any variation to the -disposal
methods must receive prior approval by
the Administrator.
b. Treatment standards. The single
largest use of asbestos in the ILS. is in
building products. Given the tremendous
versatility of asbestos-containing
material used in these products, EPA
believes that a significant portion of
asbestos debris will be generated
through building renovation and
demolition. EPA also believes that some
of this debris may be contaminated with
a prohibited fisted waste tor may exhibit
a prohibited characteristic} either as
initially generated or after improper
land disposal -subject to Superfund or
Corrective Action. Thus, asbestos debris
conld be contaminated debris subject to
today's proposal rule {e^M cnronuum-
contaminated asbestos pipe and
equipment insulation). Given that
asbestos debris is not included in the six
categories -of -debm for -winch we are
today proposing treatment technologies
inTablel of ? ZBB.SS.ive specifically
request comment on adding required
treatment technologies for asbestos
debris to Table 1.
Although it may be technically
feasible to treat contaminated asbestos
debris (or a -debm Mixture containing
asbestos) uwng-many of the 18-debris
treatment technologies -discussed in
previous sections, many of the treatment
technologies are not practicable for
asbestos debris because of the potential
for occupational exposure or
environmental release of asbestos. In
particular, based on engineering
judgment, EPA believes that the
following debris treatment technologies,
while perhaps technically feasible in
some situations, are not practicable for
asbestos treatment because of the
potential for occupational or
environmental exposure (i.e., controls
nnder OSHA, NKMAPs. and TSCA
could notreaBonrfriy be net): Abrasive
blasting,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proppsefl
995
treatment standards for four treatability
groups of mixed waste; (1) Specific high
level wastes. {2} D008 radioactive lead
solids, (3) mixed waste containing
elemental mercury, and (4) mercury
containing hydraulic oil contaminated
with radioactive materials. The Agency
further asserted that "all promulgated
treatment standards for RCRA listed
and characteristic wastes apply to the
RCRA hazardous portion of mixed
radioactive (high-level, TRU, and low-
level) wastes, unless EPA has
specifically established a treatability
group for that specific category of mixed
waste."
However, there are a number of
potential problems presented by
applying the existing land disposal
restriction standards to mixed waste
contaminated debris, including the
achievability of the existing standard
and the consistency of these standards
with A£A regulations. For instance, the
specified technology to be used for
mixed waste containing elemental
mercury is "Amalgamation with Zinc as
a Method of Treatment" This
technology effectively reduce* the
teachability of liquid mercury. However,
this technology may not effectively
reduce the teachability of mercury
contained in the pores of wood or cloth
debris.
Also, incineration of mixed wastes
containing radioisotopes of carbon and
hydrogen would result in the spread of
these isotopes through uncontrolled
emissions of carbon dioxide and water
vapor. This could result in an increase of
the radiation hazard, which would
conflict with the requirements of AEA.
The Agency is today proposing that
mixed waste contaminated debris be
required to comply with the treatment
standards for contaminated debris {in
addition to any regulation of that
material under AEA), rather than to the
treatment standards for the
contaminating waste. This includes
debris contaminated with mixed waste
for which special treatability groups
have been established (as discussed
above) will be subject to debris
standards rafter than to the specified
treatability group standards.
The exception would be the D008
radioactive lead treatability group,
which would be subject to both debris
standards and the treatability group
standards when contamination includes
other hazardous waste rn addition to
DOOB. EPA views that debris which is
also in the radioactive lead treatabflity
group to be similar to inherently
hazardous debris, and is thus proposing
a similar approach. We note further that
application of both the D008 lead solids
standard and the applicable debris
standard would not conflict with the
existing D008 lead solids standard
unlike the existing standards for mixed
waste, as noted above. Further,
application of both standards would
also address the hazardous associated
with DOOB as well as any other
hazardous wastes present on the debris.
5. Sham Contamination of Debris
a. Sham contamination. Sham
contamination of debris is the deliberate
addition of a hazardous waste to debris
to avoid compliance with the LDR
standards for that hazardous waste.
When a rule is promulgated that defers
or excludes certain solid wastes from
regulation, the ability to differentiate
whether the addition of hazardous
waste is a sham situation or a legitimate
situation is always an issue. The Agency
believes, however, that there Is little
incentive to deliberately contaminate
debris to avoid compliance with the
treatment standards because the debris
would stfll have to be treated prior to
land disposal and any residual
generated from the treatment would still
have to meet the F039 treatment
standards.
The Agency considered requiring
generators to certify that debris had
been contaminated inadvertently and
not as a result of deliberate action to
avoid compliance with the LDRs.
However, the Agency felt it would be
difficult to require such certification,
particularly at sites where the source of
the original contamination is unknown,
andit would be difficult to manage from
an enforcement perspective.
b. Impermissible dilution. The Agency
also considered whether deliberate
contamination of debris is likely to
occur followed by impermissible
dilution of the contaminant to avoid
compliance with the debris treatment
standards. However, the Agency feels
that existing regulations on permissible
and impermissible dilution are quite
specific as to when they apply. Current
regulations {40 CER 268.3{a) and (b))
specify when dilution is a permissible or
impermissible treatment process.
The rules on dilution and die Agency's
interpretive statements regarding those
rules indicate that the dilution
prohibition has a two-fold objective: {1}
To ensure that prohibited wastes are
actually treated; and (2) to ensure
that prohibited wastes are treated by
methods that are appropriate for that
type of waste. EPA has indicated that
prohibited wastes which are aggregated
are normally not diluted impermissible if
they are treated legitimately (i.e., subject
to effective treatment. 55 FR 22666] in
centralized treatment systems,
irrespective of the dilution inherent in
such a system. Thus, if dilution is a
legitimate type of treatment, or a
necessary pretreatment step in a
legitimate treatment system, such
dilution is permissible.
EPA is proposing that in the case of
debris that is ignitable or reactive, but
nontoxic [Le., it is not contaminated
with a prohibited listed waste and does
not exhibit EP toxicity), any type of
deactivatioa would be a permissible
means of removing the characteristic
property. However, the Agency is
soliciting comment on treating
"contaminants subject to treatment" in
characteristic debris, and were EPA to
adopt such an approach, dilution
prohibitions would probably apply due
to concern for adequate treatment of
toxics. 55 FR 22857,22665H36. For toxic
debris, including reactive cyanide debris
that must be treated for cyanide.,
dilution in, lieu of the prescribed method
of treatment or to reach contained-in
levels is impermissible since such
dilution would occur for purposes of
evading the treatment standards. See
§ 268.3. Since no wastewater treatment
is involved fi.e. debris is a solid, not a
liquid), "the Agency need not balance
any of the difficult issues relating to
relationship of the RCRA prohibition
and Clean Water Act subtitle D
treatment impoandments receiving
diluted non-hazardous, formerly
characteristic wastewaters. See 55 FR at
22656-68. Centralized treatment of
contaminated debris would be allowed
under the proposal, of course, so that
aggregation of debris amendable to the
same type of treatment is permissible
under the proposal.
6. Sampling and Analysis
Sampling and analysis of
contaminated debris would not required
to comply with the proposed treatment
standards. Nonetheless, the Agency is
considering developing implementation
assistance regarding sampling'and
analysis techniques for debris because it
will: (1) Facilitate the actions at
Superfund sites of the on-scene
coordinators {OSCs) and remedial
project managers (RFMs); and (2j assist
the Agency and generators and
treatment facility operators in
determining whether debris exhibits the
toxicity characteristic or whether debris
contaminated with a prohibited listed
waste fe contaminated with detectable
levels of appendix'Vm, part 261,
constituents. '
The Agency considered requiring
sampling «nd analysis of treated debris
to demonstrate that the treatment
technologies effectively treated the toxic
contaminants. Sampling would
-------
996
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
potentially identify inadequate or
fraudulent debris treatment, as well as
other conditions where performance of
the specific technology was insufficient.
However, the Agency believes that
requiring sampling and analysis of
treated debris, or establishing
concentration-based treatment
standards, is not workable given the
difficulty of sampling debris.
Nevertheless, the Agency requests
comment on the feasibility of numerical
standards for those types of debris that
can be sampled without difficulty. The
Agency also requests comment on which
types of debris are amendable to
sampling and how such samples should
be collected.
The Agency believes that when the
specified treatment technologies are
designed and operated to meet the
performance standards prescribed by
proposed appendix IX of the rule, the
debris will be effectively treated. As
discussed previously, EPA specifically
requests comment on whether the
performance standards are adequate to
ensure effective treatment.
7. Procedures for Demonstrating
Equivalency of New Technologies
A generator or treater can
demonstrate that an alternative
technology can achieve the equivalent
level of performance as that of the
specified treatment method (40 CFR
268.42 (b)). This demonstration must be
specific for both debris category and
contaminant category and may be based
on: (1) The demonstration of a
technology utilizing a target analyte or
surrogate or indicator compound that
indicates effective treatment of the
hazardous waste constituents
contaminating a particular debris type;
(2) the development of new analytical
and/or sampling methods for
quantifying the hazardous constituents;
or (3) other demonstrations of
equivalence for alternative method of
treatment based on statistical ,
comparisons of technologies, including
comparisons of specific design and
operating parameters. As a result, a new
treatment standard based on this
demonstration, as well as any analytical
and sampling methodology used in the
demonstration, could then be proposed
to be applicable to other debris
categories and contaminant categories.
8. Applicability of Existing Treatment
Standards to Contaminated Debris
EPA is specifically requesting
comment on whether the existing LDR
standards for the listed waste(s) with
which a debris is contaminated and the
existing LDR standards for the EP
toxicity characteristic should be allowed
as an alternative to the debris, treatment
standards of proposed S 268.45 and
appendix IX, part 268.
/. Permits for Treatment Facilities
EPA is concerned that adequate
treatment capacity may not be available
for contaminated debris. The national
capacity variances for these wastes
have expired, or will expire by May,
1992. Consequently, EPA intends to use
the discretion provided by existing.
permitting standards to allow the
construction of new treatment units at
both permitted facilities and facilities
operating under interim status.
1. Capacity Shortfall
EPA's capacity analysis is based on
data received in response to the ANPR
for wastes covered in .this proposal,
from a series of "Roundtable meetings"
that EPA held in May and June of 1991
with representatives of companies
involved in the management and
disposal of contaminated debris, and
from the TSDR and Generator Surveys.
Comments from the Roundtable
meetings indicate that decommissioning
of large chemical plants arid increasing
remediation activities can significantly
increase the estimated volume of ' " "
contaminated debris.
Waste generators and TSDFs report
that most of the contaminated debris
volumes are currently landfilled without
prior treatment Stabilization pr.
incineration are the reported treatment
technologies for the small amounts of
contaminated debris that are currently
treated before landfilling. In addition,
EPA has received information on
materials-handling problems limiting the
amount of contaminated debris that
currently can be treated by stabilization
and incineration. In genera), the size of
the debris must be reduced (e.g., by
shredding, grinding, etc.) before it can be
treated, and heavy duty equipment
reportedly is currently not available at •
most treatment facilities. Therefore, EPA
believes, based on qualitative'
assessment, that very large quantities qf
contaminated debris will require
treatment and that available treatment
capacity will be very limited in the short
term. By May 8,1992, all the national
capacity variances will expire for as
much as 800,000 tons of debris
contaminated with previously regulated
wastes (i.e., wastes for which LDR
standards have been promulgated). This
is coincidental to the effective date for
LDR standards for additional newly
listed and identified wastes. ..
. Notwithstanding this projected
capacity shortfall in the hear term, EPA
believes that there is sufficient
flexibility in'its existing regulations for
facilities and generators to add
additional treatment capacity and new
waste treatment processes in a short
period of time. However, EPA welcomes
any additional capacity information that
commenters can provide to aid the
Agency's decisions in the final rule.
2. Permitted Facilities
Permitted treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities may add new
treatment processes and additional
capacity by applying for a permit
modification under the Federal
regulations at § 270.42 (see 53 FR 37912,
September 28,1988, for a full
explanation of the permit modification
procedures). Although the regulations at
S 270.42 were promulgated under pre-
HSWA authority, EPA may use these
regulations in authorized States when
necessary to implement HSWA
provisions such as the land disposal
restrictions. See 53 FR 37933.
The types of modifications heeded to
add new capacity or processes would'
likely require the oubmittal of a Class 2
or 3 modification. The Class 2
modification process requires Agency
action on the request within 120 days.
This action would consist of approval or
denial, reclassifica iion as a Class 3
modification, or authorization to
conduct the activities for up to 180 days
pending Agency action. Furthermore, for
Class 2 modifications, construction to
implement the requested facility .change
may commence 60 days after submission
of the request. There is no deadline for
Agency action for Class 3 modifications,
which apply to more substantial facility
changes. Permitted facilities may also
apply for a temporary authorization to •
initiate necessary activities while a
Class 2 or 3 permit modification request
is undergoing review, or to undertake a
treatment or storage activity which will
be of short duration. EPA may grant a
temporary authorization for a term of up
to 180 days. Any request for a temporary
authorization must demonstrate
compliance with the part 264 standards
and also meet the criteria of $ 27Q.42(e)
for approval. Interested public (i.e.,
those that have previously expressed
interest in any permitting action for the
facility) will receivs notibe by mail of a
facility's request for a temporary
authorization, and another mail notice if
EPA approves the request. The
temporary authorization may be
renewed once if the additional .
procedures pf, § 270.42(e) are followed,
including the submission of appropriate
permit modification information and the
initiation of public meetings and public
comment period. See 53 FR 27919,
September 28,1988 for additional
discussion of temporary authorizations.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
997
Some of the contaminated debris
treatment processes that are proposed
as BOAT under { 268.45 would take
place in units that EPA is proposing to
define as containment buildings. See
discussion above in Section IV.G. To
assist in the development of treatment
capacity by permitted facilities to meet
the requirements of this proposed rule,
the Agency is proposing a change to the
criteria that must be met to grant a
temporary authorization. The existing
regulation at § 27a42(e)(3)(ii)(B) allows
approval of the request if the activity is
necessary to treat or store restricted
wastes in tanks or containers in
accordance with part 268. Today's
proposal would amend these criteria to
include the treatment or storage of
contaminated debris in containment
buildings meeting the requirements in
proposed subpart DD, parts 264 and 285.
3. Interim Status Facilities
Treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities managing hazardous waste
under interim status may add new
treatment processes or additional
treatment or storage capacity by using
the existing procedures for changes
during interim status in 5 270.72. Under
these procedures, a facility must submit
to EPA a revised Part A permit
application and justification explaining
the need for the change. The change
must then be approved by EPA.
In order for the change to be approved
by EPA, it must meet one of several
criteria, such as being necessary to
comply with a Federal, State, or local
requirement. However, changes may not
be made if they amount to
reconstruction of the facility. This
occurs when the capital investment for
the changes to the facility exceed 50
percent of the capital cost of a
comparable entirely new facility.
Section 270^2{b)(6) lifts the
reconstruction limit for changes to treat
or store in tanks and containers
hazardous waste subject to land
disposal restrictions imposed by part
268, provided that such changes are
made solely for the purpose of
complying with part 268. EPA believes
that this exemption should also apply to
treatment or storage of contaminated
debris in containment buildings for the
reasons stated above. Accordingly,
today's rule proposes to amend
§ 27072(b)(6) to make treatment or
storage in containment buildings as
regulated under proposed subpart DD,.
parts 264 and 265, exempt from the
reconstruction limit
4. Documentation of Compliance with
Proposed Appendix IX, Part 268
Proposed appendix IX. part 268, would
establish performance or design and
operating requirements for the treatment
technology specified by proposed Table
1, § 268.45, for each combination debris/
containment category. Although
contaminated debris treatment facilities
are subject to the appropriate part 264 or
265 facility standards, we did not codify
the proposed Appendix IX treatment
technology reqtrirements tinder part 264
or 265 because the treatment technology
requirements would apply to any
(nonprohibited) waste treatment unit
treating contaminated debris, including,
subpart ] tank systems, subpart I
containers, subpart O incinerators,
subpart X miscellaneous units, and
proposed subpart DD containment
buildings." Rather than amending each
of those subparts to include the
Appendix IX requirements or to
reference Appendix IX, today's
proposed rule would simply require (in
proposed § 268.45] owners and
operators of contaminated debris
treatment facilities to comply with the
requirements and to document
compliance in the operating record
required under subpart E, parts 264 and
265.
In addition, we expect that permit
writers will use the omnibus permit
authority of § 270.32(b)(2) to add
conditions to the RCRA operating permit
issued under subpart B, part 270, to
ensure that contaminated debris
treatment facilities comply with the
appendix .IX requirements. EPA believes
thai compliance with the appendix IX
requirements are necessary to protect
human health and the environment from
treated debris given that it would be
conditionally excluded from Subtitle C
regulation. EPA specifically requests
comment on whether the use of omnibus
permit authority would be an effective
approach to ensure compliance with the
appendix IX requirements, or whether
EPA should amend the facility
standards under parts 264, 265, 266 {for
boilers and industrial furnaces), and 268
(for containment buildings, as proposed
today) to require contaminated debris
treatment facilities to comply with the
appendix IX requirements.
5. On-Siie Treatment in Containers and
Tanks
EPA notes that generators who store
or treat contaminated debris on-site in
tanks or containers for a period not
exceeding 90 days are not subject to
"* And subpart H. part .286 boilefs nnH industrial
furnaces. '
permit requirements. See existing
§ 262.34. However, the tank or container
must be designed and operated in
compliance with the requirements of
subparts I or J of part 265 to ensure
protection of human health and the
environment {Further, today's rule
would require that treatment of
contaminated debris in tanks or
containers lor any other treatment unit)
meet the requirements of proposed
§ 268.45(a) and appendix IX, part 268, to
ensure effective treatment. See proposed
§ 26B.45(c)). In section IV.G.3 of today's
notice, EPA proposes to extend the 90-
day generator exemption in § 262.34 to
containment buildings, a new waste
management unit proposed today.
/. Comments on the May 30,1991
ANPRM
Sixty-six commenters responded to
the May 30,1391ANPR. Of these 66,40
commenters provided over 250
comments on the potential BOAT for
contaminated debris section in the.
ANPR. Almost naif of the comments
received focus on the treatment
standards and their applicability to
debris. Many of the commenters
suggested a different approach to the
establishment of treatment standards,
while others agreed with EPA's
approach or requested clarifications of
statements that were made in the
ANPRM.
Of the remainder of the comments, 15
addressed the Agency's contained-in
policy. Almost all of these 15 comments
supported the establishment of a ievel at
which debris would no longer "contain"
hazardous waste. One commenter
suggested that health-based standards
be established for these levels and that
the contained-in policy be codified with
these levels. In other issues, 36
comments were received concerning
how to establish a waste code for
contaminated debris. Of these, 16
supported a new waste code for debris
and S supported the retention of existing
waste codes. Three comments suggested
a new waste code for debris, but only if
the source of contamination was
unknown.
Nine comments were received on the
issue of how to manage refractory brick.
Most of these comments addressed
refractory brick content and recycling.
About half noted that refractory bricks
are recycled into cement. The other
comments noted that the chromium
content is much lower than 40 percent
and suggested that the bricks may not
even be considered hazardous.
Other issues raised by commenters
addressed inherent content, permitting,
representative sampling, and capacity
-------
998
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
concerns over disposal of debris. Most
of the comments on inherent content
supported macroencapsulation or some
other type of treatment for inherently
hazardous debris. For permitting,
commcnters were concerned that the
Agency not include decontamination as
iin activity requiring a RCRA permit.
One commentur suggested a "permit by
rule" provision for decontamination or
debris washing. Several commenters
requested additional guidance on
representative sampling of debris, and
one commenter urged the Agency to
expedite de minimis^Iemaking in order
to relieve capacity concerns over
disposal of debris.
VI. Capacity Determinations
This section presents the data
sourt.es, methodology, and results of
EPA's capacity analysis for today's
r.i-wly listed wastes. Specifically,
Section VI summarizes the results of the
capacity analysis for petroleum refining
wastes and other organic wastes;
wastes mixed with radioactive
contaminants; and debris contaminated
with the newly listed wastes. •
The capacity analysis for the newly
listed wastes for which the Agency is
today proposing treatment standards
relied on information obtained from
several sources. Primary data sources
include the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the
TSDR Survey), the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators (the
Generator Survey), data received in
response to the ANPRM for the Newly
Identified and Listed Wastes (56 FR
24444), data received in voluntary data
submissions, and information requests
authorized under'section 3007 of RCRA.
EPA conducted the TSDR Survey
during 1987 and 1988 to obtain
comprehensive data on the nation's
capacity for managing hazardous waste
and on the volumes of hazardous waste
being land disposed. For the capacity
analysis, EPA used the TSDR Survey
information on the volumes of waste
streams managed in land-disposal units
and requiring alternative treatment/
recovery due to the land disposal
restrictions and on available capacity of
hazardous waste management
technologies.
EPA conducted the Generator Survey
in 1957. This survey requested
information on waste volumes and
waste characteristics of hazardous
waste generated, and provided capacity
information for facilities not included in
the TSDR Survey.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis
methodologies focus on the amount of
waste currently land disposed that will
require alternative treatment. Wastes
that are not land disposed (e.g.,
discharges under NPDES or to a POTW)
are not included in the required capacity
estimates. Also, land-disposed wastes
that do not require alternative treatment
(e.g., those that are currently treated
using an appropriate technology) are
excluded form {he required capacity
estimates. Land-disposed wastes
requiring alternative treatment or
recovery capacity that is available on
site or within the same company are
also omitted from required commercial
capacity estimates. Therefore estimates
for available capacity at commercial
hazardous waste management facilities
are based on the net available
commercial capacity for the newly listed
wastes.
A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
Table VI.A.l lists each waste code for
which EPA is proposing LDR standards
today. For each code, this table
indicates whether EPA is proposing to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance for surface-disposed or
deepwell disposed wastes. As seen by
this table, the Agency is proposing to
grant national capacity variances only
for storage and treatment of petroleum
wastes in surface impoundments, debris
contaminated with newly listed wastes, ,
and mixed radioactive wastes.
TABLE VIAL—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
CAPACITY VARIANCE DECISIONS FOR
NEWLY LISTED WASTES
Waste code
F037-S.I _
F038-S.I „
F037
F038
K107 ,
K108
K1 09
K1 1 0 '.
Kill
K112 M
K117 ,
K118 _
K123 „„
K124 ,
• » 1 •.->••• •. «.•.<•,»,£ ...„,»,,.,.„
K125 .....
K126
K131...: _ i _
K132 ,
K136 „
U328 1
U353
(J359 „„
Mixed Rad. Waste,...
Contatn. Debris. ,
Variancafor
surface-
disposed
wastes?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No .....
No
No
No
No _,....
No, .........
No....; .'.
No
No... .
No
No..™ ;....
No
No _..
Yes
Yes
Variance (or
deepwell-
disposed
wastes?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No
No
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
B. Petroleum Refining Wastes and
Other Organic Wastes
This section presents the capacity
analysis for today's newly listed
petroleum refining wastes and other
organic wastes.
1. Comparison of Required and
Available Capacity for Newly Listed
Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037 and
F038) and Other Organic Wastes
Table VI.B.l summarizes available
capacity for each alternative treatment
or recovery technology required for
petroleum refining wastes (F037 and
F038) and newly listed organic wastes.
This table also summarizes the required
capacity for each technology. The
analysis of commercial capacity for
newly listed wastes is based primarily
on data from the TSDR Survey capacity
data set, data received in response to
previous LDR notices and regulations,
and data received in voluntary data
submissions. Analysis of data indicates
that commercial capacity is currently
available for wastewater treatment,
stabilization and combustion of liquids.
However, commercial capacity .for
combustion of sludges and solids is
currently expanding, and the expected
availability of capacity for the newly
listed wastes is dependent on planned
capacity being fully operational by May
1992.
Commercial capacity for combustion
of sludges and solids is available at both
incinerators and at industrial furnaces
(primarily cement kilns that have used
hazardous waste as fuel). Due to the
expected increase in demand for
combustion of sludges and solids
(because many wastes have BDAT
standards based on incineration), and
also because of the new regulations for
burning of hazardous wastes in boilers
and industrial furnaces, many
commercial cement kiln facilities are
currently changing their operating
practices to comply with new regulatory
requirements and to significantly
expand their capacity. Current analyses
of these planned changes indicate a
major increase in capacity will occur
prior to May 1992, and that consequently
there is no need for a national capacity
variance. However, the Agency does
recognize that planned activities are not
always completed as scheduled. Thus,
the Agency plans to continue to monitor
the on-going changes in commercial
combustion capacity, and will modify
the capacity estimates as new data
indicates. The Agency requests public
comment on the current and planned
commercial capacity for combustion of
sludges and solids, and is especially
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
999
interested in receiving data on the status
of planned changes to that capacity.
TABLE VI.B.1.—COMPARISON OF RE-
QUIRED AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY FOR
NEWLY LISTED PETROLEUM REFINING
AND OTHER ORGANIC WASTES
Technology
Biological Treatment.....
Chemical Precipitation...
Combustion of Liquids...
Combustion of
Sludges and Solids.
Stabilization _. _
Available
capacity
(thousand
tons/year)
188
813
696
301 .._
1.204
Required
capacity
(thousand
tons/year)
<1
<1
<1
76
15
2. Required Capacity for Petroleum
Refining Wastes (F037 and F038)
EPA is proposing treatment standards
for F037 and F038 nonwastewaters that
are based on a transfer of the
performance of the technologies
previously established for K048-K052
nonwastewaters (55 FR 22520).
Nonwastewater treatment standards for
F037 and F038 wastes are based on
solvent extraction or thermal
desorption, and incineration for organic
constituents, and stabilization for
metals. EPA is proposing to transfer
multi-source leachate (F039) wastewater
performance to F037 and F038. That is,
for F037 and F038 wastewaters, the
proposed standards are based on
biological treatment for organics and
chemical precipitation for metals.
The capacity analysis for the F037 and
F038 petroleum refining wastes was
conducted using information collected
from a number of data sources. The
primary data sources include data
submitted voluntarily from refineries,
the F037 and F038 Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA), from the listing of the
F037 and F038 wastes, the Petroleum
Refinery Data Base (PRDB), the TSDR
Survey, and the Generator Survey.
The RIA was prepared by EPA in 1990
in support of the listing rule for F037 and
F038 wastes (55 FR 46354). The RIA
includes in industry overview and
profile of facilities affected by the
listings, an analysis of baseline waste
management practices, and regulatory
compliance scenarios. The PRDB is
based on a mail survey conducted by
EPA in 1983 and has been updated to
contain 1985 refining information. The
TSDR Survey and Generator Survey
were discussed previously (in the
introduction to section VI).
Supplemental data sources include
two reports prepared by Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), which support
the F037 and F038 listing and the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule, and
which summarize sampling and analysis
data collected by EPA for 16 petroleum
refining facilities; no-migration petitions
submitted by petroleum refineries for
land treatment units; and the California
Hazardous Petroleum Waste Data Base,
which contains information on wastes
that fit the F037 and F038 definition.
Using the available data and the
Agency's best engineering judgment,
EPA developed estimates of F037 and
F038 waste volumes based on current
management practices as well as
options for alternative management due
to the LDR requirements. The Agency
also developed estimates of available
on-site treatment/recovery capacity and
evaluated information submitted by
refineries and treatment technology
vendors on the viability of constructing
on-site treatment/recovery capacity and
the time that would be required to make
such additions.
EPA estimates that approximately
74,000 tons per year of dewatered F037
and F038 wastes (nonwastewaters) from
routine waste treatment will require
alternative treatment. The Agency also
considered the accumulated sludge
quantities hi surface impoundments, but
believes that this waste will either be
disposed of prior to the LDR effective
date or will be managed by on-site
closure of surface impoundments.
Although there apparently is treatment
capacity sufficient to accommodate
these wastes, there is a complexity
factor due to the fact that many of these
wastes are generated in unretrofitted '
impoundments (i.e., impoundments not
satisfying the minimum technology
requirements specified in sections
3004(o) and 3005(j)(ll)). These wastes
would thus be land disposed in a
prohibited manner before they are
treated. These impoundments can of
course be retrofitted or replaced with
tank systems, but not by the effective
date of this rule, or for some time
thereafter. See RCRA section 3005(j)(6),
allowing four years to retrofit or close
impoundments receiving newly
identified or listed wastes (and no other
hazardous wastes). Because alternative
treatment or storage capacity that could
accommodate these wastes before they
are land disposed is not available, EPA
is proposing a national capacity
variance for F037 and F038 wastes
generated in surface impoundments.
The lack of alternative storage/
treatment capacity raises two significant
legal issues. The first is that during the
period of a national capacity variance,
restricted wastes disposed in surface
impoundments can only dp so in
impoundments meeting the minimum
technology requirements of section
3005(j). See § 268.5(h), RCRA section
3004(h)(4) and Mobil Oil v. EPA. 871 F.
2d 149 (D.C. Cir. 1989). On the other
hand, section 3005(j)(6) states that
impoundments receiving newly
identified or listed hazardous wastes
have up to four years from the date of
promulgation of the rule making the
waste hazardous to retrofit or close the
impoundment. As will be described
more fully in another Federal Register
notice, EPA believes tentatively that
these provisions are in irreconcilable
conflict, and accordingly that EPA has
significant discretion in determining
how. best to interpret them. The Agency
further intends to propose that in the
case of wastes subject to a national
capacity variance, that impoundments
managing such wastes (and no other
wastes subject to an earlier prohibition)
that the impoundments still have four
years to retrofit or close.
EPA is using that same resolution
here. However, this is not the only issue
to reconcile in the present proceeding.
This is because there is available
treatment capacity for these petroleum
refining wastes. In such cases, the strong
statutory policy is to treat hazardous
wastes rather than allow them to be
land disposed. See RCRA sections
1002(7) and 1003 (4), (5), and (6).
Although land disposal in
impoundments remains necessary
during the four year period allocated by
statute for retrofitting, the Agency does
not see why the wastes have to stay in
the impoundments untreated for that
period. They can be removed and sent
for the mandated treatment. In this
regard, section 3005(j)(ll) requires that
hazardous wastes in retrofitted
impoundments be removed annually for
treatment. The required annual sludge
removal practice would be compatible
with continuous use of the surface
impoundment and would not require
that they be. taken out of service to
conduct sludge removal. The Agency is
of the initial view that the same result
should apply to the unretrofitted
impoundments holding restricted wastes
for which treatment .capacity exists. The
Agency's initial view is that this is a
reasonable resolution of the conflict
between sections 3004(h) and 3005(6) in
that it gives maximum effect to both the
policy to use treatment where treatment
is available, but not eliminating the four
year retrofit period for impoundments
receiving exclusively newly identified
and listed wastes. EPA requests
comment on this issue.
EPA is also considering a similar
resolution with respect to closing those
impoundments that choose to close
-------
1000 Federal Regster / Vol 57, No. 6 / Thorsday, January a. 1992 / Rropoaed Ituka
rather than to retrofit at the end of (be
four-year period. The Agency is
considering prohibiting impoundments
from leaving prohibited wastes in place
when they close if capacity is available
to treat the wastes. Thus, if there is
treatment available, the impoundment*
must be clean dosed. In this way. not
only is the statutory goal of treatment
accommodated, but hazardous wastes
are not left in the least secure type of
hind disposal unit for an indefinite
period, raising the very environmental
concerns that the land disposal
prohibitions were enacted to prevent
(RCRA sections 3004(d)(l) (AHC) and
1002(7)). Consequently. EPA may limit
the options available for impoundments
managing wastes for which there is
available treatment to retrofitting or
cluan closure. Owners and operators
would, however, have up to four years
from the dale of promulgation, of the rule
listing or identifying the waste to make
these changes. The Agency requests
comment on this issue; fn responding to
this issue, the Agency specifically
requests comment on how much
additional FD37 and F03S would become
subject to LDRs if soch impoundments
were requested to clean close.
Thus, the estimate of the total F037
and F03B waste generation requiring
Hitvmalive treatment is 74,000 tons per
.vuar {nonwastewaters}. There are no
dut& indicating that any land-disposed
wastewaters will require alternative
treatment, and therefore this volume is
assumed to be zero.
Based on the estimate that 74,000 tons
per year of dewatered F037 and F038
wastes will require alternative
tK-«lment, EPA believes that there is
adequate capacity for the treatment of
all land disposed F037 and F038 wastes.
except those wastes that are generated
in surface impoundments; therefore,
EPA is. proposing to grant a national
capacity variance only for F037 and
F038 wastes that are generated in
surface impoundments. EPA is not
proposing a variance for other
nonwastewaters or for wastewaters..
3. Required Capacity for Other Newly •
Lfsted Organic Wastes
This section presents EPA'a analysis
of required capacity for other nevrly.
listed organic wastes including organic
U waste. UDMH wastes, toluene
diisocyanate (TDI) wastes, ethylene
dibromide (EDB) wastes.
elhylenebisdithiocarbamic (EflDC)
u-ustes, and methyl bromide wastes.
(a) Organic U Wastes (U328. U353.
and U359).
U32S—Octho-toluidino
U353—Puta-taluldine
2-Ethoxyeuianal
For U328. U353 wastes, EPA is
proposing to establisk inoneratian or
thermal destruction as methods of
treatment for the nmwastewater forma
of these waters, and chemical oxidation
followed by either biological treatment
or carbon adsorption as Methods of
treatment for the wastewater forms of
these wastes. Vac U359. EPA is
proposing to establish concentration
standards based on incineration for the
nonwastewaters and incineration or
chemical oxidation Sallowed by carbon
adsorption or biodegradation for the
waslewaters.
Generation and management
information of the organic U wastes was
collected by EPA during 19SQ and early
1991 under the authority o£ section 3007
in RCRA. This capacity analysis
incorporates data from that section 3007
mf6rmation>equest.
The Agency estimates that less than
100 tons of U328, U353, and U359 wastes
are being land disposed and require
further treatment. Most of the U359
waste generated in 1989 was incinerated
on-site. and the remainder (less than one
percent) was incinerated off-site. In
addition, unspecified and variable
volumes, of untreated wasiewater
contaminated with U359 are reportedly
generated on occasion, at one
generator's facility, however this
wastewater undergoes biological
treatment on site. Because these wastes
are rejected products, and the product
has a market value, the Agency believes
these wastes would be generated in
small volumes.
Based on the available data [see
Table VLRl). EPA believes that
sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of the U328, U353, and U358, wastes:
therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for U328,
U353, and U359 wastewaters or
nonwastewaters. '
(bj UDMH Wastes CK107, K108, K109,
K110J.
K1Q7—Cohuan bottoms frwe product
separation from the production of 1,1-
cumethylkydrazine (UDMH) front
carboxyjfc acid hydrazides.
KlOS—Condensed column overheads from
product separation and condensed
reactor vent gases from the production of
UDMH for cuiboxyfie add feydrezmes.
KlOS—Spent filter cartridges from p»od»ct
purification from the production of
UDMH foe carboxylic acid hyttrannea.
KllO—Condensed column overheads from
intermediate, separation from product
purification from the production of
UDMH for carboxylic acid! Eydrazines-
For UDMH wastes. EPA is proposing
to establish incineration as the method
of treatment foe the nonwaatewatera.
and incineration or chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption as
methods of treatment for ike
wastewaters.
EPA Hated four UDMH waste (K107.
K108, K109, KllO) that are generated
from the production of UDMH
(unsymmetricat diroelhylhydrazine, or
IA-dimethylhydrazine) from carboxylic
acid hydrazides. Also, some of these
wastes are ignitabie or corrosive and as
suefa are currently subject to LDR
standards.
Generation and management
information concerning the UDMH
wastes was collected by EPA during
1990 and early 1991 under the authority
of section 3007 in RCRA. This capacity
analysis incorporates data from that
section 3007 information request.
The response to> the section 3007
request noted thatt the only
mqnyfecfoirBT vtfhix used the proprietary
process generating UDMH wastes has
ceased UDMH production. Therefore,
the Agency assumes that no UDMH will
require treatment prior to land disposal.
Based on available data, EPA believes
that sufficient capacity exists for
treatment of the ttDMH wastes;
therefore, EPA ia toot proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for K107,
KlOS, K109, and KllO wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
(c) Toluene Dii&ocyanate Wastes
(K111-KH2).
Kill—Product wzdiwatera etas the
production of d?nkia»oi«ne via nttratioN
of toluene. ,
K112—Reaction by-product water from tte
drying in. Ui& production of
(oFuenedlaaiine via hydrogenalioa of
dim'trotofuene.
For toluene diisocyanate [TD1)
wastes, EPA i» propoaing to establish
incineration as the method of treatment
for nonwaatewatera. and mtineratian or
chemkat oxidation followed by caibon
adsorption as methods: of treatment for
wastewatexs. . ,
Generation and nttanagement
infptmatfqa concerning the: TEH wastes
was collected by ISP, A during 1990 and
early 1931 under the authority of section
3007 in RCRA, This capacity/ analysis
incorporates data front that section 3007
information request. In addition, the
Agency has contacted other facilities in
order to obtain further information
concerning Kill snd K112 waste
generation, management practices, and
residuals.
The Agency has identified less than
100 tons of Kill and K112
nonwastewaters and no Kill or K112.
wastewaters requiring alternative
treatment. The majority of the Kill and
K112 wastes generated are currently
treated using a variety of alternative
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1001
treatment or recovery methods and
discharged through NPDES. The data
indicate that the residuals from
treatment of Kill and K112 were further
treated before being land disposed.
Based on available data (see Table
VI.B.1), EPA believes that sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of the TDI
wastes; therefore, EPA is not proposing
to grant a national capacity variance for
Kill and K112 wastewaters or
nonwastewaters.
(d) Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Wastes
(K117-K118, K136).
K117—Wastewaters from the reactor vent
gas scrubber in the production of
ethylene dibromide (EDB) via the
bromination of ethene.
K118—Spent absorbent solids from the
purification of EDB produced by
bromination of ethene.
K13&—Still bottoms from the purification of
EDB.
For K117, K118, and K136 wastes, EPA
is proposing to establish concentration-
based standards based on a transfer of
data used to calculate the U029
(bromomethane), U030 (4-bromophenyl
phenyl ether), U066 (l,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane), U067 (ethylene
dibromide, EDB), U068
(dibromomethane) and U225
(bromoform) Third Third Rule standards
for nonwastewaters and wastewaters.
Generation and management
information concerning EDB wastes was
collected by EPA during 1990 and early
1991 under the authority of section 3007
in RCRA. This capacity analysis
incorporates data from that section 3007
information request. In addition, the
Agency reviewed information provided
in response to the ANPR (58 FR 24444).
Based on the available information,
EPA has identified 1,650 tons of
nonwastewater residuals from treatment
of K118 that is currently land disposed
and will require alternative treatment.
K118 wastewater streams currently
undergo treatment before disposal, and
EPA has identified no K117 or K138
waste generation.
Based on available data and using .
incineration as the treatment technology
(see Table VI.B.1). the Agency believes
that sufficient capacity exists for
treatment of the EDB wastes, and, •
therefore, the Agency is not proposing to
grant a national capacity variance for
K117, K118. and K138 wastewaters or
nonwastewaters.
(e) Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic (EBDC)
Wastes (K123. K124, K125, and K128).
K123—Process wastewater (including
supernates. filtrates, and washwaters)
from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (EBDC)
and its salts.
K124—Reactor vent scrubber water from the
production of EBDC and its salts.
K125—Purification solids (including filtration,
evaporation, and centrifugation solids)
from the production of EBDC and its
salts.
K126—Baghouse dust and floor sweepings in
milling and packaging operations from
the production or formulation of EBDC
and its salts.
For EBDC wastes, EPA is proposing to
establish incineration or thermal
destruction as the method of treatment
for nonwastewaters, and incineration,
thermal destruction, or chemical
oxidation followed by activated carbon
as methods of treatment for
wastewaters.
Generation and management
information concerning the EBDC
wastes was collected by EPA during
1990 and early 1991 under the authority
of section 3007 in RCRA. This capacity
analysis incorporates data from that
section 3007 information request.
The Agency has identified less than
100 tons of K125 nonwastewaters which
are currently land disposed and will
require alternative treatment; no
volumes of K123, K124, or K126 wastes
are currently being land disposed, and
there is no generation of K125
wastewaters, K124 wastes, or K126
wastes.
Based on available data. EPA
believes, sufficient capacity exists for
treatment of the EBDC wastes;
therefore. EPA is not proposing to grant
a national capacity variance for K123,
K124, K125. and K126 wastewaters or
nonwastewaters,. •
(f) Methyl Bromide Wastes (K131 and
K132). .
K131—Wastewater from the reactor and acid
dryer from the production of methyl
bromide.
K132—Spent adsorbent and wastewater
separator solids from the production of
methyl bromide.
For methyl bromide wastes, the
Agency is proposing concentration-
based standards based on standards
promulgated for U029 (methyl bromide)
in the Third Third rulemaking.
Generation and management
information of the methyl bromide
wastes was collected by EPA during
1990 and early 1991 under the authority
of section 3007 in RCRA. This capacity
analysis incorporates data from that
section 3007 information request. In
addition, the Agency reviewed
information provided in response to the
ANPR (56 FR 24444).
EPA has identified no K131 wastes or
K132 wastewaters currently being land
disposed and less than 100 tons of K132
nonwastewaters being land disposed
and requiring alternative treatment or
recovery. All identified K131 wastes
currently generated are sent off site for
acid reclamation. EPA identified less
than ten tons of K132 nonwastewaters
that are steam stripped before being
landfilled off-site.
Based on available data and using
incineration as the treatment technology
(see Table VI.B.1), the Agency believes
that sufficient treatment capacity exists
for treatment of the methyl bromide
wastes; therefore, EPA is not proposing
to grant a national capacity variance for
K131 and K132 wastewaters or
nonwastewaters.
C. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Listed Wastes Mixed With
Radioactive Contaminants
EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste as any matrix
containing a RCRA hazardous waste
and a radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045, 37046,
September 23,1986). Regardless of the
type of radioactive constituents that
these wastes contain (e.g., high-level,
low-level, or transuranic), they are
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulation, including the land disposal
restrictions.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent solvents, dioxins, California
list wastes, or First Third, Second Third,
and Third Third wastes are subject to
the land disposal restrictions already
promulgated for those hazardous
wastes. EPA granted national capacity
variances for all of these wastes
because of a lack of national treatment
capacity. Today's rule addresses the
radioactive wastes that contain newly
listed hazardous wastes being restricted
in today's rulemaking. •
Based on comments received from
previous rulemakings and from the
ANPR (56 FR 24444), the Department of
Energy (DOE) is the primary generator
of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. A
variety of non-DOE facilities also may
generate these mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes, including nuclear power plants,
academic and medical institutions, and
industrial facilities. •
After reviewing the data, EPA
believes there is uncertainty about
exactly how much mixed wastes are
produced, although comments indicated
in the ANPR that volumes generated are
small. Although DOE is in the process of
increasing its capacity to treat mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes, data
supplied by DOE indicate a significant
current capacity shortfall for the
treatment of all already generated and
stored mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes
(i.e., spent solvents, wastes mixed with
dioxins, California list wastes, and First,
-------
1002
Federal Register / Vol. S7. No. 6 / Tburaday. January g, 1892 / ftppctcd Rates
Second, aad Third Third wastes}. EPA'a
review ofnon-DOEdata sources
showed a significant lack of commercial
treatment capacity a* welL In addition,
the quantities of mixed radioactive
wastes containing newly listed wastes
are uncertain. Consequently, the
volumes of mixed radioactive wastes
requiring commercial treatment cannot
be predicted. Although this uncertainty
exists, any new commercial capacity
that becomes available will be needed
for mixed radioactive wastes that were
regulated in previous LDR rulejaaking*
and whose variances expire by May
1992. Thus, EPA has determined that
sufficient alternative treatment capacity
is not available and is proposing to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance for mixed RCRA/radicactive
wastuwaters and nonwaatewaters
contaminate with newly, listed wastes
whose standards are being proposed
luday.
D. Required aad Available Capacityfbr
Debris Contaminated with Newly Listed
This capacity analysis focuses on
dubris contaminated with wastes whose
treatment standards are proposed
herein.3" An estimated 80 percent of all
di'hris contaminated with previously
rt'gulated wastes fs presently disposed
in hazardous waste landfills without
prior treatment and will require
treatment after May 8. 1992.3* In order
to determine the available capacity to
treat debris with wastes covered by this
rule, EPA has assumed that any new
commercial capacity that becomes
available will be needed for debris that
is contaminated with wastes regulated •
In previous LDR rulemakings and whose-
variances expire by May 1992.
EPA used several data sources to
estimate the total volume of land-
disposed contaminated debris. Thes* •
sources include: responses to the ANPR
for the newly Kited and identified
wastes (56 FR 24444); information.
provided during a series of roundtable
meetings held by the Agency in May and
June of 1991 with representatives of
companies involved in the management
and disposal of contaminated debris;
Records of Decision (RODs) of
Soperfund sites; tine National Survey of
Treatment.Storage, Disposal and
Recycling FaciHSes fTSDR Survey); and
the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators (Generator Survey}.40
In general, EPA found severe
limitations in estimating the total
volume of contaminated debris because
the available data are incomplete and
poorly defined.The reason for this, lack
of comprehensive data is several-fold:
First, the regelated community reported
that their data generally are not
classified by debris but rather by waste
code and waste description; second, the
data from the TSDR and Generator
Surveys were not coHected and
categorized specifically for debris; and
debris were often mixed with soils.**
and were frequently contaminated with
more tftfrrt one waste, thereby making
the contaminated debris matrix and
volume determinations difficult; third,
TSDR and Generator Surveys do not
include data on debris contaminated
with newry listed and identified wastes
because they were not considered
hazardous wastes in 1988; and fourth,
debris that have been cleaned
[decontaminated] are generally not
reported as hazardous wastes because
they are no kmger considered ' .
contaminated debris. • ' .
1. Waste Generation . '. ;
, The capacity analysis in today's
proposed rule is besed on data received
in response to the ANPR for wastes ' :
covered in this proposal, the industry
roundtsbte meetings, and the TSDR and
Generator Surveys. For the total of
currently land-disposed debris .
contaminated with RCRA hazardous
wastes, EPA's moot likely estimate i» ,
approximately one raiiMpn tons per year
based on the reported percentage of the
total of all hazardous waste land
disposed. EPA solicits comment on its
estimate of the quantity of contaminated
debris that is land disposed; Comments
from the rounditable meetings indicate
that decommissioning of large chemical
plants and increasing remediation
activities can significantly increase the
estimated vohane of contaminated
debris.
The largest volume of debris
generated from routine operations and
** UUMH (K10P-K110}, dtnitrafotatnie (Kltl),
etkylene dibromlde. aelbyl broai At, z-e&uy
cihanol (U359}. cthylcr.c bU-dUhiocaiDamic «
and RJ07 and FOOT petroleum refining wastes.
" Previously regulated wastes incfudr solvents
Hnd dirain ws*los. CuUSunb Hst wacte*. and Pint
Third. Second Third, Slid Tt«d Third wastes. EPA
!ui* granted ruUcoal cajucitv variance* to soil and
dubrik contaminated with Brit Thiti Second Third.
«nd Third Third wastts. The variance* fo'rdfebrfs
lo'ilaralciiUid with Third Thiid mute* wiS expire .
on May «. IMS.
contaninated with wastes eoveced in
this proposal result* from di&ris .
contaminated with FQQ7 anjd PD38
peiroieujR rarfming wastes. IJPA'a
estimate for tins vtiuHaeks aOQO tons per
year. In ad&tion. indastry pssponse to
the ANPR iraaicaket that ad/iitional
volumes of debris contaminated with
FQ37 and F03» waste* may be generated
froaa r^od.ermxatkca of petroleum
refinery sewferjandi wastewater systems.
EPA's estimate for debris qwtoipinated
with the remainder of wastes covered in
this proposal is less than 2JMO ton* per
year.,
2. Current Management Practices
Waste generator andTSOFs report
that most of the contaminated debris
volumes are cvrremtfjr landfiDed without
prior treatment. Stabfhzah'oR or
incineration are the reported treatment
technologies for the small amounts of
contaminated debris that are treated
prior to landfiliing!- However, EPA has
received infonnatkm thai materials-
handling pffoWerai may toot tke
quantity of contauiiinaUd debtis dial
currently can be treat ed by stabffiaatioo
and incineration. Specifically, the ike of
many types of debris imuatbVredwedi
before they can be treated (e&. by
shredding or grinding}. However, heavy/
duty equipment sncn as shredders and
grinders are genorally not ipartoltte
treatmexlpcaceat albaxaidous waste -
treatatentfaciMtie* fodceaM be dLffiotH-
to install priot to She effective date of
this rule, although EPA is exploring
40 EPA conducted1 the surveys daring tS37 and
1988 to obtain eeatprtbenshia date am As nation'*.
capacity for msmagjiia feaaafdow waste and the
volumes of hazardous wwle being land disposed aa
wcH aa data: on waste generation, watte
characterization, and hazardous waste treatment
capacity fa aaita merapt frc
mealing* sometinMa coa-.hkie cooUirxaated debtia
with tail. Furthermore, i&ur« have stated that
historical watte data are generalrV mrf Jirpt Jyy
process for sack figrapnemt.
Consequently, time available capacity to
treat contaminated debris may faritiaBy
be limited, in additioa. ba^evobnxs of
materials that ate! offirenttjr cleaned
(decontaminated); and tbenraaBaged as
nonhazardoun v« asScs may reqaire
additional maHageuseat as contankinated
debris. . •
3. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications ' •
EPA is proposing that cootanunated
debris be treated prior to land dtspoea)
using one or mcatt of the following
families of debris treatment: Extraction,
destruction, or immobilization. White
materiai»-kandtiBg probtesn* may limil
the available destaaction (eg^
incineration) and immobilization (e.g.,
stabilization) capacities, inadequate
capacity exists fear many of the proposed
techaotogJesintliaextjaclfioQfiiniiJy. .
Muchof the capacity of extraction
technologies cwxeqt^f used to
decontaminate debris, such aa water
washing and steam cfeanimg, will not be
permitted prior to the effective date of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1003
this rule, although EPA is exploring
options to expedite the permitting of
these technologies. In conclusion, EPA
anticipates that the capacity available
to treat contaminated debris at the time
this rule becomes effective will be
limited.
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
national capacity variance for debris
contaminated with newly listed wastes.
The treatment capacity available for
contaminated debris will be very limited
due to the very large quantities of debris
contaminated with previously listed
wastes requiring treatment at the same
time this rule becomes effective. This
variance would allow sufficient time for
the installation and permitting of the
treatment systems necessary to handle
the quantities of contaminated debris
affected by this rule.
As discussed above, by May 8.1992,
all the capacity variances will expire for
as much as 800,000 tons of debris
contaminated with previously regulated
wastes. This date is coincidental to the
effective date of standards proposed for
these newly listed and identified wastes.
Any new commercial capacity will be
needed for debris that is contaminated
with wastes regulated in previous LDR
rulemakings and whose variances
expire by May 1992. This, as well as the
condition that required materials
handling equipment (such as grinding)
has not mme on-line or may be delayed,
is the basis of our qualitative argument
The Agency solicits comments on this
approach and on estimates of available
treatment capacity.
E. Capacity Determination for
Underground Infected Wastes
As explained in previous preambles
concerning land disposal restrictions
(see, e.g., 52 FR 32450, August 27,1987;
53 FR 30912. August 10,1988; 55 FR
22520, fune 1,1990), EPA is allocating
available capacity first to those wastes
disposed in surface units, next to wastes
resulting from CERCLA and RCRA clean
ups. and finally to underground injected
wastes. Based on this approach, the
Agency is proposing the following
effective dates for injected wastes.
1. Newly Listed Wastes With Proposed
Treatment Standards Which Current
Data Indicate Are Not Being Injected
The wastes K107, K108. K109, K110,
Kill, K112, K123, K124. K125, K126,
K136, U328. U353 and U359 are the
newly listed wastes, for which
numerical standards or specified
methods are being proposed, and which
current data indicate are not being
underground injected. Therefore. EPA is
proposing that these wastes be
prohibited from underground injection
upon the date of final promulgation of
this role. The Agency requests comment
on whether any of these wastes are
being injected; comment is also
requested on what quantities of wastes
are being injected, and on the
characteristics of these wastes.
2. Newly Listed Wastes With Proposed
Treatment Standards Which Current
Data Indicate Are Being Injected
The waste* FQ37, F038, K117, K118,
K131, and K132 are the newly listed
wastes for which current data indicate
are being underground injected by UIC
Class I hazardous waste injection wells.
The treatment standards for F037 and
F038, petroleum refining wastes, are
based upon transfer of the performance
of technologies previously established
for K048-4C052 wastes. Based on the
Hazardous Wastes Injection Wells
Inventory data base, EPA believes that
F037 and F038 wastes are being
underground injected yearly by
permitted injection wells. Although the
amount of F037 and F038 so disposed is
uncertain. EPA believes that it is
relatively small and therefore, the
Agency believes that there is adequate
alternative treatment capacity for these
wastes. Based on preliminary evaluation
of data received during the comment
period of the ANPR, and the. Agency
believes that there is adequate available
alternative treatment capacity for the
currently injected volumes of K117,
Klia, K131, and K132 wastes assuming
segregation of K117. K118, K131. and
K132 source wastewaters from the other
process-waters.
Therefore, the Agency is not
proposing to grant any national capacity
variances for any underground injected
F037, F038, K117, K118, K131, and K132
wastes, and is proposing that these
wastes be prohibited from underground
injection upon the date of final
promulgation of this rule. The Agency
specifically requests comments on
volumes and characteristics of these
wastes being injected, and current and
planned management
VH. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and
7003 of RCRA. although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 4O CFR part 271.
Prior to die Hazardous and SoKd
Waste Amendments of 1984 {HSWA}, a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA administering the
Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized State, and EPA could
not issue permits for any facilities that
the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements was promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized
State until the State adopted the
requirements, as State law.
In contrast under RCRA section
3006{g) (42 U.S.C. 6926{g)J, new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do .
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
Today's rule is being proposed
pursuant to sections 3004 (d> through (k).
and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)
through (k), and (m)J. It hr proposed to
be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j),
which identifies the Federal program
requirements mat are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and mat take effect
in all Stares, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim or final authorization
for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
discussed m the following section of this
preamble. Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1Q) is
also proposed to be modified to indicate
that misrule is a setf-implementing
provision of HSWA.
EPA is also proposing the new
management unit, containment
buildings, which involves redefinition of
the term "pile," pursuant to HSWA. This
proposed provision would assure
adequate means of implementing the
treatment standards, either by providing
a means that treatment can occur
without constituting impermissible land
disposal, or by providing a safe staging
area that would not constitute land
disposal before best treatment. Cf. 56 FR
at 41175 (August 19,1991J (portion of
rule assuring, availability of capacity
adopted pursuant to HSWA}. Thus, this
portion of the rule would also be
adopted pursuant to HSWA and take
effect immediately in authorized States.
-------
1004
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 /Thursday, January 9. 1992 / Proposed .Rules
B. Effect on State Authorization,
As noted above, EPA is today
proposing a rule that, when final, will be
implemented in authorized States until-
their programs are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006{b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
Stste program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1,1993 (see 40
CFR 271.24(c)).
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modification to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the
State would have to modify its program
to adopt these regulations is specified in
§ 271.21(e). The deadline would be July
1.1993 if this rulemaking is finalized
before June 30,1992. This deadline can
be extended in certain cases (see
§ 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements •
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
proposed rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modifications are
approved. Of course, states with
existing standards could continue to
administer and enforce their standards
as a matter of State law. In ,
Implementing the Federal program, EPA
will work with States under agreements
to minimize duplication of efforts. In
many cases, EPA will be able to defer to
the States in their efforts to implement
their programs rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
However, the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth in
§ 271.21 (e). States that submit official
applications for final authorization 12
months after the effective date of these •
regulations must include standards ,
equivalent to these regulations in their
application. The requirements a state
must meet when submitting its final .
authorization application are-set-forth in
40 CFR 271.3. '.., . :
The regulations being proposed today
need not affect the State's Underground
Injection Control (UiC) primacy status.
A State currently authorized to
administer the UIC program under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) could
continue to do so without seeking
authority to administer the amendments
that will be promulgated at a future
date. However, a State which wished to
implement Part 146 and receive
authorization to grant exemptions from
the land disposal restrictions would
have to demonstrate that it had the
requisite authority to administer
sections 3004 (fj and (g) of RCRA. The
conditions under which such an
authorization may take place are
summarized below and are discussed in
a July 15,1985 final rule (50 FR 28728).
VIII. Effect of Proposed Rule on Other
Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated Under the
Clean Water Act
As a result of the LDR program, some
generators might switch from land
disposal of restricted wastes to
discharge of the wastes to publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) to
avoid incurring the costs of alternative
treatment Also as a result of LDRs,
additional hazardous waste generators •
might discharge their wastes to surface
waters. Any shift from land disposal to
direct or indirect discharge has some
potential-to impact local ecosystems.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection,. Research, and •
Sanctuaries Act . '
There could have been a potential
demand for some of the hazardous
wastes included in today's proposed
rulemaking to be shifted from land
disposal to ocean dumping and ocean-
based incineration. If the cost of ocean-
based disposal plus transportation were
lower than the cost of land-based
treatment, disposal, and transportation,
this option could seem to be an
attractive alternative. In addition,
ocean-based disposal could seem
attractive to the regulated community if
land-based treatment were not
available.
However, the Ocean Dumping Ban
Act of 1988 has restricted ocean
dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes to existing authorized
dumpers until December 31.M991, after
which".* * *it shall be unlawful for
any person to dump (sewage sludge or
industrial wastes) into oce.an waters
* * *". Therefore, the Ocean Dumping
Ban Act has, made moot any economic
or other incentive to ocean dump
industrial hazardous wastes, including
the wastes subject to this regulation.
C. Groundwater Protection Principles
In July 1989, EPA Administrator Reilly
established a Groundwater Task Force
chaired by Deputy Administrator
Habicht to develop concrete principles
and objectives to ensure effective and
consistent decisionmaking in all Agency
decisions affecting groundwater. The
outcome of this effort is the current EPA
Groundwater Protection Strategy,
intended to set fortii an aggressive
approach to protecting the nation's
currently used and reasonably expected
to be used groundwater resources and
direct the course of the Agency's efforts
over the coming years. The final strategy
was released on May 8,1991.
The Groundwater Protection Strategy
sets forth a statement of EPA
groundwater principles that has as its
overall goal the prevention of adverse
affects to human health arid the
environmental integrity of the nation's
currently used and reasonably expected
to be used groundwater resources. The
. strategy also provides for the
Groundwater Regulatory Cluster which
will implement the strategy. -This
proposed rule is part of the
Groundwater Regulatory Cluster and
will integrate .the groundwater principles
on prevention, remediation, and federal,
state and local responsibilities. For this
proposed rule, the applicable principles
of the strategy deal with prevention and
the appropriate federal and state roles
, in implementation.
This proposed rule incorporates and is
consistent with the groundwater
protection principles. This is a source
control rule supporting prevention of
groundwater contamination. This
proposed rule restricts certain wastes
and contaminated debris to be disposed
of only after treatment, thereby
providing protection of groundwater at
disposal sites. • . • '
With respect to prevention, the
strategy specifies that groundwater
should be protected to ensure that the
nation's currently used and reasonably
expected to be used drinking water
supplies, both public and private, do not
present adverse health effects.
Groundwater that is hydrologically .
connected to surface water should also
be protected to the extent that it does
not interfere with the attainment of
surface water quality standards, which
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1005
are designed to protect the integrity of
associated ecosystems. Groundwater
protection could be achieved through a
variety of means including: Pollution
prevention programs, source control,
siting controls, the designation of
wellhead protection areas and future
water supply areas, and the protection
of aquifer recharge areas.
With respect to federal, state and
local responsibilities, the primary
responsibility for developing and
implementing comprehensive
groundwater protection programs
continues to and should be vested with
the states. Key supporting principles of
the strategy which this proposed rule
addresses are: (1) The states should
retain the primary responsibility for the
management and protection of
groundwater resources, and (2) EPA
should support states in developing
adequate groundwater protection
programs. In carrying this out, EPA is
committed to identifying opportunities
for providing deference to state
regulations, standards or policies as
implementation objectives.
The relation of this proposed rule to
wellhead protection as a method, of
prevention is described below.
D. Wellhead Protect/on Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA}
Section 1428 of the SDWA contains
requirements for the development and
implementation of state Wellhead
Protection fWHP) Programs to protect
wells and wellfields which are used or
may be used to provide drinking water
to public systems. Under section 1428,
each state must adopt and submit to
EPA for approval a WHP program.
These state WHP programs are major
components of states' comprehensive
approach to groundwater protection
described in the groundwater protection
principles defining federal/state
relationships.
SDWA required all states to submit a
WHP program to EPA by June 19,1989
for EPA review and approval SDWA
requires all federal agencies having
jurisdiction over any potential source of
contaminants identified by a state
program to comply with all the
requirements of the state program.
Any private or public entity subject to
LDR regulations must also be in
compliance with the appropriate state's
wellhead protection program. The
Agency reiterates that the land disposal
of hazardous wastes must comply not
only with the land disposal restrictions
and other RCRA regulations, but with
other environmental programs, such as
the Wellhead Protection Program under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
E. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act (CAA}
There are two air emission concerns
with respect fa the land disposal
restrictions. The first is a cross-media
concern about air emissions that occur
as a result of treatment, such, as'
incineration, of metal-bearing waste
causing a release, of metal emissions to
the atmosphere. Another concern is with
air emissions from the land disposal of
the treatment residual. Air emissions
control programs are under development
using both the CAA and RCRA to
address these concerns.
1. Cross-media Concerns
Specific cross-media air emissions
concerns have been identified for
certain treatment standards applicable
to the newly listed wastes and
contaminated debris included in this
proposal but EPA believes that existing
Clean Air Act controls adequately
address the potential problems.
Incineration of debris coaiaining
mercury can result in air emissions of
elemental mercury and other hazardous
air pollutants that may be "contained-
in" the debris. The Agency has
promulgated a National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP} for mercury emissions under
eectioa 112 of the CAA (40 CFR part 61,
subpart E}. There are also regulations
for the prevention of significant
deterioration [PSD) of air quality that
would address any mercury emissions
that are not regulated by the NESHAP.
The NESHAP limits mercury
emissions to the atmosphere from
mercury processing facilities, mercury
cell chlor-alkali plants, and plants that
incinerate and/or dry wastewater
treatment plant sludges. In all these
cases, the NESHAP limits mercury
emissions across the entire processing
facility to the extent necessary to
protect human health.
Under the amendments to the CAA,
almost all sources of significant air
emissions will be required to apply for
and obtain a permit Permits are
required for any major source, any
source subject to air toxics regulation
and all sources subject to new source
performance standards. If the mercury
emissions from the incineration of the
hazardous waste debris were to come
from a major source, a source subject to
air toxics regulations or a source subject
to NSPS, then such emissions would be
limited by conditions specified in the
permit and be subject to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
The Agency is also concerned
whether incineration of hazardous
waste containing brominated organics
or organo-nitrogen compounds,
including contaminated debris, may
adversely affect ah- quality. The
presence of bromine complicates the
evaluation of incineration of these
contaminated debris wastes.
2. Air Emissions from Land Disposal of
Treatment Residuals
There are several general regulatory
development programs under RCRA that
address treatment technology air
emissions. The Agency has initiated a
three-phased program under section
3004(n] of RCRA to address air
emissions from hazardous waste
management units other than
incinerators. The first phase addresses
organic air emissions as a class from
two types of emission sources. The first
source category is process equipment
(pumps, valves, etc.] that contact
hazardous waste that contain greater
than 10 percent organic compounds,
including units such as distillation
columns and incinerators. The second
source category is certain vents on
various treatment technologies, such as
air or steam strippers. These standards
were finalized in the Federal Register on
June 21,1900 (55 PR 25454).
The second phase of standards
development under section 3004fn) of
RCRA addresses organic air emissions
as a class from tanks* containers, and
surface impoundments. Treatment
technologies that occur in tanks or
containers.that are not controlled by the
Phase I standards would be controlled
by these standards. With respect to
surface impoundments, the Agency has
also proposed standards to control air
emissions from the management of
wastes in them (see 56 FR 33480, July 22,
1991). In the third phase of the section
3004(n) standards development the
Agency will develop additional
standards for the sources addressed in
the first two phases as .necessary to
address residual risks.
In addition to the section 3004(n)
standards, standards to control both
organic and metal emissions from the
combustion of hazardous waste in
incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces have been promulgated.
In particular, on February 21,1991 (56
FR 7134), EPA promulgated regulations
expanding controls on hazardous waste
combustion to regulate air emissions
from the burning of hazardous waste in
boilers and industrial fumaqes. The final
rale limits emissions of toxic organic
compounds, toxic metals, hydrogen
chloride, chlorine gas, and particulate
matter from boilers and. industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste.
-------
1006
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
In certain cases, waste treatment may
occur using treatment technologies or in
units that are not required to obtain
RCRA permits. Guidance for the control
of air emissions from these sources,
such as exempt biological treatment
tanks, is being developed under the
CAA.
None of the regulatory efforts
discussed above specifically address air
emissions from the land disposal of
treatment residuals in landfills, land
treatment units, or waste piles because
the Agency presently presumes that
these units will only receive wastes that
have been treated to meet the BOAT
treatment standards and, thus, not
present an air emissions problem.
However, while the Agency is still
evaluating whether such standards are
needed for landfills, land treatment
units, or waste piles, EPA has proposed
new standards and amendments to
existing standards that would reduce
organic air emissions from certain tanks.
surface impoundments, and containers.
See 56 FR 33490, July 22,1991. The
Agency is also developing a proposed
rule to limit air emissions from land
disposal units seeking to land dispose of
wastes under a no migration variance.
F. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
LDRs for contaminated debris may
have significant effects on the selection
and implementation of response actions
that are taken under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). However, it should be noted
that EPA's proposed treatment
standards for debris will limit that
impact, compared to existing standards.
The clean-up standard set at CERCLA
sites are risk-based, while LDR
treatment standards are technology-
based. Therefore, the technology-based
treatment standards may be more or
less stringent than the risk-based clean-
up standards developed based on the
CERCLA selection of remedy criteria.
However, if the remedial action did not
involve "placement" of the waste on the
ground, then only the risk-based clean-
up standards would be applicable. If
"placement" were to occur, then the
more stringent standard would apply.
It should be noted that even though
the hazardous substances at a CERCLA
remediation site may have been
disposed prior to the effective date of
RCRA, if the action involves removal of
wastes subject to RCRA LDRs after the
prohibition effective date for those
wastes, the land disposal restrictions
are legally applicable (51 FR 45077,
November 7,1986). See also Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA, 869 F.2d at
1535-37 (D.C. Cir. 1989). For example, if
contaminated debris is excavated from
a unit, treated, and redisposed, EPA has
indicated that "placement" (see RCRA
section 3004(k)) of the waste in a land
disposal unit has occurred, and the
applicable treatment standards must be
met (see 53 FR 51444 and 51445,
December 21,1988). However, if the
waste is capped in place, removal or
"placement" has not occurred, and the
treatment standards are not legally
applicable.
G. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Wastes from Pesticides Regulated
Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, .and Rodenticide Act
A number of pesticide waste
generators have been unaware of the
LDRs because their industry has not
been affected to the same extent as
other industries, such as manufacturing.
Still these generators might only be
regulated under today's proposal to a
small extent. Generators of significant
quantities of pesticide P and .U wastes
are fanners and commercial pesticide
applicators. The provisions of 40 CFR
262.70 and 268.1 exempt farmers from
regulation under the LDR program;
however, no such exemption exists for
commercial applicators. Such generators
of hazardous wastes have traditionally
land disposed their pesticide wastes.
With the implementation of the Third
Third final rule, these generators must
comply with LDR requirements when
they dispose of a restricted hazardous
waste. Under today's proposal, U and P
pesticide wastes that contaminate
debris would be subject to the new
debris treatment standards.
H. Regulatory Overlap of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCAJ and RCRA
Certain P and U listed wastes contain
PCBs. The PCB component of such a
waste mixture is regulated primarily
under TSCA (although it may also be a
California list waste and subject to
RCRA regulation), while the listed P or
U component of the waste is regulated
under RCRA. Such a mixture of listed/
PCB waste must meet the applicable
requirements under both statutes. If
incineration is the specified treatment
standard for a- contaminated debris,
then such a waste must go to an '
incinerator permitted under both TSCA
and RCRA. Any ash residual from
incineration must meet the treatment
standard for the listed hazardous waste
component prior to land disposal. For
PCB-containing items, the option to
dispose of them in a TSCA landfill
would also be an option provided that
no RCRA hazardous waste had
contaminated the debris.
/. Disposal of Asbestos Regulated Under
TSCA
Asbestos is not regulated as a
hazardous waste under RCRA, but for
today's proposal, asbestos-containing
material is an issue. In many instances,
asbestos debris will contain hazardous
waste. This type of debris can come
from a number of sources, including
demolition of old manufacturing plants
or asbestos abatement activities at
hazardous waste management facilities.
Generators of asbestos-containing
debris would be required to comply with
treatment standards specified in section
V.K of today's proposal.
IX. Regulatory Ftequirementa
A. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
that regulatory agencies determine
whether a new regulation constitutes a
major rulemakirig and, if so, it requires
that the agency conduct a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA). An RIA consists
of the quantification of the potential
benefits, costs, and economic impacts of
a major, rule. A major rule is defined in
Executive Order No. 12291 as a
regulation likely to result in:
• An annual effect to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
• A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individuals, industries,
Federal, State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
• Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
' productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States based
enterprises to compete with foreign
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
The Agency estimated the costs of
today's proposed rule to determine if it
is a major regulation as defined by the
Executive order. The Agency expects
today's rule to have an annual
incremental effect below $100 million.
Also, the Agency does not believe the
rule will significantly effect consumers,
individuals, industries, Federal, State
and local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, innovation, or
international trade. Therefore, the
Agency Determines that today's
proposed rule is not a major rule.
Because today's proposed rule is not a
major rule, the Agency has performed an
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
1007
Economic Impact Screening Analysis,
rather than an RIA, focusing its analyses
on the costs and economic impacts of
the rule only. The Agency has not
assessed the benefits attributable to
today's proposed rule.
1. Approach for Petroleum Refining
Wastes (F037 and F038)
In the analysis of the petroleum
refining wastes, the Agency first
reviewed the work completed for the
listing of F037 and F038, which EPA
promulgated in October 1990, (see 55 FR
46386; subsequently referred to here as
the Listing Rule or Listing RIA). «* At
that time, EPA recognized the the listing
of F037 and F038 would eventually
necessitate treatment of these wastes
prior to their disposal, although a slight
delay would occur before promulgation
of LDR treatment standards for the
wastes. Because the composition of F037
and F038 is very similar to that of K048-
52 wastes, for which LDRs had been
established in the First Third and Third
scheduled waste rules, the Listing RIA
developed costs, benefits, and economic
impacts for the land disposal
restrictions for F037 and F038 based on
the BDATs previously specified for
K048-52.
For the Listing RIA, the Agency
assessed the cost and economic impacts
by using a compliance scenario that
included treatment before land disposal:
dewatering of the waste, followed by
incineration (either on-site or qff-site) or
solvent extraction (on-site). EPA
estimated that 474,000 tons of F037 and
F038 sluges (with an average water
content of 55 percent) were generated
annually. The costs for the listing and
treatment of F037 and F038 were
captured for the portion of these wastes
not already regulated as hazardous by
the Toxicity Characteristic (TC). This
portion was estimated to be a volume
within the range of 172,000 tons to
330.000 tons annually.
For today's proposed rule, the Agency
had updated the volume estimates from
the Listing RIA based on additional
information obtained on the generation
of these wastes as a part of the capacity
determination. (See section VLB for the
capacity analysis of F037 andF038).
Currently, the Agency projects that the
petroleum refining industry generates a
total of 173,000 tons of F037 and F038
petroleum sludges annually from routine
operations (including F037/38 wastes
that also exhibit the toxicity
* * Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Listing of-
Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids
Separation Sludges from the Treatment of
Petroleum Refinery Wostewaters. prepared for EPA
Office of Solid Waste by DPRA. October 1990.
characteristic), of which 117,000 tons are
land disposed. EPA has not included
aqueous wastes from the dewatering of
F037 and F038 in this estimate, because
these wastewaters are discharged to
POTWs or under provisions of NPDES
permits, and thus are not subject to
RCRA regulation.
In some cases the Agency used
assumptions for waste volumes in the
cost analysis which differed from those
in the capacity analysis. The capacity
analysis estimated 74,000 tons of F037
and F038 would require alternative
treatment as a result of today's rule. On-
site treatment capacity was expected to
be in place for the remaining 99,000
annual tons by the time the rule is final.
The cost analysis estimated only 56,000
tons are treated to meet the BDAT
standards for this rule in the baseline.
This volume is based on a capacity
estimate for an earlier point in time,
which examined the capacity in use
prior to upgrading by facilities to
prepare for the final rule's promulgation.
The cost analysis therefore includes
these facility preparation costs as costs
attributed to today's proposed rule,
costs that technically need not be
considered attributed to this rule. The
56,000 tons per year falls out of the cost
analysis because it does not result in
any incremental costs for the rule. EPA
therefore estimates 117,000 annual tons
of F037 and F038 are land-disposed and
would require alternative treatment.
The Agency is aware that some
additional quantity of petroleum refining
wastes is currently managed in surface
impoundments, and that these surface
impoundments are likely to be replaced,
as a result of today's rule, with tank
units capable of achieving equivalent
wastewater treatment. These surface
impoundments were not included in the
capacity analysis due to their greater-
than-two-year clean out period. Two
years is the capacity analysis time
window. The Agency does request
comments on the potential costs of its
proposed requirement that these wastes
in unretrofitted surface impoundments
be removed and treated annually.
The annual amount of F037 and F038
generated in these replacement units is
difficult to predict. The Agency is
currently uncertain what the difference
in sludge generation rates would be in
tanks which are likely to replace the
existing surface impoundments. In
addition, alterations in the process flow
could change both the type and amount
of wastes produced at a facility.
Furthermore, it is likely that facilities
would implement waste minimization
practices in conjunction with their
switch from surface impoundments to
tanks. The Agency specifically solicits
information about these wastes and
their disposal costs. Late comments on
these wastes received in response to the
May 31,1991ANPR are being
considered.
EPA estimates that of the 117,000
annual tons of land disposed F037 and
F038,14 percent is generated and land
disposed in California. California has its
own LDR program,-and under it F037
and F038 waste will be restricted from
land disposal as of May 8,1992 under
final standards substantially equivalent
to those proposed in today's rule.
Therefore, even if federal regulations
are not promulgated, F037 and F038
waste would be restricted in this state.
As a result, EPA estimates that 100,000
tons annually of F037 and F038 will
require treatment prior to land disposal
as a result of today's proposed rule.
For the baseline scenario, the Agency
estimates that 64 percent of land
disposed waste is managed on-site and
the remaining 36 percent is sent off-site.
Of the waste managed on-site, 95
percent is managed using land treatment
and 5 percent is managed using
landfilling.Of the waste sent off-site, all
is disposed by landfilling.
For the Phase I LDR cost analysis, the
Agency made the following assumptions
for the off-site post-regulatory
compliance scenario: (1) 13 percent of
the F037 and F038 volume would be
treated off-site, (2) 10 percent of the
waste treated off-site would go to
incineration at a cost of $1,700 per ton,
and the remaining 90 percent would go
to cement kilns at a price range from
$700 per ton to $1,200 per ton. The post-
regulatory scenario assumes disposal of
residuals in Subtitle C units.
Estimated volumes of off-site and on-
site F037 and F038 wastes provide
another example of differing
assumptions made for the capacity and
economic analyses. The capacity
analysis assumes 74,000 tons per year
will be treated off-site once the rule is
promulgated. The cost analysis assumes
approximately 13,000 tons per year is
treated off-site in the post-regulatory
scenario- This difference in assumptions
is due to the separate roles of each
analysis. The capacity analysis provides
a snapshot of the compliance scenarios
directly following the promulgation of
the rule in order to determine if there is
a need for a national capacity variance.
The cost analysis attempts to reflect
probable compliance scenarios based on
reasonable long-term economic choices.
For today's proposed rule, the Agency
believes that much of the F037 and F038
waste will have to be treated off-site
directly following the rule's
-------
1008
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 /Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed (Rules
promulgation. However, EPA expects
lhal on-site treatment capacity will be
developed as soon as possible due to the
high cost of the off-site treatments.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the
use of different off-site assumptions is
valid, and is consistent with the distinct
perspectives each analysis embraces.
The Agency assumed that 87% of the
F037 and F038 waste would be treated
on-site in the post-regulatory scenario.
Of this on-site volume, 37 percent would
be treated by solvent extraction at $250
per ton, 37 percent would go to
incineration at $400 per ton, and 26
percent would go to on-site cokers at
S200 per ton. The post-regulatory
scenario also assumes disposal of
residuals in Subtitle C units. Although
the Listing R1A did not include a volume
of waste going to on-site cokera, recent
information gathered for the capacity
analysis indicates that some F037 and
F038 wastes would be disposed of in
a manner.
2. Approach for Remaining Wastes
To determine the cost and economic <
impacts of the proposed rule for wastes
other than F037 and F038, EPA first
identified the industries that would be
affected. The Agency analyzed these
industries to determine the amounts of
the aifected wastes that they generate,
how these wastes are currently
managed, and how these wastes would
have to be managed to comply with LDR
treatment standards.
The incremental cost of today's
proposed rule for each waste was
estimated by comparing resulting Phase
1 post-regulatory costs with the costs of
current, or baseline, conditions. Because
of the lack of site-specific data for this
screening analysis, the Agency
developed costs for the baseline and
post-regulatory scenarios assuming off-
site commercial treatment for all wastes
included in the cost analysis. Off-site
treatment is based on prices quoted by
vendors, and generally exceeds the
costs of on-site treatment.
The following paragraphs explain the
approach used to evaluate costs for each
of the wastes covered by today's
proposed rule.
a. Newly listed organic, wastes. All
newly listed organic wastes included in
today's ruls are land disposed in
relatively small quantities. The baseline
for all newly listed wastes is defined as
continued land disposal in units meeting
minimum technological requirements.
b. K061. FOQ6, K062. Today's proposed
rule establishes numeric treatment
standards for the low zinc subcategory
ofKQOl based on high temperature
metals recovery (HTMR). Simply stated,
the Agency is proposing to abolish the
high and low subcategorization and
establish one set of treatment standards
for all K061 nonwastewaters. The
baseline for .the cost analysis assumes
compliance with the existing treatment
standards for low-zinc K061, which are
based on stabilization.
Today's rule establishes numeric
treatment standards based on HTMR as
alternative treatment standards for K062
and FOGS, The Agency has not quantified
the costs of HTMR for these two wastes.
It believes that any operators using
HTMR for Kp62 and F006 will be using
the technology only because it is more
cost-effective (i.e., less expensive) than
current management practices.
c. Contaminated debris. The majority
of contaminated debris is already
regulated under the Solvents and
Dioxins, California list, and the First
Third, Second Third, arid Third Third
LDR rules due to the waste code-carry-
through principle.49 A significant
volume of contaminated debris is
currently under a national capacity
variance that expires May 8,1992. Once
this capacity variance expires, under the
current regulatory structure all regulated
contaminated debris would be required
to meet the existing treatment standards
for the RCRA waste code which is the
source of the contamination.
For this contaminated debris with
existing regulations, the standards in
today's proposed rule are expected to be
simpler and less costly than the existing
standards. The cost savings are
expected to result from the use of
extractive technologies to meet the new
standards. If the Agency promulgates
today's rule by May 8,1992 (as is
currently scheduled), most contaminated
debris would then be subject to these
potentially less costly treatment
standards. Therefore, no significant cost
impacts for debris already regulated by
LDRs are expected to be associated with
the proposed rule, and may in some
cases represent negative costs (i.e., cost
savings) from the existing treatments
established in the previous regulations
covering contaminated debris. EPA
requests data and comment from
affected parties on cost savings
associated with this proposal.
EPA estimates that fewer than 10,000
tons of debris contaminated with Phase
I wastes are land disposed annually (the
cost analysis is based upon a
contaminated debris volume of 8000
tons per year). Because LOR treatment
standards have not previously applied
to debris contaminated with Phase I
wastes, the Agency assumes that in the
" The wait* code-cany-lhrough principle states
that a material mixed with a listed wsste bears the
waste code of the listed waste.
baseline, contaminated debris is
disposed of in subtitle C landfills. In the
post-regulatory [scenario, EPA projects
that 21 percent of debris would be
treated using an extraction technology,
63 prr-enf would be treated using an
immobilization technology, and the
remaining 18 percent would be treated
using a destruction technology. Today's
rule provides a generic exclusion from
hazardous waste regulation for debris
treated by extraction and destruction
technologies. Therefore, it is assumed
that debris treated by extraction
technologies will be disposed of in
subtitle D landfills. However, the cost
analysis conservatively assumes that
residuals from destruction technologies
may often continue to go to subtitle C
landfills. The use of immobilization
technologies still requires disposal in a
subtitle C landfill (note that EPA is
today soliciting comment and data to
support the design of performance
standards for immobilization
technologies that would be sufficient to
allow contaminated debris treated by
such technologies to be excluded from
Subtitle C management). >
To simplify its cost analysis, the
Agency modeled one treatment
technology for each of the three general
categories, i.e., washing as the
extraction technology, stabilization as
the immobilization technology, and
incineration as the destruction
technology. The unit costs used for
washing, stabilization, and incineration
of contaminated debris were,
respectively, $550 per ton, $800 per ton,
and $2,300 per ton. These costs include
treatment of residuals.
However, the Agency expects to
clarify its cost analysis when it
publishes the Final rule. Therefore, EPA
encourages cornmenters to provide any
information on the costs of the specific
treatment technologies EPA is proposing
for contaminated debris. EPA also
specifically asks for any estimates on
the costs of constructing, permitting and
conducting treatment inside the
proposed containment buildings. EPA
also welcomes comments on the
difference's in contaminated debris
treatment costa if EPA excluded
immobilized debris from Subtitle C
management.
d. Wastes not considered. The costs
associated with two groups of wastes—
F001 through F005 spent solvents and 24
K- and U-wastes with wastewater
standards based on scrubber waters—
were not quantified by the Agency in
this screening analysis. The Agency
previously regulated these wastes and is
revisiting them fn the proposed rule only
to modify the basis fqr concentration
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed .Rules
1009
standards for the purpose of
standardization (i.e., consistency in
testing procedures and bases for
treatment standards) and clarification
(i.e., appropriate placement in the Code
of Federal Regulations). These proposed
modifications would not significantly
change the required management
practices for any of these wastes, and
therefore the Agency expects such
changes to have negligible cost impacts.
3. Results
a. Total cost estimate. Altogether, the
standards promulgated in the proposed
rule are estimated to cost industry
between $39 million and $45 million per
year.44 Table IX-1 presents quantities of
the wastes affected by today's proposed
rule. The estimated cost of compliance
with the proposed rule for each waste is
presented in Table IX-2. Neither table
includes F001 through F005 spent
solvents or the 24 K- and U-wastes
covered by today's proposed rule,
because the effect of the rule on these
wastes is very small, as explained
above.
b. Wastestream cost estimates,
Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037 and
F038)
For the Phase I LDRs for F037 and
F038, the Agency estimates a total
annual incremental cost to range
between $30 million and $37 million.
This figure is based on an annual F037
and F038 land disposed volume of
100,000 tons per year in states other than
California. Also, this figure excludes the
costs associated with the quantity of
tank-generated F037/F038 that will
result after the conversion of surface
impoundments.
On the high end of the cost range
shown, 35% of the post-regulatory cost
are from off-site treatment of petroleum
refining wastes. The high cement kiln
price used in this analysis, $1200 per ton,
may be an overestimate of the long term
price for cement kilns. Presently, cement
kilns appear to be charging at rates
below incinerators; as more cement
kilns are able to handle wastes their
prices may decrease. Because of the
high prices charged by cement kilns, the
Agency has analyzed the costs for F037/
38 in a range, as shown above.
Newly Identified Organic Wastes
1. Three organic U wastes (U328,
U353, U359). The Agency estimated an
annual incremental cost of $150,000 for
the standards developed for these
wastes from the three organic U wastes
(U328, U353, and U359). This figure is
based on an annual land disposal
volume estimate of 100 tons.
The standards for these wastes
developed in the proposed rule are
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for the wastewaters, and
incineration for the nonwastewaters.
2. Wastes from unsymmetrical
dimethlyhydrazine (UDMH) production
(K107, K108, K109, KllO). The Agency
did not calculate costs of treatment
standards for wastes from the
production of unsymmetrical
dimethlhydrazine (UDMH) (K107, K108,
K109, and KllO). This decision was
made based on information that these
are no longer generated.
3. Wastes from toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) production (Kill, K112). The
Agency estimated an annual
incremental cost of $150,000 for the
standards developed for the wastes
from the production of TDI (Kill and
K112). This figure is based on an annual
land disposal estimate of 100 tons, for
these two waste codes. The Agency has
identified no Kill or K112 requiring
further treatment.
TABLE IX-1.—SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES OF LDR PHASE I WASTES
Waste
Newly Listed Wastes:
Petroleum Refining Sludges (F037 and
F038).
Three Organic U Wastes (U328. U353
and U359).
Production Wastes from Unsymmetrical
Dimethlhydrazine (K107, K108. K109,
and K110).
Wastes from Toluene Diisocyanate Pro-
duction (K1 11 and K112).
Wastes from Ethylene Dibromide Pro-
duction (EDB) (K117. K118. and
K136).
Ethylene Bisdithiocarbamic Acid (EBDC)
Production Wastes (K123-K126).
Methyl Bromide Wastes (K131 and
K132).
Wastes with Existing Treatment Stand-
ards:
Electric Arc Furnace Dust (K061)
Phase I Contaminated Debris'
Annual land disposal rate
100,000 tons of routinely generated
waste currently land disposed, exclud-
ing waste generated in California.*
Fewer than 100 tons
No longer produced
Fewer than 100 tons
1.650 tons Of K118; no K1 17 or K136
Fewer than 100 tons of K125. K123,
K124, and K126 no longer land dis-
posed.
100 tons of K132 nonwastewater; K131
no longer land disposed.
67,000 tons of low zinc K061 *
8,000 tons „ „....
Waste form
Oewatered Sludge
Nonwastewaten
Wastewater
Nonwastewaten
Wastewater
Nonwastewaten
Wastewater
Nonwastewaten
Wastewater
Nonwastewaten
Wastewater
Nonwastewater;
Wastewater
Solid
Solid
Generation
type
Routine
Routine
Routine •..
Routine
Routine .
Routine
Routine
Routine
Routine and
Intermittent
Management type
Solvent Extraction; Incineration; Cement
Kilns.
Incineration or Thermal Destruction;
Chemical Oxidation and Carbon Ad-
sorption or Bio Treatment
Chemical Oxidation and Carbon Adsorp-
.. *»••.•
Incineration; Incineration or Chemical
Oxidation and Carbon Adsorption.
Incineration.
Incineration.
Incineration.
High Temperature Metals Recovery.
Destruction; Immobilization; Extraction.
ur^TcV^SMlcS <1Uantity °f F°37 •"" F°38 *"V* «» 9eneraled » a «•?* of «ttS"9.Pperations in lank, after refineries
j w ™ »»wwvte v Hvirwruwvr \|VM»IU»J MI9WCIU vi VII UUttflUlV KIDO QI3DOSOQ. • ' ' ' ' '
44 Wastewaters account for only $150.000 per
year, or lesg than one percent, of the cost of the
proposed rule. The costs estimated for the quantities
of n-astewater shown in Table IX-1 are relatively
low because most wastewaters are discharged to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) or to
coastal and inland waterways under National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit provisions. When wastewaters are
discharged in this manner, they are not subject to
the treatment standards required by the LDRs under
RCRA. '
-------
TABLE IX-2.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COSTS OF LDR PHASE I WASTES
V/MtS
Newly U«Ud Wart**
Petroleum RefWng Sludge* (F037 and F038) _
This* Organic U Waste* (U328, U353, and U359)_.._._
Production Wastss from Ureymmetrteal Dtmethlhydrazlne
• (K107. K108, K10«. and K110).
Wattes from Toluene Wsocyanate ProducUoo (K111 and
K112).
Wastes from Emylene Dlbromlde Production (EDB) (K117.
K118.andK136).
ttrryfene BIsditltaarbamte Add (EBDQ Production Wastes
• (K123-K128).
M*thyl Bromide Wastes (K131 and K132) i
Wastaa with Existing Treatment Standards:
Elactrlc Arc Furnace Oust (K081 ) „..„„„. ,„. „,.„.„
Newly Regulated Contaminated Debris4 „„,.., ............
• - T"W, ......I ..uiji...4...i...ji...i..m.i,ii...i.J.i ._„.._.
AnmnJ land cKipowl rate
100.000 ton* of routinely generated waste currently land dis-
posed, excluding waste generated In California.'
l«w than 600 tont... ,.,„„ , •„„ ,,,, „, ,,
No lono1* prodwfd,... ,..,....,„., „„.,....--,,,„„,-,„,.....,.,
L*M than 200 tons . , ......... . ...
1650 tons K118; K117 treated pre-land disposal; K138 not land
disposed.
Lm than 100 tons of K12S; K123, K124, and K126 no longer
land disposed.
100 tons of K132. K131 no longer land disposed. M«-."-~~~-
6700Qft?n*of Low Zinc KQ61 ' ,, „ i r.,i -
8 000 tons.. M i n •. t '." .. #. i. .«.. n «
,^.»-. ........... ..„_., :
Poit-regulatoiy costs
$44,100,000 to
$50,400,000 »
(230000
to
$200,000
$2,800,000
(170,000
8170,000
$20,000,000'
• -$7,700,000*
$55.400,000 to
$61.700.000 •
Baeafce costs*
$13,800^00*
$80,000
.$0
$50,000
$410.000
$26.000
$25.000
' $30.000,000 «
$2,000.000*
$16.500.000 •
fncfomootsJ costs
$30,200,00010
$36,500,000 •
5160,000
$0
S150.000
$2,400,000
S150.000
$160,000
($io.obo.ooo)«
$5,700,000'
$38,900,000 to
$45,200.000 •
o
M
o
3
.• Baseline for afl wastestreama presented In the table assumes all wastes are lamtfflled. . ,
•The range of costa inown represents a unit price for cement kilns of between $700 per ton and $1200 per ton. This range Is reflected In the total costs shown for each oolurrm as weH, EPA is aware that tWs
estimate excludes an unknown quantity of F037 and F038 that will be generated as a result of settling operation* in tanks after refineries undergo conversion of surface knpoundmerrts to tank*.
''Of tht waste* In the group that Includes K061, K062, and F006, the Agency Is developing costs for K061 only. For the baseline management practices for high chromium and high nickel K061, the Agency
assumed ttaUKzation fe used, while In the post-regulatory management scenario, high temperature metal recovery Is used.
art) wpected to be negative), and second, debris that would be newly regulated by the L£>Rs because of its rorrtemination wlft'wastw frw^
have been Included m 8w agency1* analysis. '
•Trmsetotate to rKHlrxrfu^th* costs f«K061. which Is wrrerrttycale^ .
I
I
n
w
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 6 / l%ursd?y. January 9, 1902 / Rseppoed
The standards forTW waste*..
developed in the proposed rule are . ,
incincratioa or chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption for the -
wastewaters, end incineration for the
nonwastewaten.
4. Wastes from ethyienc dibnxnide
(EDB) production (K117, K118. K136).
The standards for wastes front ethyiene
dibromide production (EDB) (K117,
K118. and K138) have an estimated ,
annual incremental cost of $2A million.
This figure is based on annual land
disposal estimates of 1,650 tons of K118
non waste water residuals.
The Agency has identified no K130
generation. Currently, K117 wastewaler'
streams undergo treatment before
-lisposal, and therefore these wastes,.
wrill not be affected by the proposed :
rule. The standards for BOB wastes are
concentration-based. The Agency •"
expects that these numerical standards •
will be met through Incineration for Ore
K118 wastes. .- . •> -. ••'<
5. Wastes from ethylene " -•.<•• -.' -1 - <
bisdithiocarbamic acid (EBDC)
production (K123-K126). The annual •
incremental cost estimated for ethyiene
bisdithiocarbamic. acid production ;
wasteB:(K123-Kl26)is4l50jOOO.This
figure is based on the Agency'*
determination that less than 100 tons of.
K125 nonwastewaters are currently land
dispciaed and will require alternative. • .
treatment. EPA has identified no ^ "'" '
quantities of K123, Kl^.* or Kile '*'' '"
currently being land disposed. The
method of treatment eatabttahed for the.
EBDC nonwastewaten is incineration.
8. Wastes from methyl brojnide '
production (K131, K132). The standards
for. wastes from methyl bromide *
production (K131, K132) have aa
estimated annual incremental cost of •
$150,000. The standards for Kfc»l and
K132 in today's proposed rula are
concentration-based. The Agency ' •
expects that these numerical standards
will be met through incineration.
The estimated incremental cost is
based on an annual land disposal
estimate of 100 tana of K132 .: .. ,
non waste water. EPA has identified no
K131 wastewaters or noawastewaters
being land disposed and requiring
alternative treatment or recovery.
7. K061.FOOa.K062. The only wastes
in this group for which the Ageocy ...
developed cost estimates is K081 low-
zinc wastes. The standards for these
wastes are based on high temperature-
metals recovery. These standards, as
applied to Kaei, have an estimated
annual decremental cost of $10 million.
i.e., the new standards are leu costly ,
than the existing standards. This figure
is based on,an annual.generation
estimate of 67,000 tons. The Agency has
used a generation ectimate.rAtber, than a
land disposal estimate for thia waste .
because of fMTTf''frit
quantity of low zinc KOM that le
currently land disposed.
Contaminated Debri*
There are two groups of contaminated
debris fa this rule. The first group
includes all previously regulated debris.
This group incmdes contammated debris
regulated under the j«\YA land
disposal restriction scheduled waste
rules (i.e., Solvents and Dhndns,
California List Wastes, First Thirds,
Second TOrlrds, Third Thirds), and is
estimated to be approximately 1 million
tons per year. The second group
iacbidea aU debris contaminated with
wastes regulated fci toda^f proposed
rule;46 the Agency estimates that less
than 10,000 tons per year of debris is
contaminated with these wastes (the
coat analysis is based on a volume of
8000 tons annually)-. (See section VLB
for the capacity analysis of : •••••
contaminated debris.) •
The Agency has proposed three •
technology categories for the treatment
of debris fa order to handle the diverse.
composition of contaminated debris:
These three categories of treatment are
immobilization, extraction, and . ' :
destruction. Under each treatment
category there exist many technologififi
whidi may be used for compliance with
the debris standards. For, the cost
analysis of contaminated debris, the
following technologies were selected to
correspond with each treatment
category: For iocnnobilratian.
stabilization was selected; for
extraction, washing was selected; and
for destruction, incineration was used.
On May 8, 1982, ail of the national
capacity variance* for the debris
regulated in the HSWA land disposal .
restriction scheduled waste rules will
have expired. AH contaminated debris
•in the first group would then be required
to meet the exifttiog standard* for debris
established in the scheduled waste
rules. Siace the """iflgement standards
proposed today are expected to be no
more costly, and in some cases leas .
costly than the treatment standards
currently reqwired for contaminated
debris under the. wast* code carry-
through principle, 'today's proposed rule
is estimated to have no cost impact for
this group of debris.
Based on preliminary data submitted
by several large commercial facilities as
part of the capacity analysis being
conducted far this rule, the Agency was
able to «stinate the percentage pf defei*
contaminated with newly regulated '
wastes which would be tseated under <
each treat&ent catagojy. For the co»t
analysis the Agency estimated that
approximately 1.7OO tons will be treated
with extraction technologies, 5,000 ton*
• will be treated by immobilization, and
1,300 tons will be treated by
indnaratiqn. Baaed on these figures, the
total incremental cost of treated debris
contaminated with newly regulated
wastes is estiinaied to be $6 million
annually.
c, Ecaaaasic impacts. Because this ,
analysis is limited to a screening
analysis, a JraH economic impacts
analysis, war Apt performed. The
assess the eeosormc impacto '
attrib^bte to tc^'s rule. ;" '
1. PetraleiuB ReSwng Wastes (FO37 and
F038). :^~- :•:; •-.=..'. . •• • ......
The UstingRIA considered the
.
considered hamrfcmi becan»e of cooiaminafion
with waste wUhwrtommfarpfOpoted LDR
trimtmnrl iitairhiih li •••rfLtUi] LJI ikit mil.
.
.listing in light of aotlcipatedland
disposal restrictions on these 'wastes.
The impact* estimated in the lasting RIA
were driven by facility costs and the
edrooinic viability offecffi^r ^OWDMS,'
The.irejrult9 .itf the IJstfcgKlAV .
economic impacts analysis are
summarized below. ' •- "_;•'• ;'
In the Listing RIA, fourtq eight
refineries (depending on the cost . •
scenario) had cost impacts greater than
one percent of sales {cost impacts
exceeding pee percent of sales can be
•viewed as'an indicator of potentiaBy
significant economic impact). Three
refineries exceeded two percent under a
high-cost scenario (mdicating more
severe economic impacts). Nine put of
ten affected refineries in a high-cost
scenario had costs bekjw 0.5 percent of
sales, and over, three-quarters of the
refineiies fe^ below O^5 percent, •
indicating no significant irppacts'. - '
The analysis of small entities
presented in the Listing RIA. indicated
that there wera potentially seven non-
integrated refineries (i.e., refineries that
did not produce their vnfm crude and
market their owa products) with cost-to-
sales ratios 'greater than one percent
nrider the high-cost scenario. A further
anatjuis of employment effects and
potential closures was not possible due
to insufficient fiancial data for
individual refineries.
Therefore, drawing fee comparison for
economic impacts between the Listing
RIA and today'a proposed role, the
Agency estimates that today's rule will
have annual {incremental compliance
cost for P037 and F038 waste of between
-------
1012
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday! January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
$30 million and $37 million, while the
F037/38 Listing RIA estimated an annual
cost of$37 million to $71 million.44
Therefore, the Agency believes that the
economic Impacts of today's rule,
qualitatively, will be less than the
impacts estimated by the Listing Rule
RIA.
2. Remaining Wastes
Considering the economic impacts of
LDRs for the newly listed organic
wastes other than F037 and F038, the
Agency estimates the costs associated
with all wastes to be insignificant. The
only newly listed waste having an '
annual incremental cost above $150,000
is ethylene dibromide (EDB) production
wastes at $2.4 million. The major''"-; ~
producers of EDB are Dow Chemical,
Ethyl Corporation, Great Lakes
Chemical, and PPG Industries. Of these
firms, only Great Lakes Chemical land
disposes waste from EDB production.
Based on the financial viability of Great
Lakes Chemical, It is unlikely that it
would be significantly affected by
regulation of EDB wastes.
A quantitative assessment of the
economic impacts associated with the
contaminated debris standards was not
possible due to data limitations. The
Agency has no site-specific information
on the volumes of either the previously
regulated or the newly listed
contaminated debris by waste code or
SIC code.
The Agency expects that the impacts
for the previously regulated debris will
not be significant since today's proposed
standards are likely to be no more
costly, and in some cases less costly
than the standards which currently
exist. The impacts of the newly listed
debris standards are uncertain. The
estimated incremental cost for these
standards is $8 million annually. If a
relatively large number of facilities bear
the burden of this cost, it is likely that
these standards will not have a
significant impact.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act •
The information collection
requirements in this proposal were,
promulgated in previous land disposal
restriction rulemakings and approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 el seg. and have
been assigned OMB control number
2050-0085. No new information
•• Ths Lilting RIA provided a range of $53 to $102
million. The revised range shown reflect* the
following two changei: (a) subtraction of baseline
Subtitle C landfill costi, and (b) conversion of the
1983 dollnra used In the Lilting RIA to 1991 dollars.
collection requirements are being
proposed today. • ''•'•-.
It should be noted that today's
proposal seeks to reduce the paperwork
burden on the regulated community by
proposing to minimize, reporting for
wastes that are no longer hazardous.
Send comments regarding any aspect
of this collection of information to Chief,
Information Policy Branch, PM-223Y,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory .Affair;, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503, marked'"Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA." . " - ; .
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 148,260,
261,262,264,285,288,270 and 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Designated facility,
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations., Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Penalties,
Recycling, Reporting and recprdkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: December 18,1991.
William K. Roilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in preamble,
title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows: •
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq. . . •
2. Section 148.17 is added, to subpart B
to read as follows:
§148.17 Waste* specific prohibitions—
newly listed wastes.
(a) Effective (insert effective date of
regulations), the wastes specified in 40
CFR 261 as EPA hazardous waste
numbers F037, F038, K107, K109. KllO,
Kill, K112, K117, Kim K123, K124,
K125, K128, K131. K136, U328, U353, and
U359 are prohibited fronrunderground
injection.; ;-'•'•' •'•" •'
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section do not apply: •
(1) If the wastes meet or are treated to
meet the applicable standards specified
in subpart D of part 268; or
(2) If an exemption from^t prohibition
has been granted in reapon.se to a
petition under subpart C of this part; or
(3) During the period of extension of
the applicable effective date, if an
extension has been granted under
1148.4 of this part.
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
3. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows; .••'•<
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921
through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935,6937,6938,
6939, and 6974.
4. In § 260.10 a definition for ''•
"containment building'' i^ added in
alphabetical order and,th(} definition of
"pile" is revised to read as follows: .. •
§260.10 Definition*.
* '* ' * ' it * '
• *r •••• •;••'••'• :.''•'' • ! • '•'..-. ", • •• : "• •
Containment building means a ,
hazardous waste management unit that
is used to store or treat hazardous waste
under the provisions of subpart DD of .
parts 264 or 265 of this chapter.
***..'' . '"..'•'"
(2)*** .
. (iii) It is a mixture of a solid waste
and a hazardous waste that is listed in
subpart D of this part soleity because it .
exhibits one or more of the. .. ,
characteristics of hazardous waste . -.
identified in subpart C of this.part. .,, .
unless the resultant "mixture no longer
exhibits any characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in subpart C of this
part, or unless the solid waste is.".>:••.
excluded from regulation under
§ 261.4(b)(7) and the resultant mixture
no longer exhibite any characteristic of.
hazardous waste identified in'subpart C
of this part for which the hazardous
waste listed in subpart D of this part
was listed. (However, such mixtures are
still subject to the .requirements of part
268 of this chapter, even If they no .. •••
-------
Fedetai Begater / Vol. 57. No, 6 / Truireday. January O, 1992 / Proposed Rules
longer exhibit a characteristic at the
point of land disposal.)
* * * '• « *
(c)* • • . ,
(2) * * * '
00 * * v :
(Cj Nonwastewater residues, such, as
slag, resulting from high temperature'
metals recovery (HTMR) processing of
K061. K062 or F006 waste, in units ,..
identified as rotary kilns, flame reactors,
electric furnaces, plasma arc furnaces.
slag reactors, rotary hearth furnace/
electric furnace combinations or. •"
industrial furnaces (as defined in 40 CFR
260.10 {8). (7). and tl2J). that are •''
disposed hi Subtitle D units, provided
that these residues meet the generic .
exclusion levels identified below for all
constituents, and exhibit no - >
characteristics of hazardous waste,
Testing requirements must be , i
incorporated in a facility's waste •
analysis plan or a generator's «eSf-
implementing waste analysis plan; at a
minimum, composite samples of .,
residues must be collected and analyzed
quarterly and/or when the process or
operation generating the .waste changes*.
Cons&tueni
Gancrie «zctuston tevefe for KM1 MK! K082
Bscnwas.ewassT HTMH nan
Antimony. ;.,, , ' _'
Arsenic ,_.. '
Barkim'.. — , „_„: ,,. ' ;. - ; • ' *
Becv)!iuiti..j V"..."... ' ' • '
Cadmium .......„.:!.'.•;• /•.••••
Chromium (total).. ;_
Lead .-. ;
Merairy . _.. . '.'
Nicksl .J.......t; T> . '• -'-"
Seten«um:__.::.:...:;.;.. :L_ •• '„ •••'
Silver- • i- • • •'•,.•• •,'.'"'
TtUl«l«B ....,' ,., , . , . • : j
Vanadium • " j
zinc „ ;..^.™J_: .'...;.,.•. ,'__,„;;
tfmitnjuint ;,
Antimony ...___...._..!l.....^_i_l.__.^m
Arsenic :...'. . _™™.™ !!!._,
Barium
Beryllium ,. , • , • .
Cadmium_._....._ j__.,
Chromium (total).-
CvanM* ftnlaf) (mg/kfl)
Lead • .
Mercury ' ._'. ; ''" "' ^
Nicks) :.... ••'• ' .•.'"•••—
Selenium •' , •-..•--,]
Silver.... -•••_, . (
Thallium.
Vanadium .".:..__: '„.:.. ' ' ' • "
Zinc :...:.... ••'••• ... ".'"':
ftm
O.C63
0.056
ft3"r
'0^0063
0.33
QOS5
0.008
A AO
0'16
A^%
9JOI3
023
\ ,;';**•«.'
—
,'...« , , .
''' " aoea '
' 0.065
CO
• 0-0063
0.032
0.33 •
1,8
0009
0013
0.23;
facility's filec for JC061. K062 or F006
HTMR residues 'that meet the generic
exclusion levels foe aH oansatttents and
do not exhibit «ny characteristics tfeat
are seat to asbtide D units; however, the
one-time aoftficatian and certification
most be apdated if &e process or
operation generating the waste changes
and/or if the Subtitle D unit receiving
the waste changes. The notification
must include the following information:
(1) The name and address of the Subtitle
D unit receiving the waste shipments; [2]
the EPA Hazardous Waste Nunberfs)
and treatabitity grotrpfsj at the initial
point of generation; and (3J the
treatment standards applicable to the
waste at the initial point of generation.
The certification must be signed by an
authorized representative ami must
state as follows: "I certify under penalty
of law that the generic «xchtsioh levels
for al{ constituents have been met
without impermissible dilution and that
no characteristics of hazardous waste is
exhibited. 1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a
false certification, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment," •
* * * * *
(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)
through {d) of this section and provided
the debris as defined in part 288 of this
chapter does not exhibit a characteristic
identified at sabpart C of this part, the
following materials are tidt subject to
regulation nndeY 40 CFR parts 260,281 to
266; 268, or2J«0: ,.;'.' . '
{1} Conta^aiaate4 debris, as defined in
part 268 that has been treated using one.
of the required extraction or destruction
technologies specified in table 2 of
§ 26$45of.thischapter:or']"../.
(2) Sebria as defined! iopart 268 that
the Regional Adaainixtrator, considering
the extent of contamination, has
determined is no longer contaminated
with hazardous waste. "••" '
7. Appimdhf Vltf of part 261 is
amended by adding the following
inorganic compound in alphabetical
order to read as fpljo'ws: °
, Ctxunte*
*bs»r»ct8
noi '.
Hazardous
waste oo.
VanaoT-
.-•f-.,
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE • ,^ . • '•' ' '
& The auflujrity citation for part 262
continues to read as follows;
Authority: «2 U&C. aaag, 9912L 6892.69Z3.
8924, «82S.«^) 6837.
9. In § 292.94 paragraphs (aH3)
through (a](4) are redesSgnated as (aK4)
through (a)f5) and a new paragraph
(a}{3) is added to read as follows:
§26244 Acc4Mwtotionttn*.
(a}' • •' . :
(SJ The waste is placed in
containment baildings and the generator
complies with sttbpart DD of 40 CFR
part 285 and maintains the following.
records at the facility:
(i) A description of procedures that
will be followed to ensure that all
wastes are removed from the
containment building at least once every
90 days; and
(ii) Documentation of each waste
removal, including the quantity of waste
removed from the containment building
and the date and time of removal.
In addition, such a generator is
exempt from all the requirements in
. subparts G and H of 40 CFR part 265.
except for S 5 265411 and 265.114.
FART 284—STANDARDS FQR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE. AND DISPOSAL *
FACILITIES ,
.10. The authority citation for part 284
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. edttjai, 0924. and
692J5. , .. „' ; . ,.',..', '
11. Subpard DD is added to read as
follows: . .
Subpart DD-KX»otaiora«nt Bi&itngt
§264.1100 App»0«Wlity.
The requirements of this subpart
app.ly to .owners or pjierators who store
or treat hazardous wasty ti>at corUains
no .cur .only ye,ry smalj ^uanUtie^ of, free,.
liqui.4s in unil* designed and operated
under i 2^34.110^ of this subpart
§264.1101.
standahaw
Doslfln and operating
A p.ne-Ji|ne notification and .
certification must be placed in the.
- [a] The containment building must be
completely enclosed wijh a.floor., walls.
ao4i airoof itap^vepj eM^sur^to flip'
elements,' 'e,g,( preclpj^lwa, wjnd. 'and
to prevent run-pn or'infiltration of
*• ••»•'»»" *•'" ' ' * ' ' •" " ' ""l"*^ frlfr' •~;~'f • .'
precipitation.. . ;
. (bjThe:flwr and walls of the! j
including t '
-------
1014
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
system, if required under paragraph
(d)(l) of this section, must be designed
and constructed of man-made materials
of sufficient strength and thickness to
prevent failure due to pressure
gradients, settlement, compression, or
uplift, physical contact with the
hazardous wastes to which they are
exposed, climatic conditions, and the
stresses of daily operation, including the
movement of heavy equipment within
the unit. The unit must be designed so
that it has sufficient structural strength
to prevent collapse or other failure. •
(c) Incompatible hazardous wastes or
treatment reagents must not be placed
in the unit or its secondary containment
system if they could cause the unit or
secondary containment system to leak,
corrode, or otherwise fail.
(d) The owner or operator must use
controls and practices to ensure
containment of the hazardous waste
within the unit and at a minimum, must:
(1) For a containment building that is
used to store hazardous wastes
containing very small quantities of free
liquids or to treat hazardous wastes
when the treatment involves liquids:
(i) Ensure that any surface that will be
in contact with liquid is constructed of a
material or otherwise sealed or coated
so that it will prevent the migration of
liquid into or out of the supporting
structure;
(ii) Provide a liquid collection system
to prevent the accumulation of liquid on
the floor of the containment building; •
und
(iii) Provide a secondary containment
system that prevents any migration of
hazardous waste or liquid out of the
system to the soil, ground water, or
surface water at any time during the use
of the unit and is capable of detecting
and collecting accumulated hazardous
wastes and liquids at the earliest
practicable time. Liquids must be
collected and removed at the earliest
practicable time that protects human
health and the environment to minimize
the hydraulic head on the containment
system.
(2) Maintain the level of the stored/
treated hazardous waste within the
walls of the unit intended to come in
contact with the hazardous waste so
that the height of any wall is not
exceeded.
(3) Take measures to prevent the
tracking of hazardous waste out of the
unit by personnel or by equipment used
in handling the waste.
(4) Take measures to control fugitive
dust emissions by maintaining a
negative pressure within the unit and a
purliculate collection system. This
system must function effectively at all
times, including when vehicles and
personnel are entering and exiting the
unit. .....-••': - .
(e) Liquid residuals from debris
treatment hi a containment building that
are to be land disposed must be treated
to meet F039 treatment standards.
(fj Inspect and record in the facility's
operating log, at least once each
operating day, data gathered from
monitoring equipment and leak
detection equipment as well as the
containment building and the area
immediately surrounding the
containment building to detect signs of
releases of hazardous waste.
§§ 264.1102-264.1110 [Roswved]
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
'DISPOSAL FACILITIES
12. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a), 6924,
6925, and 6935.
13. Subpart DD is added to read as
follows:
Subpart DD—Containment Buildings
§265.1100 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart
apply to owners or operators who store
or treat hazardous wagte ;that contains
no or only very small quantities of free
liquids in units designed and operated
under § 265.1101 of this subpart.
} 265.1101 Design and operating
standards. :
(a) The containment building must be
completely enclosed with a floor, walls,
and a roof to prevent exposure to the
elements, e.g., precipitation, wind and to
prevent run-on or infiltration of
precipitation.
(b) The floor and walla of the unit,
including the secondary containment ,
system, if required under paragraph
(d)(l) of this section, must be designed
and constructed of man-made materials
of sufficient strength and thickness to
prevent failure due to pressure
gradients, settlement, compression, or
uplift, physical contact with the
hazardous wastes to which they are
exposed, climatic conditions, and the
stresses of daily operation, including the
movement of heavy equipment within
the unit. The unit must be designed so
that it has sufficient structural strength
to prevent collapse or other failure.
(c) Incompatible hazardous wastes or
treatment reagents must not be placed
in the unit or its secondary containment
system if they could cause (the unit or
secondary containment system to leak,
corrode, or otherwise fail. •
(d) The owner or operator must use
controls and practices to ensure
containment of the hazardous waste
within the unit and,'at a minimum, must:
(1) For a containment building that is
used to store hazardous wastes
containing very small quantities of free
liquids or to treat hazardous .wastes
when the treatment involves liquids:
(i) Ensure that any surface that will be
in contact with liquid is constructed of a
material or otherwise sealed or coated
so that it will prevent the migration of
liquid into or out of .the supporting
structure:
(ii) Provide a liquid collection system
to prevent the accumulation of liquid on
the floor of the containment building;
and
(iii) Provide a secondary containment
system that prevents any migration of
hazardous waste or liquid out of the
system to the soil, ground water, or
surface water at any time during the use
of the unit.and is capable of detecting
and collecting accumulated hazardous
waste and liquids at the earliest
practicable time. Liquids must be
' collected and removed at the earliest
practicable time that protects human
health and the environment to minimize
the hydraulic head on the containment
system.
(2) Maintain the level of the stored/
treated hazardous waste within the
walls of the unit intended to come in
contact with the hazardous waste so ,
that the height of any wall is not
exceeded. •.
/ (3) Take measures to prevent the
tracking of hazardous waste out of the
unit by personnel or by equipment used
in handling the waste.
(4) Take measures to control fugitive
dust emissions by maintaining a
negative, pressure within the unit and a
particulate collec tion system. This ,
system must function effectively at all
times, including when vehicles and
personnel are entering and exiting the .
unit- .:;,',
(e) Liquid residuals from debris
treatment hi a containment building that
are. to be land disposed must be treated
to meet F039 standards.
(!) Inspect and record in the facility's
operating log,, at least once each
operating day, data gathered from
monitoring equipment and leak
detection equipment as well as the
containment building and the area
immediately surrounding the
containment building to detect signs of
releases of hazardous waste. • '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No.-6 / Thursday, January 9,1993 /dPfroposed Rules
1015
§§265.1102-265.1110 [Reserved]
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
14. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a). 6921. and
6924.
15. In § 26&2 paragraph (g) is revised
and paragraph (h) added to read as
follows:
§268.2 Definitions applicable In thto part
*' * * * * .
(g) Debris means solid material that:
(1) Has been originally manufactured
or processed, except for solids that are
listed wastes or can be identified as
being residuals from treatment of
wastes and/or wastewaters,' or air
pollution control devices; or
(2) Is plant or animal mat ten or
(3] Is natural geologic material
exceeding a 9.5 mm sieve size including
gravel, cobbles, and boulders (sizes as
classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service), or is an inseparable mixture of
such materials with soil, liquid, sludge,
or other solid waste materials (i.e.,
inseparable by simple mechanical
removal processes).
(h) Contaminated Debris means debris
that contains a hazardous waste listed
in subpart D of part 261 that is subject to
the land disposal restrictions of this
part, or that exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in subpart C
of part 261 that is subject to the land
disposal restrictions of this part
*****.
16. In § 268.7 paragraph (a) is revised
and paragraph (d) is added to read as
follows:
§268.7 Waste analysts.
(a) Except as specified in §5 268.32,
268.40(d), or 268.43 of this part, the
generator must test his waste, or test an
extract developed using the test method
described in appendix I of part 261, or
use knowledge of the waste, to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part.
*****
(d) For contaminated debris that is no
longer considered hazardous, a one-time
notification and certification must be
placed in the facility's files for each
combination of the debris and
contaminant categories; however, the
one-time notification and certification
must be updated if the facility receiving
the waste changes.
(1) The notification must include the
following information:
(i) The name and address of the
Subtitle D facility receiving the waste
shipment:
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including applicable
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers and
treatability groups;
(iii) The treatment standards
applicable to the waste at the point of
generation.
(2) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the language found in § 268.7(b)(5).
17. In { 268.9 paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows:
S 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes
that exhibit a characteristic.
*****
(d) Wastes that exhibit a
characteristic are also subject to § 268.7
requirements, except that once the
waste is no longer hazardous, a one-
time notification and certification must
be placed in the facility's files; however,
the one-time notification and
certification must be updated if the
process or operation generating the
waste changes and/or if the subtitle D
facility receiving the waste changes.
(1) The notification must include the
following information:
(i) The name and address of the
subtitle D facility receiving the waste
shipment;
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including the
applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers) and treatability group(s);
(iii) The treatment standards
applicable to the waste at the point of
generation.
(2) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the language found in § 268.7(b)(5).
18. In subpart C § 268.36 is added to
read as follows:
§268.36 Waste specif Ic prohibitions—
newly listed wastes.,,,.-, .:
(a) Effective (insert effective date), the
following wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F037 and F038 (that is not
generated in a surface impoundment);
the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers K107,
K108, K109, K110, Kill, K112, K117,
K118, K123, K124, K125. K126, K131.
K132, and K136; and the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.33 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers U328, U353,
and U359 are prohibited from land
disposal.
(b) Effective (insert date two years
from effective date), the wastes.
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F03.7 and
F038 that are generated in surface
impoundments are prohibited from land
disposal. ' " "»'
(c) Effective (insert date two .years
from effective date), radioactive wastes
that are' mixed with hazardous wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 and EPA
. Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and
F038; the wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers K107, K108, K109, KllO, Kill,
K112, KilTi K118, K123, K124, K125,
K126, K131, K132, and K136; or the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers U328,
U353, and U359 are prohibited from land
disposal.
(d) Effective (insert date two years
from effective date), debris
contaminated with hazardous wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and
F038; the wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers K107, K108, K109, KllO, Kill,
K112, K117, K118, K123, K124. K125,
K126, K131, K132, and K136; or the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers U328,
U353, and U359; and which is not
contaminated with any other waste
already subject to a prohibition are
prohibited from land disposal.
(e) Between (insert effective date) and
(insert date two years from effective
date), the wastes included in paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2), except that
F037 and F038 are wastes generated in a
surface impoundment. Such
impoundments must comply with the
requirements relating to removal under
5.268.4(a)(2)(ii).
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c); and (d) of this section do not
apply if:
,. y.)Tjie,jWBsJes meet the applicable
standards specified iaSubpart D of this
part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under 5 268.6, with respect
to those, wastes and units, covered by
the petition; ;; , ... - .
(3>The wastes meet the .applicable
alternate standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under
§ 268.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
: extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with
respect to .the wastes covered by the
extension. .
(g) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in § 268.41 and 268.43, the
initial generator must test a
-------
1016
Federal Regbter / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January- 9, 1992 f Taqpoaed Rules
representative sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste, depending
on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or the waste, or the
generator may use knowledge of the
waste. If the waste contains constituents
in excess of the applicable subpart D
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of part"
268 are applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
19. In § 268.40 paragraph (b) is revised
and paragraph (d) is added to read as
follows:
§ 26M4) AppUcsMWjr o» treatment
(b) A restricted waste for which a ,
treatment technology is specified under
S 268.42fa} or contaminated debris for
which a treatment technology is
specified under S 288,45 may be land
disposed after it is treated using that
specified technology or an equivalent
treatment method approved by the
Administrator under the procedures set
forth hi § 268.42(b).
• ' • ~ * <» • '*
(d) If a treatment standard has been
established in 55 268.41 through 268.43
for a hazardous waste that is Itself
contaminated d^brte, the waste is
subject to those standards Mithef than
the standards for contaminated debris
under § 288.45.
20. In § 288.41(a) Table CCWE is
amended by removing the entries for
F001-F005 and KOS1 (Low Zinc
Subcategory—lest) than 15% total zinc),
revising the entry for K061 High Zinc
Subcategory, and by adding entries for
F037 and F038 to read as follows:
§ 268.41 Treatment standards expressed
a* concentration*) to waste extract
(a) • * *
TABLE CCWE.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Waste Codo See also Regulatad hazardous constituent
• • • . • »
F037 i Table CCW in 268.43 Chromium (Total)
F036 „. _ Table CCW fa 268.43 Chrocr^"ifoteijZZZZZZ-ZZIZ"v
Nickel: _
hC61 .......... . ._...„_„.. Table CCW In 268 43 Antimony
Arsenic.-. _..-......_.... .":._^..m. „
Rmfem
Cadmium - , _._.... _..„.„ . .„._.,
Chrorwum (Total)— -
Lead . _
Ueceiiry .., ...
Mekfll ,-,---„,,-,
Selenium,..-....-.-.- • , ,-
° Theffiurn. , fJ .'.,.,:, ,,
Vanadium .. — ,.-.... T ,,
Zinc. '_ ,
• • • . - » •
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
7440-47^32
1 7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
744O-43-8
744O-47-32
7430-62-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-O
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-66-6
VVastewator
concentration
lmg/1)
*
NA.
NA
NA
NA
*
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MM.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-
wastowater
concentration
(mg/9
17
0.20
17
0.20
2.1
0.055
7JS
0.014
0.19
0.33
0.37
OJ009
6
0.18
03
0.078
5.3
NA-NotappScabla.
21. In § 268.42 paragraphs (b) and (d)
ure revised to read as follows:
9268.42 Treatnwnt standards expressed
as specified technologies.
• • • • *
(bj Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a
measure of performance equivalent to.
that achieved by methods specified in
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this
boction for wastes or specified hi
§ 268.45 for contaminated debris. The
applicant must submit information
demonstrating that his treatment method
is in compliance with federal, state, and
local requirements and is protective of
human health and the environment On
the bails of such information and any
other available information, the
Administrator may approve the use of
the alternative treatment method if he
finds that the alternative treatment
method provides a measure of
performance equivalent to that achieved
by methods specified in paragraphs (a),
(c), and (d) of this section for wastes or
in { 268.45 for contaminated debris. Any
approval must be stated in writing and
may contain such provisions and
conditions as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The person to whom such
approval is issued must comply with all
limitations contained in such a
determination.
• • * * *
(d) Radioactive hazardous mixed
wastes with treatment standards.
specified in table 3 of •this section are
not subject to any treatment standards
specified in 55 288.41 or 268.43. or table
2 of this section. Radioactive hazardous
mixed wastes not subject to treatment
standards in table 3 of this section
remain subject to all applicable
treatment standards specified in
S § 268.41,28843, tind table 2 of this
section. Contaminated debris containing
radioactive waste is not subject to the
treatment standards specified in table 3
of this section but is subject to the
treatment standards specified in
{ 286.45.
22. In { 2d8.42(ajl(2) table 2 is amended
by adding entries (Tor K107, KlOB, K109,
K110, Kill, K112, K123, K124, K12S,
K126, U328,y353, and U3S9 in
alphanumerical order to read as follows:
5 268.42 Treotroon t standards expressed
'
-------
Federal Register /• Vol. ,67, No. .6 /.Thursday, January 9, 1992 /Proposed Rules
101?
. TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE
Waste code
See
•is?
Waste descriptions and/or treatment
. • subcaiagory
CAS No.
tor
regulated
hazard-
ous
constitu-
ents
Technology code
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
K107
K108.™
K109..
K110..
K111
K112
K123...
K124 :
K12S
K126
U328 _
U353 '.
U359
. Column bottoms from product separation from
- the production of ' 1,1-dknethylnydrazine
(UDMH) from carboxyBc acid hydrazines.
. Condensed column overheads from product
separation and condensed .reactor vent
gases from the production of 1.1-dimethylhy-
dfaane (UDMH) from carboxyic acid hydra-
zines.
. Spent filler cartridges from product purification
from the production of 1,1-dunetrrythydrazioe
(UDMH) from carboxySc acid hydrazines.
, Condensed column .overheads from intermedi-
ate'separation from the production of 1,1-
dirrwthylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxyHc
acid hydrazines.
. Product wastewators from the production of
dinrtrototoooe via nitration of toluene.
. Reaction by-product water from • the drying
column in the production of. toiuenedianwie
via hydrogenation of diretrototueoe.
«... •..•... .
Procass wastowator (including supemates. fil-
trates, and washwaters) from the production
of «triyteoeb(**thtocarb«rnic acid and Its
salts. ' •
. Reactor vent scrubber wafer from the produc-
tion of etrrylenebisdrthfocarbainic add and its
salts. ••
Filtration, evaporation, and cenkifugation solids
•• from .the productjoo of .•Ihytonebisdilhiecar-
bantic acjd and its salts. • 'v '. •:' ' . •
Baghouae dust and floor sweeping* In fnMng
and packaging operation* from the produc-
ttorvor formulation of athytene bfedahiocarba-
mic acid and its salts.
2-rnatftyJ-benzenamine..
4-methyf-benzenamine..
NA INCIN; or CHOXD fb CARBN.: INCIN
MA INCIN; or CHOXD fb CARBN. INCIN
' NA INQN; or CHOXD fb CARBN....... INON
NA INCIN; or CHOXD fb CAHBN INCIN
NA INCIN; or CHOXD fb CARBN....... INCIN
NA . INCIN; or CHOXD fb CARBN INCIN
NA FNCtN; or CHOXD fb (BIOOG or INCIN
CARBN). -
NA INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BIODG or INCIN
CARBN).
NA; INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BiODG or INCIN
... CARBN), • •.. . , • •. "•
NA INCIN; or CHOXO fb (BIODG or INON .
CARBN). ,
. . • •- .:* >•>.•.< :..< •/..... .• ..... • .. ..*,_.. .
95-63-4 CHOXD fb (BIODG ot CARBN)™ INCIN; or Thermal Destruction
.106-48-0 CHOXD fb (BIODG of CARBN).... INCIN; or. Thermal Destruction
110-80-6 INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BK3CX3 or INCIN
CARBN).
NA—Not applicable.
23. In § 268.43(8} Table CCW is.
amended by revising the entries for-
F001-F005, K015, K016, K018, K019, K020,
K023, K024, K028, K030, K043, K048,
K049. K050, K051, K052, K087, KQ93. \
K094. U028, U089. UOB8, U102, U107, and
U190, by removing the entry for U042, !; •
and by adding the entries for F037, F038,
Kli7, K118, IC131, K132. and K136 in
alphanumerical order to read as follows:
(a) * r«.*--.
TABLE CCW.--CONSTITUENT^CONCENTRATIONSIIN WASTES
Waste code
Commercial
chemical name
' See also
Regulated hazardous
' constituent
CAS No. for
regulated-
hazardous
• constituent'
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Concentration
.Notes
Concentration
-------
1018
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Pmpojed Mutes
TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCEMTRAT*QMS IN WASTES— Continued .
wastanvia Commercial &» «lin Regulated hazardous
wast* coda chemical name see also cons****
Ethyl ether
Methanol . . .
Methylena chloride..
Methyl ethylketone
Methyl isobutyiketone
Mifmhonrono llllr.lr.._1_l_
Pyridne »....._....« ... . „..
1 .1 ,1 -Trichtof oetharse
1.1.2-Tnchtofoethar*
Trichloroettiylene.._. .....
1.1.2-Trichlor1.2,2-
trifiuoromethana.
Tricfitoromono-fluofomethans.—..
F037. ..____....... NA __.. TabiaCCWEta Aceaaptitnena .........
268.41.
Anthracene..™— ...»..._»_«_...
Benzene »..«....
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalal*,
Dkvbutyl phtnaiate, _!_.l™
Ethylbertzene —
Phenarrthrene ....H...MW«HHWW....H
CyanUM (TotaO '..
Chromium' (TotaO ...,-..-.,
laari
F038 — » _™. NA TabtoCCWEIn Benzene
26&41,
Bis {2-4rthylhSKyO pttthalate
CnryMne '
Etylbenzene ..
Fluorene « _«;.«
Naphthalene _.
Ptwnanthrfln» ,. ,
Phwrol.... ...., ' ' .
Pyrene..:..-.,.....,.......... ™-. »
Xylf>o«M
Cyanides (Total) ~ «....".
Chromium (Total) .
K015 NA Table CCWE to Anthracene;.-. I
26841.
Benzal Chloride- _
Sum o< BoraXb) fluoranthene
and Benzo{k) nuoranthena.
CAS No. for
regulated •
hazardous
constituent
60-29-7
78-«3-1
67-56-1
75-9-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
98-95-3
110-88-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
79-00-5
7B-13-1
75-69-4
ft
208-96-8
120-12-7
71-43-2
117-81-7
. 75-15-0
100-41-4
„„ .;*S-7*-7
85-01-3
106-85-2
129-00-4
108-88-3
"' . ar-ialis
7410-47-32
7439-92-1
50-32-8
117-81-7
218-01-9
84-74-2
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01 -4
108-45-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440^47-32
7439-82-1
120-12-7
205-99-2
207-O8-9
Wastewaters
Concentratk» N ,.,
(mg/0 Note*
012
5.6
56
0.089 „„
0 28
014 _„_
0.068
0.014
0.056 . ..
0.08 -
0.030 _._„_._ „
0.054 -™._—
D.D57 ___._....
0.02
D
0X59 .,."....•_.... ...-,•;-,
0.059 -.. .-,•.. ..-
0.14
QJ059 _ _.__
0.061
O28 -^—^»_
OiQ59
0 057 •
0.057
0450 .,..!.'..,..!
, '." ipOSfl .
0.059 ,
0.03B ...,.._
. O067 -__. _
000 . '
0,32 „,.„ ...,,.»,,„
• 0.14 .i..™_
O.20
0 059 . .
Q057 -,----,--.•
0.057
0059 .
0.059 .
0.059
0.03P ..,.,;.,........».....
0.067 : ...™
0.080 __________
O32 ._»_™_.
0.028 (')
02
*
0.059
0055 »'••»«••»« -*".
Nonwastewaters
Concentration t^to,
(mg/kg) Nows
•J60 _.
tTO
NA
33
36
33
14 _
16
5.6.. _....
28
5.6
7.6
5.6
28
33
*
28
NA
28
14
20
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
NA
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
1.8
NA ......
••>. NA ...
14
12
7.3
15
ae
NA '. -..
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
1.8
NA
3.4
6.2
g ^ m.
1
.....!!.!
5
(|>
""n
n
o
KOI6.
NA...
Phenanthrene....,
Totuene..~.«..».
Chromium (Total).
Nickel..
Hexachkxobenzenfi..
HexacMorobutadiene.
KexacNoiooyolopentadien*..
Hexachlo»u»*iane _.____.
85-01 -»
ice-ee-3
744O-47-32
7440-02-0
•1W-74-1
87-68-3
7T-47-4
. 127-48-4
0.059
0.08
0.32
0.44
0.055
0.055 _..,.._.
aos? _
0.055
0.056
3.4
6.0
NA..
NA..
26
5.6
5.6
28
6.0
-------
Federal Register A Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1019
, TABtECCWj-^XttteTmjENTCtoNCEmfWtKJWS WWA^
. ' . . .' • .• •'• •>.:..
Waste coda Commercial --- .1.. RsfluWed- hazardous
wastecooe tmtmatnuno . See**° ecnrttuent
K018 NA
K019 NA..._ _
K020 NA. ..
K023 NA
K024 „.„ NA
•
K028 _.. NA
K030 _ NA
K043 _.. NA_
K048 NA
Ptllow^WW
ChiMomnthMM
1,1-DjcMoroatfiane.. ....... ,.-••
1,2-Oichioroethane
Kexachiorobenzen* .. —
HexacrNOrobutadeent
PentacntorotOiana
1,1,1-Trichioroeman*
Hexachiorortharn
„ , , Bw (2-crHOfoethyf) «twr
CNorobenzarw .»....»»««»„».„..«..
p-Dichiorobenzene._ ;....
1 ,2-Dichioroethane
Fkioran* ..-.:.............„„... .........
Hexacntoroethane..... ....:...;..;........
Naphttwierw. .'. •.
Phenwfhrane... ;...
1;2,4,5-TatrachtorobenzefM>
. - ' • TeU acmoroetfiene ....- „••
1,2.4-Tricntorooeraene
1,1.1-Tnchioioettian* „„..
, ; ;..-. 1 2^CBeWfjro«triane • •
1.1,2^-Tairachioroethaf»M-_...^.-
. imracnioroeuwHNt... „ „_„
, , , Phththc nnhyrirido (macmnul
as PMhafic acid).
Phthafie anhyrjrido (mooMrod
asPMhaHcacid).
• *',.. ' • . • . .
Table CCWE in 1 1-DJcnJoroethane . • •
268,41. ' •• '.'•' •»••"""•»•••••"••••
tr«nfrl12-DfcWoroethan»..l.i_li
Hexachtorobiiladien* ..„.;••
Hexacrwofoethane ;...i •
Pentacnioroattiane... ;.,.,.-
1,1.1,2-Teirachloroethaiw .„.„.,.
l!l!2-TrW*jfoethan«. IZZi •
Tetrachtaro«iHylene;«_ '„ ''
CadnwuB — . ~._^.i^
Chromium (TcteO- ... „
Lmd.-. :.;., ' -
Nickel _._ ;...— •
_—___...„ — . o-DicMorobenzene • •
p-Oichlorobenzene .„__._ _.„
.. HexacMorabutadien* ^_;_™ .
- ' HexacWofoe«)an«....__™_..™.iv.;.
• • ' Hexachioropfcpeoe • • • • ' ••
Pentachioroberoene
PentacWoroethane...
TetfachtoroeUnme..... ; _.;
.- - 2,4-Dfchtorophenol ::^ „„-...
2,6-Dichtoropheno :
2,4.5-TricWorophenol u
2,4.6-Trichkxophenol i
Tetrachtorophanote (To»a9 ;
PentacMorophenol ;
Tetrachlofoethene ._;......;
HexacMorodfcenzc-p4iaxins
HexachtorotSberaofurani... ;._.„
Pwrtachtorodfcenzo furanc
Tetrachionxtbenzo-p^lioadm
Teirachlorodibwoofurarw—
• • 5 - • :•
TabteCCWE, ki Benzene .._^_^ .
268.41.
Benzo(a)pyrene ^.._ •
Bit (2-ettiyti«xyl) phthalate...:.......
CAS No. for
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
hazardous Concentration Hr**, Concentration unttn
constituent (mg/l) «uw» (mg/Kai «uw»
78-00-3
74-87-3
75-94-3
107-08-2
118-74-1
87-68-3
76-O1-7
71-55-8
67-72-1
111-44-4
108-90-7
67-66-3
106-46-7
107-06-2
86-73-7
87-72-1
91-20-3 '
85-01-0
95-84-3
127-18-4
120-82-1
71-S5-8
106-93-4
-127-18-4
85-44-9
65-44-9
• :. ••:•.. *,- t
. ,75-34r3
• •;»;'>?wV<
87-88-3
87-72-1
76-01r7 .
630-20-6
79r34-8
-V---. 71-55-8 '
79-00-5 ,
' 127-18^4.
-7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-82-1 '
7440-02-0
95-50-1
. 67-68^3
87-72-1
1888-71-7
808-93-5
78-01-7
96-94-3
127-18-4
120-82-1
e
120-83-2
187-65-0
95-95-4 :
88-08-2
79-01-8
'71-43-8
50-32-8
f 117-«1-7
•'"818-01-9
0 27
0 19
0059
0.21
0.055
0.055 - _
NA
0.054
0.055 _
0033
0.057 „...
0.046 ,,,,,.,..._.:
0.09 ..„_.....:„ .;
0^1 „.._...
0.059 „
0055
0.059 _.
0.059 .......!...„„
0 055 ........
0.056
0.055
0.054 ...
0.21
0.057 —„„„„.,.„',„„.„„
• 0.056 _; :...._.__. J
0.069 .™__^_..™ .
0.069
.:••••.•'-••
0.055 ..._.„„....„„„„.
' 0,055';, „;.'.,",;
0.057 !3IZZ!Z.~!~
0.057 „.._..„.,..
0.054
0054..
0.056 . . „
8.4 _ ..........
0.35 .„
0.037 „ :...
047
• -....'
0.088
- Q.09
' NA ZZ".3!"I"""
NA
0055
. ' 0.05S .; _.. ." " '
0044
0.044 „
0.18
0.035
NA
0.089 ......
0.056 .
0.000063 . .....„...;
. 0.000063
0.000063
. 0.000063 . .„.'.
0.000063 ••-..» .'.
• % *
0.'14 _-__.„_
0.061 . ;
0.28 -.
0.059 ._.„..... .
6.0
NA
6.0
6.0
. 28
5.6
5.6
6.0
28
5.6
6.0
t>.0
6.0
5.6
5.6
NA : .
. 6.0.
'9
6.0
6.0
• 5:6
b.O
28
28
.. &0 . ... r
5-6 '
' , 28 . ' ,
.5.6 .'
5.6
5.6
6.0
s 6.Q . .
NA ..._.._
NA : ! '
NA..... 1..!..
NA
NA _
5.6 ' " '••
28
-19
28
5.6
14
•6.0
19 : '.
0.38
0.34 .
8.2
.. 7.6
0.68
•1.9
1.7
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
*
14
12
7.3
15
(')
4')
i
|
1
—
n
•i
<;>
(;>
0
-------
1020 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 /t •Proposed-Rules
TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
w.«i«iw<» Commercial ««,„!«„ Regulated hazardous ,
W«teco*> chemical name See also ^.constituent
K049 .........
K050 „
K051
K052 — ...
Dt-n-butyl phthalate
Naphthalene ,
PhenoL
Pyrenfi....™
Xy)ene(s)
Cyanides (Total) — ...
Chromium (Total)
Lead
NA Table CCWE in Anthracene . .
268.41.
Benzo(a)pyrene ...»
Bis (2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
Carbon disuffide. '
2.4-Oimeaiyl phenol
Naphthalene . .™
Phenanthrene
Phenol . . ._
Toluene .
Xytene(s). _ .„._„....,
Cyanides (Total) -
Chromium (Total)......-™---,— .....
Lead ' ' . !" ». '...'....
NA Table CCWE in Benzo (a) pyrene ,
268.41.
Phenol
Cyanides (Total) »....*
Chromium (Total)™
.„.,..,..., HA-.,...™... * Table CCWE in Acenaphtheoe " ' "
268.41. ' .;
Benzene . ...
Benzo (a) anthracene — -
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate....;.
Chrysone H.MWM?.H......
DHvtxrtyj phthalate
Ethytbenzene ',»»«».»«
Ruorene ...«.«....,....».„.....„.
Naphthalene.
Phenanthf ene
Phenol
Pvrene
Toiune.. .«....,» «....
Xyiene(s)«.»M.. ... ..........
Cyanides Total)
Lead
~~_«.» NA...... ™ Table CCWE in Benzene. „ „
268.41. ' . ' '
Benzo (a) pyrene _
c-Cresol.. ™.™
p^resol ..
Ethylbenzene .,
Naphihaleo*.... :...L....«......
Phonantnron? „...! ...............
Phenol..™:.. „....: :.,„__>.,:..
Toluene «.. :._,..•
Xytenes _ ..„ .„ „
. Cyanides (Total) :.™
Chrornjum- (Total) .
' Lead......:.......... 1
...„....._. NA........™...™....... Table CCWE in Acenaphthaterw
268.41:
Benzene™.™- .
Chrysene-™.™. . ..... .
Ffuowithene....
CAS No. for
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
loyuJultxJ
hazardous Concentration ..,.,,„ Concentrahon " Notes
constituent (mg/l) Notes Notes
84-74-2
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439r92-1
-12U-12-7
71-43-2
1,17-81r7 .
75-150-0
75-15-0
2218-01-9
105-67-9
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-01-8. .
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
744(M7-32
7439-92-1
50-32-8
108-95-2
57-12-5
7440-47-32 . ...
7439-92-1
.•83-32-9
120-12-7
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
75-15-0
2218-01-9
105-67-9
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-6
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
71-43-2
50-32-8
-95-48-7
106-44-5 ,
105-67^9
,, 100-41-4 .
, ..9V20-3
es-pi-8 .
108-95-2
108-88-3
, 56-12-5
7440-47-32 . :
- 7439-92-1
" ' * '
208-96-8
i 71-43-2
' .C 218-01-9
206-44-0
0057
0.057
: 0.059 ,
, o 059
0.059
0 039 1
0 067
0080
0.32
0.028 (')
0.2
0 037
0059
014 .
0.061
0.28
0014
0.059
0.036
0 057
0.059
0,059
0 039
0.067
0.08 ,
0,32 .„ , ,
0.028 ('»
. 0.2 ...,»,,,.,«v
0.037
0.061
0.039 ;.,....i.
0.028 (')
02
0 037
0.059 ...
0.059
014
0.059
. 0.061
028
0 059
0 057
0,057
0.059
0.059 .:.........:...., •
0 059 .
0.039
0 067 ,.
0 08 ,.
032
0.028 (')
0.2
0 037
0.14 .'.
0.061 v
011 '.
0.77
0 036 . ...
0.057 „.
0 059
0059
0.039
0.08
0.32 •.
0.028 (>)
0.037 ;.
, • ' '
. O.OJ59 _:,...„..„( ,.,.,..
0,14 „„
0.059
0.068 '.
3.6
14
NA
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
1.8
NA
NA
28
14
12
7.3
MA
15
NA
14
42
34
3.6
36
14
. 22
1.8
. NA....,
NA
12
3.6
1.8
NA
NA
NA
28
14
20
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
MA .' :...
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
1.8
NA
NA
14
12
6.2
6.2
NA
14
42
34
3.6
14
22
1.8
NA ™
NA
3.4
0.071
3.4
3.4
i
9
5
1
<;>
0)
1
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
1021
TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS w WASTES— Continued
Waste code "
K093 .
K094
K117.'. .'._'
K118
K731
K132 :'
K136
U028 '
U069 ;_:.
1/088 '
U102
U107
U190
Commercial e~,afc«
chemfcatname sasaiso
NA., , .,
NA „
NA _
NA .
NA. ...
NA
phthalaJo.
DHvbuty)
phthalate.
Dfefliyl
phthatete.
Dimethyl
phthalate.
DHVOCtyt • , . ..... ' • ;
phttMtote.
* • • ' -
Phthalate '
. anhydride
...Phthaficadd).
Regulated hazardoua
constituent
Indeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene._:
Pnenanthrene '.
TdunnA, ,
Lead ...,............^_! Z3Z™
— Phthatlc anhydride (measured
asPhthaKcadd).
Phthalie anhydride (measured
a»PfHha*cacid).
• *
Ethytaie tffaxKPfde
Methyl bromide ____
Chloroform ,
1,1.2-Tribrornoethane___ .
— : Ethytena dfcromkte
CMomfnm ..,.;.
Uarhyf hfomitfa •
— Methyl bromide.. ; '
Methyl hmmkta
Chlomfnrm i(
1.1^-TribromoadiBjy,.:.. .__
_. Di-n-bulyl phttialflla -
* . .. ' ''•"•' ,'''
_. Dimathyi phthflbto •--•"'•'•'
• • i • -': •
~. Di-fvoctyt phthalaln .
DM*U^T?,^!HL -*^T^^^^^
CAS No. tor
:regute«ed
hazardouc
constituent
193-30-5
91-20-3
85-01-6
108-88-3
~"743$M>;M
85-44-8
85-44-8
- . .
__ ™
* ji.im II....M
......«„»...„....
•
117-81-7
84-74-2
*
• • 84-«ft-2
. *
' '• • - ••
Wastewaters
Concentration um~-
(mg/l) •««»
0.0055. „
0059
o.osa 4
0.08
0.32 -'--„,.'„..
' 0.037 .
ao6» .:. ;
O.028 ™ .„
0.11
0.046 -T- T „ ,.,,..--,.. „..„
o.ea
0.028 ....„...;
0.11
• nruR
0.63 , ;„.
O.11 ,,,,,,„..,,,
0.11 '.
0.028 ._
0.11 _•„ —
0.63 -,-,,,-.,,.mm
.......
0.28 ... . __
*
A nc7
os .'^ :
*
0.017 — ... — „,, .
• 0.069 ....._._^i4-__
Nomyaatowator*
Concentration ..._..,
(mg/kg) •**
3.4
3.4
3,4
0^6
0.07
NA
28
28
15 .. .
1?-,.
fiQ |t|
15
15
15
16
15
15
15 . ;
. 15
fifi
*
20 '• '
28
#•
S»
• •• -39 •
(')
........
t1)
__....
........
._; —
t
24. In subpart D S 268.45 with tablet; 1
u nd 2 is added to read as follows:
§268.45 Treatm«nt standards for
contaminated debris.
(a) Treatment standards.
Contaminated debris mast be treated
prior to land disposal as follows unless
EPA determines under 1261.3{e}{2) of
this chapter that the debris is no longer
contaminated with hazardous waste:
(1) General. Contaminated debris that
is contaminated with a "contaminant
subject to treatment" defined by . .
paragraph (b) of this section must be
treated using the technology or
technologies identified in appendix IX to
this part 268, as specified in table 1 of
this section for each contaminant-
category represented by a "contaminant
subject to treatment". Table 2 of this
section assigns each potential •
contaminant to a contaminant category
for determining the. required treatment
technology: The acceptable treatment
technologies for each combination of
debris category and contaminant
category are identified by «"Y?S" in v -
tablet. ' '"," '"'' '.",'• *' '""_,_'". '." '.
(2) Characteristic debris.
Contaminated debris that exhibits the
characteristic «rf ignitability or reactivity
identified under Si 261^1 and. 261.23 of
this chapter, respectively, must be
treated to deactivate the ignitability or
reactivity characteristic.
(3) Mixtures of debris types. If a •
mixture of debris types is not separated
according to the debris categories
identified in table 1 of this section for
subsequent treatment of each category,
each debris type in the mixture must be
treated by technologies identified with a
YES in table 1 of this section. If table 1
does not ^llow use of the game
treatment technology for ajl debris
categories {and contaminant categories)
in the mixture, a treatment .train of
sequential treatment technologies must,
be used. If an immobilization technology
is used in a treatment train, it must be
the last treatment technology in the
train. . .
(4) Mixtures of Contaminant Types.
Debris that is contaminated with
contaminants subject to treatment
identified under paragraph (b) of this
section that are assigned to two or more
contaminant categories provided in
table 2 of this section must be treated
-------
1022
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
for each contaminant category by a
technology identified with a YES in
table 1 of this section. If table 1 does not
allow use of the same treatment
technology for all contaminant
categories (and debris categories) in the
debris, a treatment train of sequential
treatment technologies must be used. If
an immobilization technology is used in
a treatment train, it must be the last
treatment technology in the train.
(5) Waste PCBs. Contaminated debris
that is also a waste PCB under 40 CFR
part 761 is subject to the requirements of
either 40 CFR part 761 or the
requirements of this section, whichever
are more stringent.
(b) Contaminants subject to treatment.
Contaminated debris must be treated for
each "contaminant subject to
treatment." Except as provided by
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the
contaminants subject to treatment must
be determined as follows:
(1) Toxicity characteristic debris. The
contaminants subject to treatment for
debris that exhibits the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) by § 261.24 of this
chapter, and also would exhibit the
Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity
characteristic under old 5 261.24 are
those constituents for which the debris
exhibits the TC and EP toxicity
characteristic.
(2) Debris contaminated with listed
waste. The contaminants subject to
treatment for debris that is
contaminated with a prohibited listed
hazardous waste are those constituents
for which BOAT standards are
established for the waste under
§§ 2CS.41 and 268.43, and all toxic
constituents on appendix VIII, part 261
of this chapter, that the owner or
operator could have reason to know
may contaminate the debris at
detectable levels using procedures
prescribed by Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods, SW-846,
incorporated by reference SW-846.
When reasonably available, information
from generators must be used to identify
appendix Vffl constituents that may
contaminate the debris at detectable
levels; sampling and analysis is not
required.
(3) Cyanide reactive debris.
Contaminated debris that is reactive
because of cyanide must be treated for
cyanide. •., • •••
(4} Generic treatment technologies.
The owner or operator of a treatment
facility need not make determinations..
regarding the presence of contaminants
subject to treatment if the debris is
treated with a generic treatment
technology that will effectively treat all
contaminants. Generic treatment
technologies for particular debris
categories are identified in appendix XI
to this part 268.
(5) Inherently contaminated debris, (i)
Debris that is fabricated from metals
identified as D004^3011 and that
exhibits as fabricated the toxicity
characteristic under both the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure and
the Extraction Procedure is considered
to be inherently contaminated debris.
(ii) Inherently contaminated debris
must be treated in compliance with
paragraph (a)(l) of this section for other
contaminants subject to treatment.
Following such treatment, if the debris
continues to exhibit the toxicity
characteristic under both the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure and
the Extraction Procedure due to its
inherent content, it must be either
immobilized prior to land disposal in a
RCRA subtitle C facility or recycled as
provided in } 261.6(a)(3)(iv) of this
chapter. Inherently hazardous debris
that is not contaminated with other
contaminants subject to treatment may
be recycled as provided in
S 261.6(a)(3)(iv) of this chapter without
treatment under paragraph (a)(l) of this
section, or immobilized and disposed in
a RCRA subtitle C facility.
(c) Requirements to ensure effective
treatment Owners and operators of
contaminated debris treatment units
must comply with the performance
standards specified in appendix IX to
this part 268, in order for the debris to
be considered to meet the treatment
standards of this section.
(d) Conditioned exclusion of treated
debris. Contaminated debris that has
been treated.using one of the required
extraction or destruction technologies in
table 1 of this section and that does not
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous.
waste identified under subpart C, part
261, of this chapter after treatment is not
a hazardous waste. Contaminated ' -
debris contaminated with listed waste
• that is treated by an immobilization]
technology specified in table 1 is a
hazardous waste and may be managed
in a subtitle C facility only. •
Contaminated debris that exhibits a
characteristic identified in 40 CFR part
261 subpart C that exhibits a
characteristic after being treated by
such immobilization technology is a
hazardous waste and may be managed
in a subtitle C facility only.
(e) Treatment residuals. (1) General
requirements. Except as provided by
paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4) of this
section:
(i) Residue from the treatment of
contaminated debris is subject to the
F039 nonwastewater and wastewater
treatment standards under § 268.43 for
all contaminants subject to treatment
defined by paragraph (b) of this section
and for all constituents in appendix VIII,
part 261 of this chapter, that are added
to the debris or residue during
treatment; and
(ii) Residue from the deactivation of
contaminated debris that exhibits the
ignitability or reactivity characteristic of
§5 261.21 or 261.23 of this chapter,
respectively, must be deactivated prior
to land disposal.
(2) Nontoxic debris. Residue from the
deactivation of ignitable or reactive
characteristic contaminated debris that
is not contaminated with a contaminant
subject to treatment defined by
paragraph (b) of this section, must be
deactivated prior to land disposal and is
not subject to the F039,npnwa8.tewater
and wastewater treatment standards'
under 5 288,43. ;
(3) Cyanide-reactive debris. Residue
from the treatment of debris that is
reactive because of cyanide must meet
the F039 standards for D003 under
§268.43. . •.'•
(4) Ignitable nonwastewater residue.
Ignitable nonwastewater residue
containing equal to or greater than 10%
total organic carbon is subject to the
technology-based standards for D001:
"Ignitable Liquids based on 261.2i(a)(l)"
under § 268.42.
(5) Residue from spelling. Layers of
debris removed by spelling are
contaminated debris that remain subject
. to the treatment standards of this
section. •:...,..'>,*., ...
(6) Residue from thermal destruction.
Inert debris separated from the residue
• resulting from the thermal destruction of
contaminated debris that is not
contaminated with a metal contaminant
subject to treatment identified by
paragraph (b) of this section, is excluded
from regulation as hazardous waste
under § 261.3(et)(l) of this chapter.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No; 6 / Thursday, January; 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1023
TABLE 1.—DEBRIS TREATMENT STANDARDS
Contaminant category and treatment technology '
Halogenated Pesticide* and Aromatic* CCO1:
Extraction (EXTRC) » •
Abrasive blasting : : „....; _ _.
Acid washing ™.— .— „. ..
Electropofishing _._,;_—— ; Z.ZZZZZZZZ
Liquid phase solvent extraction . „
Scarification and grinding...: _; _ _
SpaHing - .. „;.. _
Thermal desorption ., ..... — —
Vibratory finishing "'
Vapor phase solvent extraction • .
Water washing and spraying' : ;
Destruction (DSTRC): - ' -
Biodegradation
Chemical oxidation...- . _ ZZZZZ!
Chemical reduction ;!.„„..
Photochemical treatment
Thermal destruction. — ......... .„ „,
Immobilization (IMMBL):
Macroencapsuiation _ „ • .
Microencapsulation '. „
Sealing „. . ' ..
Dioxins, Furans, and Their Precursors CCO2:
Extraction (EXTRC): ...
Abrasive blasting , „ .'. _ _ __
Acid washing _
Etoctroponshing
Liquid phase solvent extraction „. „ _ _
Scarification and grinding..-
Spalling.— _„ "
Thermal desorption ' • •
Vibratory finishing _
Vapor phase solvent extraction •"""'" :" -—••--
Water washing and spraying ...
Destruction (DSTRC): ... ., ' ""
Biodegradation
Chemical oxidation _...._'.; „ _
Chemical reduction _.—.—,— —:..•„„ — . .„..,. ""
Photochemical treatment _ '•
Thermal destruction
Immobilization (IMMBL):
Macroencapsulation
Microencapsuiation _ .
Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds CCO3:
Extraction (EXTRC):
Abrasive blasting
Acid washing .'. ZZZZZZZZZZ!"
Liquid phase solvent extraction
Scarification and grinding
Thermal desorption
Vibratory finishing _
Vapor phase solvent extraction — . ZZZZZZZ" '
Water washing and spraying ' """
Destruction (DSTRC): """" ""
Biodegradation
Chemical reduction
Photochemical treatment,.-.-. : , ™ZZ •
Thermal destruction - ' *
Immobilization (IMMBL): .. , . : "" " "" ' ',"
Macroencapsulation _ _ •
Microencapsulation .....—._
Sealing .; ..j— ,™ Z ' '. . r~" -
Nitrated Aromatic and Aliphatic Compounds CCO4- " '" "
Extraction (EXTRC): • . .
Abrasive blasting
Acid washing " " "
1 . Electropolishing... .
Liquid phase solvent extraction..., ZZZ ;
Scarification and grinding : '. "' """
Spailing ;. ZZZZZ •""""
• Thermal desorption : '. -ZZZZZZZZZZ '"
Debris category
Metal
objects
YES —
YES
YES...
YES
NO.
NO
YES _
YES
YES
YES-
YES......
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES -
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO „
YES
YES
YES
YES _.
YES
NO
NO. —
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
.NO.
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES.
YES
YES
YES
NO—
NO
YES
Brick,
concrete,
rock,
pavement
YES...
YES
NO
YES
YES ..
YES— :.
YES
YES
YES"
YES. .:
YES
YES
YES
YES.
YES
NO
NO
VFQ
YES..-,
YES
NO
YES —
YES
YES..
YES... .......
YES—
YES :
YES
NO
YES .'„.
YES. ...
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES ;.
YES :.
NO.....;
vcq
YES
YES ,
YES
YES —
YES :..„
YES .....
YES — ..__.;
YES
NO .........
NO ,.... ;.
YES........
NO.
NO
YES _
YES
NO
YES
YES :.
YES
YES ..„.„.„
Glass
YES...
YES-
NO
YES-
NO
YES...
YES—
YES-
YES...
YES-
YES...
YES-
YES...
YES-
NO
NO
YES-
YES—
YES-
NO......
YES-
NO—
YES...-
YES— .
YES-
YES...
YES—
YES
YES-
YES—
ypc
NO ..—
NO
YES
YES...
YES-
NO
YES
NO
YES—
vce
YES
YES
YES
YES-
YES—
YESZ
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES—
NO
YES
YES
Wood
YES-
YES...
NO
YES-
YES—
YES™
YES™
YES—
YES...
YES...
NO......
NO.
NO......
YES..,.
*Nn
NO
NO— -
YES-
YES™
NO
YES.-:.
YES-..J
NO. —
YES—
YESJ^
YESi-.
YES...
NO
NO.
NO......
YES.U3.
NO
NO
NO
YES—
YES.....
NO..:..
YES.;.T
YES-
NO—
YES
YES
YES-
YES—
YES—
NO...;..;
NO—-
YES.™
NO— ...
NO.
NO.—.
YES
YES...:
NO
YES—
YES™.
NO
YES
Paper,
doth
NO
YES
NO ...
YES
NO ...
YES.... ..
NO
YES ;..
YES.
YES
NO..
NO
NO.
NO_— :•_;
NO:— ...:.-.
NO......
YES.— .
NO' .
NO— .....
YES
NO
YES— :—
YES™ ,
NO..-;i
NO;.— ..—
NO....;.
YES :-
NO.— -.1
NO ....:.:
NO— :..... -
NO
YES
NO.— ....
YES :..
No!ZZt
YES— .-...
NO-
YES...
YES-
YES .....;,-
YESZZ-
NO-:
NO.:— ......
NO
NO...
YES'..™™
NO—
YES
NO—.— :
NO
YES
Rubber,
plastic
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
•YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
-------
1024
{federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 3 J Tfousday, lanuary fl» 19§2 /.
Rules
•TABLE 1.
•£
Contarrcnam category and treatment technology '
Vapor phase advert extraction r
D&fftjction (DSTRQ:
PttotochOTvcal UiftUiiMU - . .. ... .. .,,.,,-,-«-«...«...-.. ..tn-rtt-.-r-,-.- .--T--I — r-i-
TfyYTT^y ri01tflK*flhVl i •» 1-T---1--1I-- irji— ---i
krtrnobUiza&in 4U4MBU:
Noo^otef Aromijfcs. Hofoaocydot, and Otter C*i«nte Compound* CCQ5:
Extraction {BOBC): .
Atxvuvfl btefttttQ ,....«. „..„..."! --,. ---, -n-n--
EtectropottNofljjL .. , -, -- -> ...-,, .^.,-i-n —
LJouid otiAVfr votvofit oxtrsction •
Scarification find orintfog . <•< - ^ ....!.., ,..,--.
SpnMing , "...., „,..,.,.,.. ,.„...., , -,~L , ,„ LMLM..L .,.w.i.-.-.--.-M-i
Vibratory fWehing :
Vapor phase solvent extraction . ;
Water w&tHng and spraying ,,,,.ni , —
Destruction (DSTRC):
CtMKTVoa) r"W»tk>n
Ct>e>mlcal r*tfuctkxi ' • '
Photoehomteal trMtmarrt— ,.,,,,,,-•.---,-,• ....,-. ,,, .,
Thorrnal rJotjtruc^ort
trwnobitealion (IMMBQ:
SotJifK)
Potynuctoor AromaJfes CCOft
Extraction (EXmCO: ,
AbruJw W*iitJno,u.UiJJU - - -., i........,.,.,.,. . . , , ,--,,,! —
Ac*iw.vrt*^ _. , ,, ,---
EloctropolfchtoQ.. T r i i
LJouid phase) sotvont extraction .».....U...»»...».MH.«...«.....»H*.HH..*M..U..««.«H»»»M< ...«
SpftHinn _ , v..r.
Thermal doftofption-- ,, , , ,, ,, , n - ,.-,•>, ,--, — i
Vibratory finishing
Vapor pfULts sotv^rt extraction «VK— ««•«««•———»•»»«••» ™.^»«««.«.««*«,...«.~...— «.
Wftisr wttitjinfl and Bpraying » ,,,„., „.. „ ....,..,.,..„. .r, ,.,.,.., . --,„ --,-, -
Dtctruction {OSTRQ:
BJorf»y»tta^oo. .«.„.,.., „„ ;,.,..., .,,..,.,... .,..,,„.,....,.„-., ,-,„„,-,- , ,-,--
Chomtcal cxWation i i . -^ i..
Chvmicnl mkxrtton
Ptxvtorfwm^caJ frtttrrhwrt L ., .... ... n .,.,.,..,.
Thermal dntTTXTtton '
immobazation JtUUBU:
Microflnca|>fliilallonr - n ', ^ T-
Other r*xvHatoger«lod Polar Organic Compound* CCQ7:
Brtradion (EXIHC):
Abrasr/e btastinQ
Acid wa*Wftg, , .. , ,
fT#ctrrjpolithinrj, ,, „ , ,--,
ScarHicaltofi and odnd^ig. .•--.. n _._..........
Sftffinfl--. ,, , , - , , , ,„,„„..„., „„.,.,„.,.,-,
ThatmaJ d*florptfef> , .......'.. ,...„„.„..,..„„
Vapor phasa advent extraction -~ .— «.«.»....... ... — -«.
Water WQeNng and upraying . *, . .. . :
Dettruction (DSTRC): ' "• "
BJodogradation . .... ..
Chwmlctl wWatten. ,,,,^,. ,„„.,„„ ... ,'.,.,„ ,,,„.„„„„ ,---
O>»mfcal rndinkm , , ,. , , , ,;..',
PfiotochamSoU treatmerrt ,-,--,,-, , „,, , , ,..,., „..,„„..„ ,-^
Thermal *»s£ructioo._ .„ .„ „_ _ __ . .. , J.i_
Debrls category
Metal
objects
YES -..
YES
YES .. .
Y£S..i ',
YES ,
NO ..._„_
NO ,
YES '.
NO ™
NO.,.,,,.,,... ,.„,
YES
YES —,.
YES _
YES... ._.. .......
YES
NO._. .__..,
NO „
YES,
YES
YES
(C5t»«*M«u*»**>*
ypp 4
YES
NO..,,.,.,,
NO
YES
NO .
NO
YES
YES .~
YES —_™.
YES
YES
NO _.
NO, „„„.,,—
YES
YES
YES
YES ~
YES
NO— ——•.••—
NO ™.~
YES
NO
NCL_.~ .~
YES —
YES.
NO
YES.-
YES
NO ....
NO
YES
YES . . .. _
YES
YES.-
YES-..
YES
NQ_
MO
rnJU*H. .»,».*«*
YES..*™
Brick, .
concrete, *• '
rock.
pavement
YES..._ f.
YES,-.
YES....- ..,
YES . ....,
YES . H
NO ..._..—..,
NO_._..._...~
YES
NO
NO _—._..
YES._ -
YES !
YES_~™..i-,
NO--.^...-^..,
YES
YES.-,.....
YES ; ,
YES'.««»«Mt~'*.
YES—.—i-i
YES.. i™....
YES_
YES——,,,,
YES— ;
NO !ZH,
YES-™.
'NO -... i
.NQL™.
YES . ......
YES.
•YES^ _- .
NO
YES..-
YES-
YES - -
YES ....
YES - ™
YES. —
.YES;.-.,---
.YES
YES.— .
NO
YES™.—-™
NIp)*uu*u *M •**•»«
NO
YES
YES.
NO
NO.
YES— _ ..
YES.
YES-— —
YES .
YES- —
YES..—
YES
YES
YES..-— .— .
MO— — ..
.NO.—,.-
YES..-.
Glast
VES.....
YES
YES
YES..-.
VESu-j
NO™.- ,•
4O
YES....,
NQ.^-4
NQ__i
YES-
YES....
YES™.
NO
YES
NO
YES,-.
YES.-.
VES™.
YES-
YES,.-
YES.-
^dES**-»
NOr-_
NO~~~
; YES-
MO—
ftf>
YES-
YES—
YES-
NO
YES..7
NO—
YES-
YES—
YES-
YES...
YES.-
YES-
XES
NO —
NO-
YES—
m—
.wa—
YES-
YES.-
NO..-
N0t~.
YES.-.
NO-
YES-
YES,_
•YE8._
YES-
YES—
YESL
•*ea_
NO —
NO™
YES-
Wood
Y€S._
YES.-^
YES.
YES.^i
«Q —
NO.
NO. —
YES-,
HOL-.
«3
Np__;
YES-j
YES-*
NO-
YES—
YES.-.
Ntt.-.,
YES—
yes—
YES-
YES.-,
YES.J
*4Q_.
NO-
NO —
YES_
^NQ —
WO..-
NO
.YES-
YES—.
NO —
YES—
YESi-
NQ—
YES-
YES—
YES-
YES—
YES..
MO
NO-
NO-
TPcSm-
MQ
NO —
NO-^.
YES-
MO
NO
vp$
YES-
Na._
YES-
V£S_
YES-
YES—
YES..
NO— _
NO —
NO —
YES-
Paper,
cloth
NO ,-
YES ,
YES
y£S—
JO,..—
-MO«— i
NO
YES —
AIO— — — i
NO
«JO ,
•NO
VES——;
MO____
YES
NO
MO— ^— ,
YES....... .'
NO.-. i
YES™ ...
VES — ^
YES- ;— i
J4O— — ~-
MO,
NO, 1
*e$ — __
wo — *
*»_.- — j
NO-
NO
YES-,
*KJ.^
VES
MO
WH-u,- ,
YES
-NO™ _
YES.-. -,
•yea^—
VES,.:-...
NO—
*4O
NO^.
VES-:— .
IH0 ,-
,NO-._—
NO
NO.
;NO
MO
YES
MO.
NO—-
YES
.NO
*ES--~
JffiS
YES— .
MO
MO
NO
ves —
Rubber,
plastic
YCS
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
.NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
VES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
m
NO
YES
NO
VES
NO
NO
YES
YES .
¥ES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
VES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
-------
Federal Register / .Vol; 57, No; 6 / qfrureday, January- 9, 11*92 ;/: Proposed Rules
1025
TABLE 1.—DEBRIS TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
Contaminant category and treatment technology «
Immobilization (IMMBL):
Macroencapsulation
, Microencapsulation
Sealing .. •
Non-Volatile Metals CC08: '"T" ~
Extraction (EXTRC): ,
Abrasive blasting . .' "
Add washing Z_~ " •'"" "'""' """""
Etectropolishing ; „ __. ; ZZ!!_"""'"'"""~' '"'
Liquid phase solvent extraction - ". -•—— :— .
Spelling ' "" "
Thermal desorption — ..— -.; !Z !- - — — - ....——.
Vibratory finishing— -—„-——. ; ~" ———-—--
Vapor phase solvent extraction . ~ " :—••••"•—-. •;••;
Water washing and spraying ™ ""' .-•••~":-."'"--.-r"-""T— .*'
Destruction (DSTRC): 7"'~ "7"™: •'
Biodegradation... - ' ' .
Chemical oxidation. - • . "'•'
Chemical reduction «._— . r~-.r~r
Photochemical treatment :_-..._ ~ ""'•'" '.'"~"~'.™~ ~"~ .""•;
Immobilization (IMMBL): , '"""" """"' r-"7"~
Macroencapsulation.: _._•. • • • • • ...''•'
Mtcroencapsulation „ • "" . . ....—,,
Volatile Metals CC09: "'"'" ' •"""" "'" •-••— —-.———.—.—
Extraction (EXTRC):
Abrasive blasting
Acid washing • . ' T:.——
Electropolishing _____ ~ '" " " "'" — :
Liquid phase solvent extraction ^ III.—!-"-!!."!--"' " "T7~
Scarification and grinding-.- . - • ;._"_ '•"•' " ————.——..
SpaUing . _Z!!ZZZ "" ~" • "~~~~~~~
Thermal desorption „• ~. ~~'~- ~" ~ "~~ '
Vibratory finishing • ' • : 7""7°"~~"° "~
Vapor phase solvent extraction •. IT. .'- —-—••- • .-- .— _.
Water washing and spraying _. , .-- • •"• -• -• ^"""l\,-T"
Destruction (DSTRC): '."",' " .."""--^vtr^v".
Biodegradation .- . -...., ."":..:•.•*•/
Chemical oxidation ~ T7~: — "~""
Chemical reduction . ; —.—."!! ~~" '""^'"7-"'
Photochemical treatment - " • TT^^r-"*
Thermal destruction ' '" .
ImmobiSzation (IMMBL): . "~ ' 7"' '—
Macroencapsulation „ . •.."."
Microencapsulation «.— _—_""" " ,—..—.-—„.-
Sealing... _.„.„- .- ~~~" — TT— -~r»
Non-Metal Inorganics CC10: • "". ' " 7. '""."' — "
i Extraction (EXTRC): -. - . . . . . . , .
Abrasive blasting... •,
Etectropofehing : ; __^ :^~ "7 :~~
Liquid phase solvent extraction ... • • "~"
Scarification and grinding .-. : _„_ '' "~ '
Spading—— —.———_.._—!."— ~"*"~" . ~7 "•••-••••••— —.-,—-
Thermal desorption.J ___T"'°- ' " " " " ' rv™ —
Vibratory finishing L __ ~'""~ ."
Vapor phase solvent extraction _.!!!! !„"! ~ 1 —
Water washing and spraying . " "
Destruction (DSTRC): .. 7 ' 77""
- Biodegradation. ; _, „.- ___. . . . .'-•'<•''•'
Chemical oxidation — — — — —_ „„
Chemcal reduction ... "" — "•
Photochemical treatment.... — !!_— !1'!_— — .!! : " — '""
Thermal destruction; . „ • • "'""""' ••—••-"— - • ——..—.
Immobilization (IMMBL): " " . " V V" — ': """ — r —
Macroencapsulation .- „ '....'..•
Microencapsulation .-..' " " .'
Sealing " " '. —
. Debris category
. Metal
objects
.NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES—
NO
NO-
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO- -
NO...'.
NO—
YES .-_._ i
YES-
YES
YES-;
YES —
YES ;
NO— —"I
NO
YES
NO ...
. YES—;
NO
NO
NO-:
NO..; — ...—
NO
YES. .....
YES— — —
YES
YES.
NO
YES
YES
NO-
NO
NO-
YES ;
NO-
YES
YES"-!— .!!!.".
NO
NO.
YES
NO _
NO.
NO...
Brick,
concrete,
rock,
pavement
NO — ,
YES—
YES— ..;—
YES....... „•
NO
YES— ;
YES— _.
YES,
YES .
NO -—
YES.......
NO™. „
NO
NO-
NO. ...
YES™,
YES -
YES—. ::
YES
YES _.-
NO
YES ...............
YES..!—!!."
-YES .
YES
NO . ™
YES— .—
NO
NO —
NO— !!.!!—!
NO. -
YES.—:
YES."!. "!—!!!!!
YES.— '.-_.
NO ,
NO. :
YES—;.-
YES :
YES_-._—
YES?— — I!
NO ...... ;. ..
YES——.
rEs!!— !!!.!..:.
NO...!. I!!!!!!!!!!
NO
YES
4O. — —
NO..
NO ;
Glass
NO-
NO...
YES..
YES-
YES-
NO
YES..
YES™
NO-
YES-
NO;...
YES-
NO-
NO--
NO
NO-
NO—
YES-
YES-
YES-
YES...
YES-
NO
YES.::
NO-
YES—
Ntt—
YES-
NO—
YES-
NO--
NO —
NO-
NO—
NO-
YES—
YES
YES-
YES—
NO
NO
YES-
NO—.
YES,..-
NO-
YES—
NO,.
YES--.
JO. .
YES--
NO-
NO.:
YES
NO. —
NO
NO
Wood
NO-
NO-
NO—
YES-
YES-.
NO-
YES-
YES-
NO-
NO—
YES-
NO—
YES-
NO—
.1 NO......
NO-
NO-
YES-
NO-
NO-
NO—
YES...
YES-
NO
YES-
YES^.
NO-
NO-
YES™
NO-
YES—
No!™7
NO!!!!!
YES-
NO.
NO
NO.
YES—
«X_~
YES'Z!
YES-
NO.......
4O-—
YES--
NO-™.
YES—
-------
1026
Federal Regster j VoL S7, No. 6 /Thursday, January 9. 1992 /Proposed Rules
4 Qxjmical reduction ol hexavatent chromium coataminaiad dabrUito BOAT.
• Add washiag b not BOAT for arsenic cortaminated debris.
TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC CONSTITUENTS FOR EACH COMTAMIMANT CATEGORY
Contaminant category
Description of contaminant category
Constituent
CAS No.
120-82-1
.90-97-3
72-54-8
72-65-9
HaJog«rwt*d PntcMn and Aromatic*. CC01:
Halogenalod Non-Potar Aromatic Compounds
HtJogenatod Phsnols, Cresob, and Other Polar Aromatics:
Hatoatnalod Cyclic ASphaticx Ethers. Estats, «nd Ketones:
Chlorinated benzenes. N.O.S.'
CMorobonzerw
CWorobenjUate
twIa-CWoronaphthaJeno
o^Dichlorobenzene
m-DtchJorobenzene—
p-Dlchtorobenzene. ...
DteWorobanzene, N.O.S.*
OichtoroprionylarsJno
Haxachlorobdnzone..
Hexsctitorophene....
Chlorinated napthatene, N.O.S.'
ParrtacMorobenzane
1,2,4,5-Tetracnlorobenzene
1&4-Trfchtorobenzene
B0nzal chloride...».»«
p.p'-OOO .._„.._.
p,p'-DOE _
p;p'-KTT_
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
1-{o-CtUoropherty1)tWoufea
Benzotrichkxlde..._
Banzyl chloride...
Heptachlor _
54S-73-1
MXM6-7
£5321-22-6
6fl6-2&-«
1tt-74-1
70-^0-4
Chlortnated phenol, N.O.S.* ..........
p-ChtoroanKrw *...*....
o-CMorophenol...
3.y-Dichkxobenzic1ne _______ ...................
2,W»cWcropnenol
Parrtachloropheool
2,3,4.6-TetTBChtoropheno)
2i4.5-Trichlorophonol
2i4,6-Trichtorophenol
p-Chkxo-m-cresol
Walhoxychkx
4-Bromophenyl phony) ether ......
ParrtachJoronJtrobenzena
3-Chtofopropionftr8e — ....
ACetyl chloride..-.,
A»y1 cMorlde --------
Bromoacotone
Chloral _____________
Chlorambocil...
ChloroacetaWehyde
Crtloromethyl methyl other,
Chkxopreoa..
Endosulfan....,—
Epfchlorohydrln...,
Flooroacstamide,
Fluoroacetic add. sodium salt..,
Melphalan...
Methyl chlorocarbonate
Methyl kxfide
Mustard gas ,
Nitrogen mustard..
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide
Nitrogen mustard, hydrochloride saK.....!™™™!!!^
Nitrogen mustard. N-Oxide. hydrochloride saH
Propylene dlchkxide
UracB mustard
Aramlte.
AMrin —
JJndene
CWcxdaaB
CWoroalXyl ethers,-N.O.S.
Endt
60-57-t
72-20-e
-------
Federal Register / Vot. 57, No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
1027
TABtE 2.—SPECtFIC CONSTITUENTS FOR EACH CONTAMINANT CATEGORY—Continued
Contaminant category
Dioxins. Furmna, and Their Precursors, CC02:
Dioxins/Furans. and Ttxsir Precursors:
Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds. CC03:
Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds:
Description of contaminant category
Constituent
Endrin motabottes
Heptachtor •poxkto 1024-57-3
loodnn 465-73-6
Kapor» 143-50-0
8001—35—2
2-Chkxoathyl vinyl ether !....!.ZZZZZ!Z! 110-75-8
BNa-cbloroethoxyDmettiane !..!!!'!'!! 111-91-1
Ks(2-chtoH»«hyl)e8Mf
Bia(2-Chlow»opcopyl)«to8r 108-60-1
Dichkxomethy) ether „ 542-88-1
109—06-8
4-Aminopyridin9. ™..!!!!!!ZZ!ZZZ!!Z!!Z! 504-24-5
1402-68-2
61-82-5
QP—ft7 1
Bruoine !!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 357-57-3
Cyctopho«pharpide ZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!! 50-18-0
Dihydrosafcole 94-58-6
Hi* 1- f* *" *«">
***oayan c. ___..._ 50-O7-7
r«*roao«»rnic<*«,— ::::: ^3.55-8
930-55-2
1325ft—2?—9
Nicotina 54 11 K ~
Nicotine salts ZZZZZ
O.O-Diethy) O-pyrazlnyl phosphorothioate 297 07-2
c-Tofuidine
mtacfctoBde... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
103-85-5
Saccharin sak»_
Stry(9wiip» 57-24-9
Strychnin* smto__M 9
Trypan bkw
Warfarin (<0^%) B1_61 ,
Warfarin (>0.3%> ZZZZZZ 81-81-2
Waifarin salts (
-------
1028 Federal Register /; Vol. 67. No, 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Ifolea
TABLE 2.— SPECIFIC CONSTITUENTS FOR EACH CONTAMINANT CATEGORY— Continued . .
Contaminant category
Nitrated Aromatic and Aliphatic Compounds. CC04:
titrated Aromatic and Aliphatic Compounds:
Non-Polar Aromatics. Halwocydes, and Other Organic Compounds,
Non-Polar Aromatics, Heterocyctes, and Other Organic Com-
pounds: • "...
• Description of contaminant category
- , • Constituent
1.1,2^-Tstrachloroethw.;
Tutrachtoroetheoe.. „_......,_.._. _
Dfornofbrrn .. . «
Methyl cHototocm .
. 1i1,2-TricMoro4BwMi ^_~^..._..'..._...;....._
TilchtofOoUiytofU) * m,,T
TricWoraawnoaucromatharM
TrichloropropaM N.O.S,* .
1 ;2^-TrichkxoproparM ...;.....
Vmyl chlorito__.....
Hasachlorobutadtsoe-...-.-..
HsxachtoroothflfK) '„ .. • * ./. •
Tris(2,3-difarornopropyf}pnosphaie ..........
2-CyctolK«yM,6-dinfrophenol —
2-Nitn>proparie «... t-« «.
Diethyl-p-nitropheny) phosphate .....
Dknethylcarbamoyl chloride. _,
MNNG ...... : „
Cyanogen ..'.'..*,.,:...!...-.. . .:
Cyanogen bromkJe._..._...__ . ...
Cyanogen chlorfde,wn»U-^«.....w..,...— »
Dinoseb'.. ..;„" Mi™; ''^..'.'.; _..,.„._
4,6-Dinftro-o-cr«3Ol J.'^i.u_i i.._;.........
2.4-OWtrotoliien» • ._.
54^Hro<)-tolo««neZrZ'™-!ir.Ip!";ZZZ!'
Methyl paratt-ion ;.v.™.:y..~.....~...'.
P^WroaniSn^: «w™™i-7^-~.~.._v..
Nitrobenzene. ».......n»m.'J.w. Ji..««».«»»'«
• [Deleted: -2-Nifntpropanai .'. ; —
7,12-Oimethy8>«ra(a)anthracene ,.
8enzoCi]fluoraiithen0.V..::_- _
Citrus red No. 2.: _. _. _
OibenzofeQpyrene .'
7H-Dibenzo(c,g)cafba2ol8_....
BonzCcla^ridirMi..: — ^..i.,.^. — _„
Oib8nz(a,h)acrkSne^.l.-^™.....;....
D3)ertz(aj)acrl*ib L....V....... ...:...
Nitrosamfnes, N:O.S.* ;.l-:. ';.
Coal tar creosote. ._....".......» .;.
Toluene — — ...4. ;..,;. „ <.
PyridirtB.«.......!.;«..' . . * '
Bonzena
1,1-Dimathylhydrazine ..;.._
1.2:3,4-Oicpoiybut«n«..............
1,2-Dfm« ,-.;•••••:
• «--
' '
-......;..; ...: .•: _
:
• • ' •.
: ' ' ' ;
....,.....r...,.;r.i..:.T.!.,.,.. , ,r,...
•'• • ': •' .
DiethyteStbesterol...... 1 . - .
.. CAS No.
79-34-5
127-18-4
75-25-2
71-65-6
78H01-6 .
75-69-4
96-18-4
75-01-4
87-66-3
67-72-1 .
76-01r7.
99-35r4
'131-89-5
79-46-9
311-45-5
79-44-7
55-63-Q
509-14-8
460-19-5
.506-68-3
506-77-4
88-85-7
534-52-1
51-28-6
121-14-2
606-20-2
99-:55-8 .
296-00-0
25154^-54-5.
100-01-6
96-95-3
100-02-7
79-46-9
57-97-6
205-82-3
6358-53-8
189-64:0
189-55-9
494-03-01
194-59-2 :
225-51-4
226-36-8 1
224-42-0
35576-91-JO
80Q7-42-2
108-88-3
120^58^1
94-59-7 ;
110-86-1
71-43-2
57-14-7
1464-53-5
540-73-8
75-55-6
591-08-2
75-86-5
116^06-3
122-09-8
86-88-4
115-02-6
131,9-77-3
14901-08-7
56-53-1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 19H2 / Proposed Rules
1029
TABLE 2.—Speanc CONSTITUENTS FOR EACH CONTAMINANT CATEGORY—Continued
Contamioanl category
Description of contaminant category
Polynuctea/ Atomatics, CC06.
Potyrtuclear Aromatics:
Constituent
| CAS No.
Diisopropyffluorophoaphate (DFP) | 55-91-4
Dimethoate- 60-51-5
Dimethyl sutitte 77-78-1
Ditniowuret ;; ;; 541-53-7
Endothal 145-73-3
Eptnephrine _ 51-43-4
Ethyl carbamata (urethane) . 51-79-6
Ethyl metlwnMuitonate ]... 62-50-0
Ethyiene glycoi monootfiyl ether 110-80-5
Ethyienebitdilhiocaftamic acid 111 -54-6
Ethytenebisdrthiocaibamie acid, salts and esters ZZZZ! —
Ethyteneimine 151-56-4
Ettjytererthtourea 96-45-7
Formaldehyde 50-00-0
Formic acid— _ I 64-18-6
GlyticMaldehyd*.- 765-34-4
Hexaethyt tetraphosphate 757-58-4
M«Wc anhydride , 08.3! _Q
Matefc hydrazide 123-33-1
Malonooitrito _ 109-77-3
tteshocnyl ^ 6752-77-5
Malhyt ethyl ketone peroxide " " 1338-23-4
Methyl hydnmn* 60-34-4
Meftytwocyanale _ !ZZ!Z 624-83-9
Methytthiouracil i 55-04-2
N.N'-Otett^hydr«z»» Z.ZT 1615-80-1
N-Nitroso-N-att^ure. _ : | 759-73-9
N-Nitroeo-*-nw«hylurea 684-93-5
N-Nitrosc-N-methykjfethane 615-53-2
N-Nitrosodiethanolarairw _..."".!"~Z 1116-54-7
N-Nitrosomethylvinytamine ]. 4549-40-0
n-Propylarain«, ".™Z~!Z!~~™™_~~" 107-10-8
O.O,O-Trt«hyl phoaphorothioate 126-68-1
O.O-Diethyt S-««hyld!thiophosphate I 3288-58-2
Octanwthrtjyrophosphoramide | 152-16-9
ParaWehyde 123-63-7
Phenytenedtmnine _ 25265-76-3
Propargyl alcobol 107-19-7
PropyttWowacil 51-52-5
Reserpine — 50-55-5
Streptozototin 18883-66-4
Tetraattiyl pyrophosptwte ZZZZZZ.Z! 107-49-3
Tetwettiyldrthiopy«)pho«phate 3689-24-5
ThsoacatomWs 62-55-5
ThiomethanoL 74-93-1
ThtoMmiortjazkto _ 79-19-6
Thtoure* 62-56-6
Thjrani _ _ _ 137-26-8
Toluene daaocyanato , 26471-62-5
2,4-Toluenediamine .. 95-80-7
2.6-Toluenedianww 823-40-5
3,4-Toluen«d8aniine 495 72 o
Totuenedtoin. ZZZZZZZZ 25376-45-8
Tns(1 -aandmyljphoaphirw sulfide „ 52-24-4
1.3-Prppane sultone _ ZZZZ 1120-71-4
5-(Aminometnyl)-3-«oxazolol _ 2763-96-4
Aura/nine ZZZZ"" 492-80-8
Oaunomycin 20830-81-3
Lasiocarpine 303-34-1
Phosgene ZZZZZ 75-44-5
Selenourea _ 630-10-4
Thtofanox ZZZZZZZZZZZZ 39196-t8-4
Benz(a)anttvaceo« 56-55-3
Benzo(b)f(uoranthene 205 99 2
:.:z:z:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 50-32-8"
| 218_01_9
53^70 3
, 92-65-4
Fluoranthene " ' 206-44-O
lndeno{1.2.3-cd)pyreoe._ _....ZZ" 193-39-5
Methapyriteoe
3-Methylcholanthfene
NapWhalene 91 203
Dichkxophenytarsine ZZZZZZZ" 696-28-6
Aluminum phosphide-.^— 20859 73-8
Ammonium van«data4_..._ ZZZZZZZ" 7803-55-6
-------
1030
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1992
TABLE 2.—Specific CONSTITUENTS FOR EACH CONTAMINANT CATEGORY—Continued
Contaminant category
Description of contaminant category
Constituent
.CAS No.
Other Nonhalogenatad Polar Organic Compounds, CC07-
Otlw Noohalogenatod Polar Organic Compounds:
Non-Volatile MotaJj, CC03:
NojvVotatfla Metal*:
Berjzene&raonic flfffi V - • • - 96-^)5-5
CacodyKc add '. : ...» '. 75-60-5 '
Dteihylartkw...i._.. : ~~ .! 692-42-2
Otrnium telroxide.... .'. ..~.. 20816-12-0
TetraaUry) load J .'...... ',.'.'. 78^00-2
2-AMlylaminofloorene •. ; 53-96-3
Acrytomkte ^ _ _ : ,'. 79-06-1
4-Amlnoblphonyl... „ ,..„ 92-67-1
AIM alcohol ;_ _ -.,. 107r18-6
AnSne.._ _ .,. 62-53-3
3,3'.Dimothoxybenzidine _ « 119-90-4
p^fmetnylaniinoazobenzene , .............. 60-11-7
3,3'-Oimethyfben7knd(«utfide__. : „ 75-15-0
Ethyl methactytate _ 97-63-2
laobutyl alcohol ...i '78-83-1
Ethylane ocdda ..-. - 75-21-8
Thiophenol ,-~..^ ~t .'- ,......_., ~~ ~ , 106-98-5
Methyl otnyl ketorw .;„.....-. - .~ 78-93^3
Methyl methacrytato _ .,. - - — 80-62-6
Mejhyl metnanesuHonate , _. 66-27-3
Acatophonooe. „ '- _ ~ 98-86-2
p-Benzoqt^none - - -* -~ 1.06-51-4
BJa!2-ethythexy))phtha!ato '. _ ..... 117-81-7
Butytoenzyl prrthalate..... - 85-68-7
PhthaKc add esters, N.O.S.* : —
Dtethjrl phthttats....;. 84-66-2
Dimethyl phthalate .' i. 131-11-3
Di-n-butyt pntnalata '. ;...-.. 84-74-2
Di-ivoctyl phthalate 117T84-0
1,4-Naphthoquinone.- _ 130-15^4
Acotonitnle.! '.... - 75-05-8
Acrytonttrite _ 107-13-1
Ethyl cyanide 107-12-0
Melhacrylonitrile... .'. .'. 126-98-7
DisuHoton : _ 298-04-4
Fampour '.', I ;. .'. 52-85-7
Phorate._ _ : _ :.'. : 298-02-2
Phfhalic anhydride .-. 85-44-9
1,4-Oiethyteneoxkle _.. 123-91-1
Pronamide _ „.. 23950-58-5
Phonyknercufy acetate i t 62-38-4
Barium ....„ : .„„.... 7440-39-3
Bariuni compounds, N.O.S.* ;:..».......'..,.1 .'...»..»..»*...» •• • • • -i-
Barium cyanide : _ ......: ; ^.; : 542^^2-rl
Beryllium , •. 7440-41-7
Beryllium compounds, N.O.S.* ;. « . —
Calcium chromate. » «. ; —
Chromium compounds, N.O.S.* ; —
Chromium (total) 744b-t47-3
Cobalt , '„ „ '. 7440-48-4
Copper. : :. 7440-50-8 •
Copper cyanide i... ; ;. .:. 544-92-3
Mangancn*........:.....=..•„....... : „ .-....:. 7439-96-5
Nickel . .;„ „ _ j 7440-02-0
Nickel compounds, N,OS." - —
Silver. _..:{, ,.., 7440-22-4
SiWer compounds, N.CfS.* :...•. —
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1031
, TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC CONSTITUENTS FOR EACH CONTAMINANT CATEGORY—Continued
Contaminant category
Volatile Metals. CC09:
Volatile Metals:
Non-Metal Inorganics, CCIft
Non-Metal Inorganics:
Description of contaminant category
Constituent
Carbon oxyfluoride
Vanadium _„
Nickel carbonyl '.'
Nickel cyanide .-.
Silver cyanide
Vanadium pentoxide
Antimony
Antimony compounds, N.O.S.*
Arsenic
Arsenic compounds, N.O.S.*
Arsenic acid
. Arsenic pentoxide
Arsenic trioxide
Bismuth
Cadmium
Cadmium compounds, N.O.S.*
Lead
Lead compounds, N.O.S.*
Lead acetate .....
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate
Mercury
Mercury compounds, N.O.S.*
Mercury fulminate
Selenium
Selenium compounds, N.O.S.*
Selenium sutfkte
Selenium dioxide
Thallium : "
Thallium oxide
Thallium acetate
Thallium carbonate
ThaHtum chloride ,
ThalHum nitrate-
Thallium Betenite.'™..
Thallium sulfate :
Thallium compounds, N.O.S.'
Zinc
Zinc cyanide..
Zinc phosphide
Cyanides. N.O.S.*
Hydrazine
Nitric Oxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Phosphine —
Radtonudktes
Strontium suffide
Sodium cyanide
Calcium cyanide
Hydrogen cyanide
Fluorine
Hydrogen fluoride _ _ .
Hydrogen sulfide
Potassium cyanide
Potessium silver cyanide.
The abbrevation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members of a general class not specifically listed by name in this table.
CAS No.
353-50-4
7440-6-2
13463-39-3
557-19-7
506-64-9
1314-62-1
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7776-39-4
1303-28-2
1327-53-3
7440-69-9
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
301-04-2
7446-27-7
1335-32-6
7439-97-6
628-86-4
7778-49-2
7488-56-4
7783-OO-8
7440-28-0
1314-32-5
563-68-8
6533r-73-9
7791-12-0
10102-45-1
.12039-5-0
7446-18-6
7440-66-6
557-21-1
1314-64-7
57-12-5
302-01-2
10102-43-9
10102-44-0
7803-51-2
1314-96-1
143-33-9
592-01-8
74-90-8
7782-«1-4
7664-39-3
7783-06-4
151-50-8
506-61-6
25. In subpart D, § 268.46 is added to
read as follows:
§ 268.46 Alternative treatment standards
based on HTMR.
(a) Table 1 identifies alternative
treatment standards for F006 and K062
nonwastewaters.
-------
1032
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. ft-/ Thursday. January 9. 1992 / ProposedRules
. TABLE!.—ALTEnf.iA-nyETREATMENTSTAfajAflos
Waste oxto
F006' Sea Abo Tabto CCWE in 26941 wdT«WoCCWh26843 ., , .'. ,„,... ,v... .,,.,..
KOC2; S»« Also Tabte CCWE in 268.41 «* TeMe CCW in 268 43_. .. ' ' .'
Regulated huzorttoua
constituent
AntiiDony «
Arsenic
Barium. „
Beryllium.......... _„».......».....
Cadmium . . . .«
Cyanide (Total) (mg/kg)
Lead „
Nickel
Selenium .
Silver.'
Thallium „ „
Vanadium — .
2tfx; fftttft -mM M u,
Antimony ................. .
Arsenic
Barium „ .............
Beryllium
Cadmium .^..W«.«..H..WH«»»..»<.H..
Chromium (Total) „............._..
Lead...'. _.-.-. .'.~_.
Mercury . ... .
Nickel.' _
Selenium ».p
Silver -,
ThaHium M».»...«......'.*...^...
Vanadium ..,..._
Zinc _
CAS No. lor
regulated
hazardous
constituent
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
Non-
wastewater
concentre-
"W*
2.1
0.055
7.6
.0.014
0.19
O33
1.8
0.37
0.009
6.0
0.16
0.30
0.078
0.23
5.3
2.1
0.055
7.6
• 0.014
0.19
0.33
0.37
0.009
5.0
0.16
0.30
0.078
0.23
6.3
26. In § 288.50 paragraphs (aXl) and
(u)(2) Inlroductory text are revised to •
read as follows:
§268.50 Prohibitions on sior*g« of
restricted waste*. ' ' •
(a) * ' '
(l) A generator stores such wastes in
tanks, containers, containment buildings
or subpart X storage units on-site solely
for the purpose of the accumulation of
such quantities of hazardous waste as
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal and the generator
complies with the requirements in
5 262.34 and parts 264 and 265 of this
chapter.
(2) An owner/operator of a hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility stores such wastes in tanks,
containers, containment buildings, or
subpart X storage units solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal and:
• » • • •
27. In part 268, appendices IX and X
uru added to read as follows:
Appendix IX Requirements for Effective
Treatment ; . .
ABRASIVE BLASTING ' ;
Removal of contaminated debris surface
layers using water an^/oe air pressure to
propel • solid media (Q&. steel «hot,
ftl^in^mim oxids grit, fit0fttic besdo).
Dobji« typo
ferCanRonst ttahdanf ~
Brick, cpncrete, ,
rock, pavement.
wood...
. Metal objects --..„....„ White metal finish, all'
. • , paint, surface
coatings, rust, visible
..„•_. . . • ciacV* and crevices,
scale, corrosion, and
visible staining
removed
Glass— ~_- All.paint, sorface
coatings, scale,
. visible cracks and
. crevices and visible
. .' staining removed
>ft£ cenliroeter
.. torface layer .
.' removed^, and all
•>. paint surface
••"'" coalings, scale, and
" " ' , •'• visible staining
[ •' . ' • removed
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction
Objects with small or narrow surfaces.
Special Safety Precautions
Abrasive blasting frequently causes heat
and sparks at the debris surface. This may
. cause flammable debris orjcontaminants to,
ignite and explosive contaminants to
explode. Use of nonsparking abrasive or.
water propelled abrasive may reduce the
probability that Ignitable and explosive
debris and contaminants will ignite or • ,
. explode during abrasive blasting.
ACID WASHING '
Surface treatment of contaminated debris .
using.solutions of. low pH. including (1)
hydrochloric; (2) sulfuric; (3) nitric; (4)
hydrofluoric; (5) chromic; (6) fluoboric; (7)
phosphoric; and/or (8) other acids of
equivalent efficiency applied to debris
surfaces using a spray or bath with sufficient
residence time and agitation such, that
surface contaminants and contaminated
surface layers are removed.
Debrio ljp«
Metal objects...
Glass...
Brick, concrete,
- rock, pavement,
wood washing;,
•• quality. :" '•' '" '•
Paper, cloth,
rubber,.plastic,,
washing quality.
Performance standard
White metal finish, all
paint, surface
coatings, rust, scale,
corrosion, visible
, cracks ami crevices,
and visible staining
removed
, All.paint, surface
coatings, scale, and
visible staining
>. -.removed' •.;,;•. •.;:
Remove all paint, •
coating*, ;scale,, , ,
visjbl* stainipg. and
J "visible' cr3C$j» t|iad['
crevices ' ''"''' '''"'
Remove- all visible
staining:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6) / Thursday. January 9. 1992 / Proposed Rules
1033
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restrictions
Objects with small or narrow surface.'
Special Safety Precautions
Acids may react with some debris and
contaminants to form hazardous compounds.
For example, acid washing of cyanide
contaminated debris could result in the
formation of hydrogen cyanide (HCN).
Some acids may also react violently with
some debris and contaminants, depending on
the concentration of the acid and the type of
debris and contaminants. Debris treaters
should refer to the safety precautions
specified in Material Safety Data Sheets for
various acids to avoid incompatible debris/
contaminant combinations. For example,
concentrated sulfuric acid may react
violently with certain organic compounds,
such as acrylonitrile.
ELECTROPOUSHING
Surface treatment of electrically conductive
debris by passing electricity of sufficient
current density through an electrolytic
solution in which the debris has been • •
submerged, with sufficient residence time,
temperature, and agitation such that surface
contaminants and contaminated surface
layers are removed.
Debrii type
Metal objects...
Performance standard
.... White metal finish, all
paint, coatings, rust
scale, corrosion,
visible staining, and
visible cracks and
crevices removed ..
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction
Metal objects that do not conduct
electricity.
Special Safety Precautions
Some electrolytes employed for
electropolishing may react with debris or
contaminants to form toxic or hazardous
compounds. For example, acidic electrolytes
may react with cyanide to form toxic
hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas. Also, some
electrolytes may react violently with some
debris and contaminant types, depending on
the electrolyte concentration and the type of
debris and contaminants.
LIQUID PHASE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Removal of hazardous contaminants from
debris surfaces and surface pores by applying
an organic liquid or organic liquid solution
which causes the hazardous components to
enter the liquid phase and be flushed away
from the debris along with the organic liquid
or organic liquid solution using appropriate
agitation, temperature, and residence time.
Debris type
All debris, types-
Design and
Operating
Parameters
Contaminant
solubility in
solvent
Enclosure type....
Enclosure pressure.
Solvent contact...._.,
Solvent contact : •
with debris
surface.
Solvent extraction
quality.
Performance standard
Treatment must be
performed in
accordance with the
design and operating
parameters below
Double to at least 5%
by weight
Fully enclosed solvent
bath or fully
enclosed solvent
application room
Negative
All debris surfaces
during entire
• treatment time
> 15 minutes
Removal of all paint,
coatings, and visible
staining
• Applicable to Acid Spray technique*.
Non-AppJicable Debris or Application
Restriction
Solvent selection should be based on a
case-by-case determination of the
permeability of the debris and'the nature of
the contaminant • • • - •
Special Safety Precautions
Some solvents may react violently with
debris or contaminants, or they may react to
form toxic or corrosive compounds. For
example, acidic solvents, such as acetic acid
solutions, may react with cyanides to form
hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas.
SCARIFICATION AND GRINDING
Process utilizing striking piston heads-or
rotating grinding wheels such that
contaminated surface layers are removed and
dust and airborne contaminant emissions are
. contained in an enclosure or captured by
application of a vacuum at the point of
scarification or grinding.
Debrli type Performance requirement
Brick, concrete, >o.e centimeter
rock, pavement surface layer
wood. removed, and all
paint, surface
coatings, scale,
visible cracks and
crevices, and visible
staining removed.
Non-Applicable debris or Application
Restriction
Objects with small or narrow surfaces.
Special Safety Precautions
Scarification and grinding may cause heat •
and sparks at the debris surface, which may
cause ignitable or explosive debris or
contaminants to ignite or explode. Equipment
that employs a water spray at-the point of
scarification or grinding, or wetting of the
debris surface prior to treatment may reduce
the probability that ignitable or explosive
debris or contaminants will ignite or explode.
SPALLING
Drilling holes at appropriate locations and
depth in the debris surface and applying a
tool which exerts a force on the sides of those
holes such that contaminated debris surface
layers are removed from the debris. The
surface layer that is removed is still
considered to be contaminated debris and is
subject to further treatment to meet the
debris standard.
Debris type
Brick, concrete,
rock, pavement,
glass.
Performance standard
>0.6 centimeter
surface layer
removed, and all
paint, surface ' . :
coatings, scale,
visible staining and
visible cracks and
crevices removed
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restrictions
Objects .with small or narrow surfaces.
Special Safety Considerations
Spelling may cause heat and sparks at the
debris surface« which may cause ignitable or
explosive debris and contaminants to ignite
or explode. Wetting the debris surface prior
to treatment may reduce the probability that
heat and sparks will be produced by drilling
and spelling. . :-
THERMAL DESORPTION
Heating in an enclosed chamber under
either oxidizing or non-oxidizing atmospheres
at sufficient operating temperature and
residence time such that hazardous organic
compounds are vaporized and removed from
the heating chamber in a gaseous exhaust
stream.
Debrli type Performance standard
All debris types Treatment must be
performed in
' • accordance with the
design and operating
parameters specified
below
Design and operating parameters
Heating chamber Fully enclosed
type.
Heating chamber £ 60 minutes
residence time.
Debris feed particle < 10 cm *
size.
Debris temperature ^ 200°C
a,t heating
chamber exit.
•Applicable only to thermal desorption of debris other
than metal or glass.
Non-Applicable Debris or Application .
Restrictions
None.
-------
1034
Federal Regbttr / Vol. 67, No. 8 /Thursday* January 0. 1992 / Prdpoaed -Kates
SpcciajSafety'Precautions , .
Thermal desorptton debris treatment
requires that debris be heated, which may
cause Ignitable or explosive debris or" • -A
contaminants to Ignite or explode.
Maintaining an inert, nan-oxidizing
atmosphere (e.g, nitrogen) ui the beating
chamber may reduce the probability, that
ignitnble or explosive debris or contaminants
will Ignite or explode.
VIBRATORY FINISHING
Process utilizing scrubbing media, flushing
fluid, oscillating energy, and residence time
such that surface contaminants and
contaminated surface layers ere removed
from debris.
Dtfarittypt
Metal objects-
Brick, concrete, .
rock, pavement,
wood, rubber,
plastic.
Glass
PerfGnnuc* lUodud
White metal finish; all
paint, surface
coatings, rust, scale,
• corrosion, visible
cracks and crevices,
and-visible staining
••removed .»•.'' ,
All paint, surface.-' . •
coatings, scale,* •:, "
visible cracks* and '
cravices, and Triaffilt'
staining removed;••
AH paint, surface^ ".''''
coating*. scalaV; ';'" •
vitibja cracks: aind •''v
'"crevices, sad vi*a>**'
Fcrici
, Treatment must be
performed in
< accordance with' the
design and operatin
rnspec*
All debris types..
Design and operating parameters
Solvent...—...,_.„,.» Vapor phase
Contaminant Soluble to at least 6%
solubility In by weight •
solvent '.,.
Treatment •
enclosure. > '
Soivettt trMtmcnt
•yatem prassnie.
Solvent
temperature.
Debris surface
exposure to
solvent.
Solvent extraction
quality.
FtrfoimMW (taton)
Fully enclosed
-.Negative
. ^ Solvent boiling
. point at system
pressure . •
All debris surfaces s
. 60 minute* •
Removal of all paiat,
. ••. coatings, snd visible
• • staining
Non-Appticabls.Debris or Application ..'
Restriction "
Solvent selection should be based on a
case-by-ca»sde4*£Brinationofths' '
permeability of the debri* and the nature of
the contaminant. ' ' ' " "
Special Safety. Coa^'derationt " '
- •• -Some »olvent». io«y react-violently with
debris or contaminants, or. they may react to
form toxic or corrosive compounds. For •
example, acidic solvents, may react with
cyanides-to fomi toxic hydrogen cyanide
(HCNJgas. -: . *'. ••-
WATER-WASHING AND SFRAinNG
Non-Applicable Debris Type or Application'
Restriction ~' " , '••:..'•••.''
Nona. • : . • • ' ' • ' :
Special Safety Considerations
Some Dashing compounds" nxay react • .
Violently With
may react to form toxic or corrosive . .
compounds. For example, acidic solvents. . •
such as acetic or hydrochloric acid, may-
reach with cyanides to form hydrogen - •
cyanide (HCN). . • ,
VAPOR PHASE SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Application to debris of an organic vapor
which cause* hazardous component* to enter
the vapor phase usins sufficient agitation,
residence time, and temperature such that
hazardous contaminants are removed from
debris surfaces and surface pores and are
flushed away with the organic vapor.
• water bathe of sufficient temperature, •
- pressure, residence time, agitation,
surfactants, and detergents to remove
' hazardous constituents from debris *urfaees
or to remove contaminated d*bri* surface
• layers. /.'".. . •; '••'• '••'. ••
•'• ' :-'.. ,.• • WatcrBatks '••' '•••• -••: • • •
Debrlt*gg* • ,. VtcfqauM*itandaid
All debris typ«s_™_ Treatment must ba
....... performed in
.,',. .•; ,-. accordancewith the
>, '-.. design and operating
•"'•. , parameter* below '
' Design and ojrerating parameters
, Contaminant
solubility.
Treatment quality_
Soluble fa at least 5%
by weight in water
solution •
AU visible staining
•i removed
Non-Applicable Debriq or- Application
Restrictions ' ' "''" .
None. • . , •
Special Safety Requirements •
None.
High Pressure Steam Sprays
Oefariitype
• All debria typBfl-Tw
'
Continued
. Dobrlitype-
Pump power-™.......
Boiler power „..--....
Pump flow rate.wii,.*
•TreatmeBt. •
enclosure. ' ••
Treatment ..
encloiswre
, ..... . •
, . accordance, with the
, design aw} operating
. . . , paraowterl below .
Design md opoiuting parameters
Steam spray
pressure. ,
Pertonuqcr lUndaid
2:0.75 kilowatts
^5 kilowatts
;> 7 kilograms per hour
• Fully enclosed
• •-.• chamber or vacuum
noxxlie
Negative .
^275 kiiopascals
Spray pattern
width.
Treatment rate,
<25cra
. '• ' .,;• .-'. .
Objects wi^» aaiacrnantrw *«rfaces.
SpeclatSafstyftegtiifementi-
None. " ' ' _'• •'.,.,. .
• High Preoaure Water Sprays
„ .. • , POTfonn»nc« iHudud
.Ti««tment. must :bs per-
, ' fomed in accordance
. .with the design and oper-
... stag parameter* below
All debris
- types.
Design and
operating'
• parameters
Pump power....
Pump flow '
rate.
Treatment
enclosure.
Treatment
enclosure
•pressure. .
Water spray ••••.
pressure,
Spray pattern
width. .
Treatment
rate.
Treatment
quality.
£0.76 kilowatts
S 7A liter* per minute
Fully enclosed
. nozzle .'-.••
- Negative •
or vacuum
<;2S cm
per
<140 square meter*
how par nozzle
'All visible staining removed
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction*- '. '••••"••' • ~
, ObfecSs with saiuD or narrow surface*.
Special Safety Requirements . , . , .
None. . . , < . • . '•• •
BIODEGRADATiON
Biodegradatfon cif organte or non-metalUc
inorganic* (L»Vdsi{|radafoIe morganic* that
contain «iemeatoof phosphorus, nitrogen, or
sulfur) in units operated under either aerobic
or anaerobic conditions such that a surrogate
compound or btdteitor parameter has bean
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 9 / Thursday. January 9. 1992 /. Proposed Rules
substantially reduced in concentration in the
residuals (e.g., total organic carbon can often
be used as an indicator parameter for the
biodegradation of many organic constituents
that cannot be directly analyzed in
wastewater residues).
Uebri» lype Performance standard
All debris Treatment must be per-
types. formed in accordance
with the design and oper-
ating parameters speci-
fied below
Design and operating parameters
Treatment Fully enclosed
enclosure.
Treatment Negative
enclosure
milligrams per liter
pressure.
Oxygen
concentra-
tion.
Moisture level™ £ 2 % of saturation
Temperature. 2O-35*C
pH 4.5-fl
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction
None.
Special Safety Precautions
None.
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Chemical or electrolytic oxidation utilizing
the following oxidation reagents (or waste
reagents) or combinations of reagents: (1)
hypochlorite (e.g., bleach); (2) chlorine; (3)
chlorine dioxide; (4) ozone or UV (ultraviolet
light) assisted ozone; (5) peroxide*; (6) '
persulfates; (7) perchlorates; (8)
permanganates; and/or (9) other oxidizing
reagents of equal efficiency, performed in
uniU operated such that • surrogate •
compound or indicator parameter has been
substantially reduced in concentration in the
residuals. Chemical oxidation specifically
includes what is referred to as alkaline
chlorination.
Debrii type
Metal objects,
brick, concrete,
rock, pavement,
glass.
Performance aisndard
Treatment must be
performed in
accordance with the
design and operating
parameter* opecified
below
Design and operating parameters
Treatment Fully itnrkwd
enclosure, treatment unit
Treatment Negative
enclosure
pressure. '
Dobrii !yp«
Oxidant™™..
Performance standard
.____... Hypochlorite, chlorine;
chlorine dioxide;
. . ozone or ultraviolet
assisted ozone;
peroxides;
persulfates:
perchlorates; or
permanganates
Treatment quality— All visible staining
removed
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction
None.
Special Safety Requirements'
None.
CHEMICAL REDUCTION
Chemical reaction utilizing the following
reducing reagents for waste reagents) or
combination of reagents: (1) sulfur dioxide;
(2] sodium, potassium, or alkali «alts of
sulfides,, bisulfite*, and metabisul&tes, aad
polyethylene glycols (e.g., NaPEG and KPEG);
(3) sodium hydrosulfide; (4) ferrous salts;
and/or (5) other reducing reagents of
equivalent efficiency, performed in units
operated such that a surrogate compound or
Indicator parameter has been substantially
reduced in concentration in the residuals
(e.g., total organic halides can often be used
as an indicator parameter for reduction of
many halogenated organic constituents that
cannot be directly analyzed in wastewater
residues). Chemical reduction is commonly
used for the reduction of hexavalent
chromium to the bivalent state.
Debris type
Performance »tandard
Metal objects. Treatment must be
brick, concrete, performed in
rock, pavement, accordance with the
glasi. design and operating
parameters specified
below
Design and operating, parameters
Treatment Fully enclosed
enclosure. ' treatment unit
Treatment Negative
enclosure
pressure.
Residence time..,
Reducing agent
: 2 hours .
. Sulfur dioxide; sodium,
potassium, or alkali
salts of sulfides,
bisnlfates,
metabisulfltes, and
polyethylene glycols;
sodium hydroxides; .
or ferrous salts
Treatment quality All visible staining
removed
Non-Applicable Debrit or Application
Restriction
None.
Special Safety Requirements
None.
PHOTOCHEMICAL TREATMENT
Treatment of chlorinated organic
contaminants utilizing ultraviolet (UV) light
from a natural {sunlight) or artificial (UV
lamp) source such that halogenated
contaminants «re substantially degraded on
the surface of debris.
Debrbtypc
All debris types...
Performance (tandard
Treatment must be
performed in
accordance with the
design and operating
parameters specified
below.
Design and operating parameter*
UV lamp capacity™.. ^ 20 microwatts/ .
square centimeter
Treatment time ^ 24 hours '
Noa-Afp]icabJe.pf!bri8orApflicatiofl
•Restriction '
Objects wit}) cracks, crevices, corrosion,
rust, or sicale,
Special Safety Requirements
None,
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Treatment in an incinerator operated in
accordance with the technical requirements
of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O or 40 CFR Part
265 Subpart O, boilers or industrial furnaces
operating under either Interim status or a
RCRA permit, or in other thermal treatment
devices, such as pyrolysis units operating
under interim otatusin accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 2flS, Subpart P.
Debctetyp* . ftiivmtncf «tf nrlaM
All debris types, Performance standards
for thermal
destruction of
• . hazardous wastes,
including
contaminated debris
• are contained in 40
CFR parts 260, 261,
264, 265, 266, 270 and
271
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction
None.
Special Safety Requirements
None.
MACROENCAPSULATION
Application of surface coa
such as polymeric organic* (e*. resin* and
plastics) or with a jacket of inert organic
materials to substantially reduce surface
exposure to potential leaching media. The use
of a tank or container, as defined in 40 CFR
260.10, doe* not qualify as ' ./
macroericap'sulsiioa. '." '.'."..'.'.. ...'.'
Metal objects, " Treatment must be
brick, concrete, performed in ' " ""' ' ' '
««ck» pavement. . accordance with the
'glass. : ' - " . design an'd operating
parameters listed
below
-------
1036
Federal Resistor /-Vol. 57, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1992 JSJ^P
D*M» IXP* ' Performance itandard
Design and operating parameters
Encapsulant layer £0.6 cm
thickness. '
Encapsulation Debris completely
quality layer of encapsulated in
cncapsulant type. unbroken
. Debria type
Microencapsulation
quality.
UnconfuYed
compressive
strength of
microencapsula-
tion product
Performance atandard
No free liquids present
£ 350 kilopaacals
' ; ''DeorUtyps ' ' "•
Number of -coats of
. . sealant . .
Sealant coat
1 integrity ' ; .
Performance atandard '
2>2 • . ••
Unbroken sealant coat
completely
surrounding debris
encapsulant
Eucapsulant type...... Non-biodegradable
' ' and impermeable to
aqueous solutions
and contaminants on
debris
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
Restriction • •
Wood, papef, cloth, rubber, plastic.
Special Safety Precautions •, .
None.
MICROENCAPSULATION
Stabilization with the following reagents
(or waste reagents) or combinations of
reagents: (1) Portland cement; or (2) lime/
pozzolans (e.g., fly ash and cement kiln' •'
dust}—this does not preclude the addition of
reagents (e.g.. iron salts, silicates, and clays)
designed to enhance the set/cure time and/or
compresalve strength, or to reduce the'
teachability of the hazardous constituents!
Debria type * Performance etandard
Non-Applicable pebris. or Application
Restriction ' :
. None., • •
Special Safety Requirements '• '•
None. . ' ' •. .
SEALING .
Application of an appropriate material . •
which adheres tightly to debris surface to
minimize the surface area exposed to
potential leaching media. Sealing entails
surface pretreatment of debris to remove
contamination and to clean and roughen
debris surface where appropriate. Sealing
includes use of epoxy, ailicone, and urethane
compounds, but excludes use of paint'.
Non-Applicable Debris or Application
'^Restriction •
; None
Special Safety Precautions , ;
• None • • • " • '
, This technology uses heat generated by
electrodes or direct Dame to melt a mixture of
glass formers and waste materials into non-
asbestiform glass. . .
Debria type
All debris types
Performance standard
No visible debris in
solid vitrification
i-, productb ;
Debria type
Metal objects,
, brick, concrete,
rock.
Performance, atandard
Metal objects, .
brick, rock,*
pavement, glaas,.
Treatment must be .
performed in
accordance with,.the
• design and operating
parameters below -
Design and operating parameters '. '
Uebrin feed particle < 10 centimeter
size. •• . • ,• • '
Curing tlme...i~.,.u..- £ 7 days • • • •
Treatment m.ust be
perfofmed m
accordance with the
design and operating
parameters below
Design and operating parameters
Sealant type.~™._..
Epoxy, urethane, or
silicone based, and
• ..non-biodegradable
.•andimpermeable to
aqueous solutions or
contaminants on
debris
••Vitrification la BOAT for contaminated > atbeatoa
dobrin.
'With the eftceptlon of debria with high melting points,
auch aa refractory nuitoriuli, which do not melt during
vitrification. •••»••• ' •
Non-Applicable Debris or Application' .
Restriction .
None. .;
Special Safety Precautions .
-. None. ...... • . • -
APPENDIX X-TGENERIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES TOR CONTAMINATED DESRI.S «
• • . • Treatment technology
ExU»cliorc
Atxajive blasting *.„_„. . _„ „
Sc&rtfi^tion ar>d grinding b ».„.«...........„..«..«...«....« „_...„._..„.....
!R{\U!tiOgk
Viv.(nry firjahlng _.T ,....tlr. ...,„,.,. .,. ,..-.„,„,., ,
Wfttw wsshlng and sprflyfng b<*»..M.»M....H^H^...«»..H.«..»H«M»^.».H...u...
Oostructtore • . . . • . .
Tnftrmal destruction .-n.i......r.1.... .....!........ .,I-I.-T..I......T...-...I-I.I.I-..I--.'.J-.I,I./
Debris category ;
Metal .
objects
Yes i
No ,
No :„
Yo»..._* :_..
Y
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9. 1902 /. ftopooed Rides
1037
§270.14 Contents of part B: General
requirements. • "
«•••.» .
(b)'**
(2) Chemical and physical analyse* of
the hazardous waste and contaminated
debris to be handled at the facility. At a
minimum, these analyses shall contain
all the information which must be
known to treat, store, or dispose of the
wastes properly in accordance with part
264 of this chapter.
• * * » •
31. In § 270.42 paragraph (e)(3){UKB) i»
revised to read as follows:
§270.42 [Revised]
(ii) • • *
(BJ To allow treatment or storage in
tanks or containers, or in containment
buildings in accordance with 40 CFR
part 268.
32. In S 270.42 Appendix I is amended
by adding item 6 to section I. and by
adding new section M and items
underneath it to read as follows:
Appendix I to Section 270.42—Classification
of Permit Modifications
Modification* •
I. Enclosed waste piles
* * • * •
6. Conversion at an enclosed wast* pile
to a containment building wit
M. Containment Buildings:* * •
1. Modification or additional of contain.
ment buMng unite
a. Resulting in greater than 25% in-
creese in the facility* containment
building atocage or twtunant capao-
b. Resulting in up to 25% increase in
the facility's containment buikfing
storage or treatment capacity ....
2. Modification of a containment buMng
unit or secondary containment system
**»«out Increasing the capacity of fee
3. Replacement of a containment butd-
ing with a containment bidding thai
meets the same design standards pro-
vided: .:
—The unit capacity I* not increased
—The replacement contatovnent build-
ing meets the same conditions in
the permit
4. Modification of a containment"building"
management practice
5. Storage or treatment of different
wastes in containment bufldings: •
a. That require additional or drfferert
management practices
b. That do not require addttonri or
different management practices
33. In $ 270.72 paragraph (b)(6) is
revised to read as follows:
§270.72 Changes during interim sitatu
•••
...
(6) Changes to treat or store, in tank*,
containers, or containment buildings,
hazardous wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions imposed by part
268 or RCRA section 3004. provided that
such changes are made solely for the
purpose of complying with part 268 or
RCRA section 3004.
PART 271-BEQU1REUENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
34. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, «912{a}, and 0626.
Subpart A—Requirements for FJnaJ
Authorization
35. Section 271.l(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to table 1 in
chronological order by date of
promulgation in the Federal Register and
by adding the date of publication and
the Federal Register page numbers to
the following eotry in table 2:
5271-1 Purpose and scop*.
• • • • •
or*-
Table 1.—REGULATIONS JMPtEMasrrwQ
THE HAZARDOUS AND. Souo WASTE
AMENDMENTS OF 1984.
Promulga-
tion date
TWeot
regutalion
FEDERAL Ef«ec-
RB3I8TBI fiv«
faferanoe date
insert date
of
pubKc*.
Hanoi
final rute
hi the
FEDERAL
REGISTER).
Land (insert
Disposal FEDERAL
KSStrtO- riBOJSIEH
listed
' wastes*
contami.
numbers).
d«brts«
asnerlo
•cchjsion
forKD62
4F006
non- :
wastewaters.
TABLE ?.—SELF IMPLEMENTINQ PROVI-
SIONS.OF THE HAZARDOUS AND Sour>
WASTE AMENDMENTS OF i 984
EHec-
Se».
knpte-
RCRA citation
.'FEDERAL
ffemSfflER
reference
ProWbi- 3004(gX6XA)..
•on on
land
Mo*
newty
ttstad
wastes
A
con-
taminated
debrfes.'
(traert
date of
pubfca-
«on)Se
FH
(FEDER-
AL
BEQIS-
TEfl
Pan*
num-
bers).
Appendix J to the Preamble: Overview of
Debris Treatment Technologies
The Agency is today proposing the
following eighteen specific treatment
technologies for contaminants on six
different categories of debris.
1. Extraction Technologies
a. Abrasive Blasting. Abrasive blasting
techniques arc treatment technologies
designed to remove contamination by
removing surface layers from debris. These
technologies rely on the force of a solid
object which impacts against the debris
surface to remove the surface of more brittle
objects. These techniques are useful for
treatment of debris In which contamination
has penetrated beyond the debris surface.
However, these techniques do not remove
contaminants which have diffused well into
debris below tho surface layer and would not
foe considered BOAT in these situations.
Consequently, the appendix DC performance
standards would require for porous debris
• such as brick, concrete, rock, pavement, and
wood, that at least a 0.8 centimeter surface"
layer be removed, and all paint surface •
coatings, scale, and visible staining be
removed,** Thus, if contamination has ,
penetrated! beyond the surface, EPA believes
that compliance with the performance
standard will «naur« removal. The
performance standard for nonporous, debris
would «lsp«asw» effective removal ot -,
contaminant* by requiring removal of «U , .
paint, surface coatings, scale, visible cracks
and crevices, and visible staining.* • •
4T For permeable debris where contamination
maypenetrats beyond M centimeter., the Agency
!!L!?y'nf P*""11? w> «!>• requirement &•» visible
»<»«2»« «»ov»a to «««n«ffectiiw tnetiMsrt
by •MEKamaoval tochoologie* (U, •bnafev
blasting, acid wanning, scarification and grinding.
•palling, and vibratory finishing). We ipecificaUy
request comment on whether removal of visible
•Uiafog I* an adequate requirement to eanue
effective treatnent in all COM* fie-data or '•
information ohsUuatioiii where the contaminant
may not cause visible staining).
-------
1038
Federal Register / tVol.. 57..No..e /. Thursday. January 9. 1992,
Debris surface layers removed are
considered residue aubject to F039 treatment
standards for nonwastewater See section
V.G.3 of the preamble, The debris treated
with surface removal technologies must be
firmly mounted to withstand the forces
associated with these techniques, which are
generally applicable only to large structural
surfaces, such as concrete walls, wooden
floors, or steel tanks.
Abrasive blasting involves forcing an
abrasive medium (e.g.. steel shot aluminum
oxide grit, plastic beads) at the surface of
debris at high spcedii. The force of impact of
the abrasive causes the debris surface to
chip, flake, or erode off. The type of abrasive
used varies, depending upon the thickness of
the debris surface layer which muat be
removed and the desired smoothness of the
post-abrasive blasted surface. Generally, the
use of smaller and softer abrasives results in
o thinner surface layer removed and a more
finely finished debris surface. Commonly
us«d abrasives include sand, typically used
to remove thin layers of paint or corrosion
from metal surfaces and leave a smooth
finish; and steel shot, which.hat been used to
remove concrete, leaving a rough, pitted
surface.
The abrasive can be propelled with either
air or water pressure, or can use a spinning
wheel to hurl abrasive at debris surfaces.
Abrasive can be applied with hand-held
wanda or can be applied in automated
systems which pass debris below the
abrasive spray. Rotating drums or racks may
bo used for treating loose debris. Abrasive
blasting systems are also frequently operated
in conjunction wilh a vacuum system to .
reduce dust *• and to collect spent abrasive •
and the debris surface layer removed. The
spent abrasive can be disposed of with the
debris surface layer removed or can be
separated and recycled. The debris surface
layer that la removed is considered residue
subject to the F039 nonwastewater LDR
standards. Abrasive blasting systems are
currently used in industry to remove surface
layers of paint or corrosion from metal and at
Superfund sites to remove layers of
contaminated concrete. Abrasive blasting
systems are available commercially from
several manufacturers.
b. Acid Washing. This debris treatment
technology uses acid to promote corrosion
and removal of the surface layer of
contaminated debris. Acid can either be
sprayed onto a surface, or the material to be
treated can be dipped into an add bath. This
method may be used to remove contaminants
entrained on or near the surface of materials
such as metal and wood. It may also be
effective on concrete, brick, and some plastic
materials. The time required for treatment-
depends on the acid used and the type of
debris being treated. Thermal or chemical
treatment of the removed material may be
required to destroy or remove the
contaminant before disposal. Debris surface
layers removed and other treatment residues
arc considered residue subject to the F039
LOR treatment standards. * ••• •
«• W« note (hat debits treatment facilities an
lubjeet to the applicable requirement! of parts 264.
265, and 209 that ensure protection of human health
nnd the environment.
Various acids can be used for this
technique, including hydrochloric acid (HC1),
nitric acid (HNO3), sulfuric acid (H2SO4).
and hydrofluoric acid (HF). Hydrochloric acid
has been used to clean metal parts.
Hydrofluoric acid is also commonly used to
etch window glass. In addition, mixtures of
hydrofluoric and nitric acid have been shown
to effectively treat stainless steel
contaminated with radioactive contaminants.
Add washing is applicable mainly to •
metals and may be suitable to remove •
surface contamination from glass, wood; and
some concrete materials. However, it is not
effective on deeply imbedded contamination
of debris, and may not meet the performance
standards proposed in appendix IX in those
situations. If the add washing performance
standards could not be met, another
treatment technology specified by proposed
table 2 of 126845 must be. selected. Typical
treatment timef} for this technology range
from several minutes to several hours.
Debris treated by acid washing may also
require washing to remove residual acid from
the debris surface; this residual would also •
be subject to the F039 treatment standards.
The acid washing process often forms
insoluble metal oxides and salts in the acid
washing solution that may require additional
treatment, such as filtration. (Again, all
residues are subject to the F039 LDR
standards.)
Immersion operations usually, require the
acid solution to be agitated to maximize
contaminant removal. The amount of
contaminant that can be removed from the
debris is based on the immersion time in the
acid solution and on the shape and
composition of the debris. Complex shapes
require longer times and stronger solutions
than simple objects or shapes. After acid
washing, the cleaned debris is usually rinsed'
with a water wash to remove the acid
solution. The use of acid washing immersion
operations will result in the accumulation of
appreciable amounts of hazardous
contaminants and metals (when metal debris
is treated) as a result of dissolution from the
debris and from the holding racks that are
• recycled through the add bath. As a result,
the acid baths usually have a relatively short
operational life, and when they are
discharged, large amounts of hazardous
materials must be treated or reclaimed. These
materials also can enter the treatment facility
waste stream as dragout from the acid
solutions into rinse waters.
We specifically request comment and
supporting data and information on whether
additional performance standards are needed
(see proposed appendix IX) to ensure
effective treatment by addressing parameters
including retention time, ratio of acid volume
to debris surface area, and'solubility of
contaminants in acid.
c. Electropolishing. This type of debris
treatment technology uses electrochemical
energy to remove contamination from
metallic debris. It has been used to
successfully remove radiological
contamination from a variety of metallic
materials, including carbon steel, stainless
steel, copper, aluminum, and highly-alloyed,
corrosion-resistant and heat-resistant
materials. A variety of contaminants can be
removed Including plutonium,: uranium,
radium, cobalt strontium, cesium,'and
americium, as well as other contaminants
that are baked on, ground in, or otherwise
difficult to remove using morn conventional
procedures. The surface layer that is removed
is considered residue subject to the F039 LDR
treatment standard*.
Electrcpolishing Is an electrochemical
process used to produce a smooth, polished
surface on a variety of electrically conductive
metals and alloy o. The object to be treated
serves as the anode in an electrolytic cell.
The passage of a high-density electric current
results in the anodic dissolution of the
surface metal, the establishment of a
concentration gradient at the anode surface,
and a progressive omoothing of the surface.
Any contamination that is present either on
the surface or entrapped within surface
scratches and other surface imperfections is
removed and released into die electrolyte by
the surface dissolution process. A simple
water wash after electro polishing is usually
sufficient to' remove the residual electrolyte
and leave a contamination-free surface.
Most electropojishing treatment studies
have used a phosphoric acid solution as the
electrolyte because of its stability, safety,
and applicability to a number of alloy
systems. The hygroscopic nature of
phosphoric' acid helps minimize airborne
contamination problems, and the complexing
characteristics of phosphoric add for metal
ions may be a significant factor in minimizing
recontamination from the electrolyte.
In general, electropolishing is limited to
treatment of electrically conductive metallic
: objects of fairly regular geometry and size
and does not show applicability to other
types of debris. Electropolishing has been
used primarily as a metal finishing technique
and in the removal of radioactive
contamination from metal debris.
d. Liquid Phase Solvent Extraction. This
method of treatment also called .solyent
washing or solvent soaking, uses an organic
solvent in the liquid phase to sqlubilize
contaminants for removal This technique can
be used on many aolvent-soluble
contaminants and with many forms of debris.
Solvents can be applied to the surface of
large debris or standing buildings, or small
pieces of debris can be soaked in baths of
solvent. The solvent may be heated or
applied at ambient temperatures. A wide
variety of wash/soak/rinse cydes can be
used to optimize treatment Water washing or
secondary treatment/removal (e.g.. heating or
' vacuum removal) after-treatment may be
• necessary to remove re8id.uaj,solyent,from
the debris, After treatment it,is.sometimes
.. possible to reuse solvent in the treatment
•system. •• '
A wide variety of organic solvents are
commonly used, including trichloroethylene
(TCE), methylene diloride, and alcohols. The
solvent used depends on the dabrislL .' .
contaminant combination being treated and
would have to be made ion a caaa-by-case
basis by the treater based on the
permeability of the debris and the nature of
the contaminant In addition other chemicals
may be added to the solvent to aid in
treatment of residuals, or surfactants can be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 6 / Thursday. January 9, 1992 / jProposed
^ —-— '
1039
added to prevent solubilized contaminants
from migrating further into the surface of
porous debris. '' ''" ' ' "
e. Thermal Desbrption. This type of debris
treatment technology relies primarily upon
the use of temperatures from 9Q *C to 1200 'C
to-volatilize contaminants. Some
contaminants may also degrade to simpler
compounds under these temperatures. Data
from treatment tests indicate that it has been
used to successfully treat concrete and metal
contaminated with chemicals similar to
constituents of the halogenated aromatics
and pesticides group and to remove volatile
organics from plastic and rubber. Low
temperature desorption systems can be
designed to be applied to debris either in-situ
orex-situ. -.-..;•-
In-situ low temperature desorption systems
are generally employed in the treatment of
intact buildings.48 The building is sealed and
insulated to contain heat and volatilized
contaminants. A burner or a boiler is used to
produce hot gas or steam, respectively, which
is drawn through the building by an induction
fan or a blower. Exhaust gases from the
building are passed through a separation
system or an incinerator to remove
contaminants. In-situ low temperature
desorption systems must be tailor-made for
each debris treatment conducted.80
Ex-situ systems employ an oven or heating
chamber Debris is placed into the oven and
heated by convection using heating fuel or
electric heating element, or heated by
radiation using infrared radiation or
microwaves. Ovens may be filled with a
nitrogen atmosphere in order to prevent
contaminants and debris from combusting or
exploding. Volatilized contaminants can be
separated from the oven's gas effluent or
incinerated. The debris oven can be designed
to be run on either batch or continuous mode.
Ex-situ low temperature desorption systems
for soil treatment are currently available
commercially and may be modified to treat
contaminated debris.
The primary contaminated treatment
residual produced by low temperature
desorption is a vapor stream contaminated
with volatilized contaminants. This vapor
waste stream may be passed through a
separation system, such as an activated
carbon filter or a packed bed scrubber, or the
vapor stream may be incinerated. Residuals
from the separation system or incinerator are
subject to the F039 LDR treatment standards.
We note that we are not proposing in . • '
appendix X separate performance standards
for low versus high temperature thermal
desorption. We specifically request comment
and supporting data and information on
whether and how to establish performance
standards for low versus high temperature
desorption. . •...:-..
f. Scarification and Grinding; This,, •. .
treatment technology utilizes a device, which
*• A building contaminated with a prohibited
waste would be subject to today'* proposed rule if it
It d?c°1n'aniin'>led prior to demolition. If. however,
the building ie decontaminated and continue* to be
used as a building, the biuUding is not debris and the
decontamination it not subject to today1* proposed
40 See footnote e in .the preamble to today's
proposed rule. ; * ' '
contains several pistons that are forced
rapidly against the surface of debris, or a
series of grinding wheels, which grind away
debris surfaces. Scarification devices employ
the force of impact to cause up to 2.54 " .
centimeters of the debris surface to chip off.
Consequently, the appendix IX performance
standards would require for debris such as
brick, concrete, rock, pavement, arid wood,
that at least a 0.6 centimeter surface layer be
removed, and all paint, surface coatings,
scale, visible cracks and crevicesi and visible
staining be removed. Thus, if contamination
has penetrated beyond 2.54 centimeters of the
surface layer and visible staining and/or
cracks and crevices are visible after
treatment, the performance standard has not
been met and another treatment must be used
to ensure effective treatment of the debris (or
treatment by scarification and grinding must
continue until the performance standard is
met}.
Scarification equipment can be used in
conjunction with a vacuum system to collect
the debris surface layer removed. The '
scarified surface may also require washing or
vacuuming to remove residual dust.
Scarification generates several waste
streams, including the debris surface
removed, airborne dust,81 and possibly a
wash water, which may require additional
treatment and disposal. Scarification
equipment may be operated by hand or
mounted on a backhoe or forklift.
Scarification equipment is currently used in
the construction industry in the demolition or
cleaning of concrete structures and to prepare
concrete surfaces for coating.
Grinding systems use the force of a
grinding wheel on the debris surface to leave
a rough, pitted surface. Grinding equipment
may be used in conjunction with a vacuum
system to collect the debris surface layer
removed. ...
The debris surface removal techniques are
expected to remove surface contamination
and surface layers of contaminated debris.
Contaminated surface layers of debris and
other treatment residuals are considered
residue subject to the F039 LDR treatment
standards. '
g. Spelling. This technology uses a two-step
process to remove the surface layer from
debris. The first step involves drilling holes '
into the surface of the contaminated debris.
The second step Involves inserting the bit of
a spalling tool, consisting of two metal
feathers, into the holes. Hydraulic pressure is
then used to force a push rod between the *
metal feathers, 'causing them to push outward
against the sides of the hole,. This causes up
to 50 mm of the debris surface layer to
fracture and crack off. -;•"«"<••••
Because spalling does not react with or
dissolve contaminants, but ratter relies on
the removal of debris layers in which the
contaminant is contained, contaminants not
entrained in the debris layer removed will
not be effectively treated by spailjtag.
Consequently, the appendix IX performance
standards would require for contaminated
brick, concrete, rock, pavement, and glass
(the only applicable debris categories^ that
** See footnote 8 in the preamble to today's
proposed rule. '
at least a 0.6 centimeter surface layer
remove.d, and. all paint, surface coatings,
scale, visible staining and visible cracks and
crevices removed. Thus if contamination has
penetrated beyond the surface, EPA believes
that compliance with the, performance
standard, will .ensure removal. Contaminated
surface layers that have been removed by
spalling are still considered contaminated
debris, .however, and must be treated to meet
the debris standard. (EPA considers debris
layers removed by spalling to be
contaminated debris rather than residue
because spalling can remove deeper layers of
debris.) It should be noted that the spalling
technique may produce contaminated dust
that may settle on the debris." The spalled
debris surface must be vacuumed or washed
to remove this dust, and the resulting residual
dust or wash water is considered residue
subject to the F039 LDR treatment standards.
h. Vapor Phase Solvent Extraction. This
method of treatment uses an organic solvent
in the vapor phase to solubilize contaminants
for removal. This technique is similar to the
process using solvent mixtures that are used
for vapor degreasing in industry. Depending
on the choice of solvent, this method has
potential to treat many solvent-soluble
contaminants and a wide range of debris
types.
In this process, a solvent is vaporized and
allowed to.circulate inside or around the
contaminated debris (in a closed chamber).
The hot vapors condense on and into the
surface of the contaminated material, where
they solubilize contaminants and diffuse
outward. The. contaminant-laden liquid
solvent is collected and treated prior to
recycling or reusing the solvent. Complete
treatment can take several hours or more.
i. Vibratory. Finishing. Vibratory finishing is
a debris treatment process that combines the
use of mechanical energy to scrub the surface
of debris with solvent washing to dissolve
contaminants and flush away particulates
removed by the mechanical scrubbing.
Vibratory finishing takes place in a vibrating
tub of small particles, or abrasives, through
which flows a liquid chemical compound. The
energy from the vibrating tub causes, the
abrasive to vibrate. The vibrating abrasive
scrubs the surfaces of debris placed in the
tub. A liquid chemical compound which flows
through the abrasive dissolves contaminants
and flushes away particulates scrubbed from
the debris. •
The abrasives used in vibratory finishers
are usually constructed of ceramiq or metal
.and come Jn a variety .ol! shapes and siz^s.
Abrasive shape, size, and material determine
the rate at which the debris is scrubbed and
the effectiveness .of the vibratory finishing
process on debris from a particular debris
category. '
The liquid flushing compound employed in
the vibratory finishing process is usually one
in which the contaminant is soluble. This
enhances the treatment of the debris by
dissolving contaminants. The liquid
compound is sprayed, on top of the abrasive
and debris, percolates through the abrasive
" See fobtnpte B in the preamble to today's
proposed rule.' ' ' '-*',',
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, Nj>. 6 / .Thursday, January 9, 1992 / PfpRofed Htfes
and debris, where It flushes away
contamination and particulates Kiubbed off
the debris, and flow* out of • drain at the • •
bottom of UMI tub. Spent fhuihing fluid i» ' •
usually recycled by pawing it through •
separation system which removes • •
particulales and dlMolved contaminants.
Tha residuals produced by vibratory ' .
finishing techniques include spent flushing,
compound and particulates scrubbed from
the debris surface. The vibratory finishing ,
abrasive usually does not become '••'.••
contaminated because it is treatment by the
some scrubbing action which treats th»
debris. The scrubbed paniculate* can be . .
removed from the flushing liquid through
filtration or settling. All residuals, including
(ho surface layer that is .removed, are
considered residue subject to the F039UDR ..
treatment standards. •
]. Water Washing and Spraying. This .
section discusses debris treatment techniques
that rely primarily on the use of water or
steam. The techniques in this section have
been divided into two categories: water
washing and spray application techniques.
Water washing techniques rely primarily'
upon the solubility of contaminants in water
and can be conducted by submerging, rinsing,
or spraying debris with water. During
submersion; the water may be circulated, or
the water and/or debris may be agitated to'
increase the rate at which tha contaminants
dissolve. A water-soluble detergent is
frequently added to the water to enhance
contaminant solubility or mobility to remove
the contaminant from the surface of the'
debris by breaking the surface tension.** For
example, data Indicate that benzonitrile, ft'. 1 •
non-soluble contaminant on 55-gallon drums'
was effectively lifted off the metal surface
through the use of high pressure steam ,.
sprays. See Background Document for ' •
additional Information. In addition, water '
may be circulated through a separation ' •
system such as • filter or distillation column'
to remove contaminants from the circulating
water. Treatment residuals inclnde the '
treated debris, waste water, and the treatment
residuals produced by any separation* _''.'" .'' _
systems employed, s'ucb as spent filters or '
sludge. Residuals are subject-to the F039 LDR
treatment standards. ' • ••,'•'••
Spray application techniques reJy upon
several principles to remove contaminants.
from debris: (1) Thu force of impact of •
pressurized stream of water or steam to
physically remove contaminants; (2) the
solubility of contaminants in water to " .
dissolve contaminants: and (3) in the COM of
steam cleaning, the use of heat to volatilize '
contaminants. • ' • '•• •'
Spray application techniques generally
entail the use of • pump to pressurize the
water or steam, a nozzle to direct the flow of
Ihe pressurized stream, and a hose or pipe to
•' The propotcd performance standard* in '
appendix X. part 288 require tha contaminant to be
lolublu to at Icait 5 percent by weight In a water
tolulion. We acknowledge that detergents can
effectively remove contaminant* that have tow • •
lolublliry In water thiomgi tfaa M< of awiacteBtaC
We •ptcincally request data and information that
would tupport a performance standard addressing
IhtiUM of surfactants for low sotubittty
civilumlnanl*.
conditions (in the presence of oxygen),
microorganisms bilodegracte organic •••' ,
contaminants to cirbon dioxide, water, ,
nitrate, suifate, asd cell prolliein..Under ,
connect the nozzle to the.ptunp. For steam
cleaning systeins, a boiler most be added to
th»-system to vaporize the water Water-
soluble detergents are frequently added to
the water or steam to enhance contaminant
removal. After application to the object to be
cleaned, water may be recycled through •
wastewater treatment system. '
Spray technologies consist of the following
processes: (1) High pressure water sprays: (2)
steam sprays; and (3) ultra-high pressure , .'
water sprays." •'.*'•."' ',''"'• '• • "'
High pressure water sprays (usually
defined as pressures op to 341000 kPa) may be
used to remove surface contamination from
debris. These sprays are generally effective
in removing all types of contaminants from
debris surfaces. However, they are usually
ineffective in removing contaminants which
have diffused below the. surface of debris.
Accordingly, the performance standards
would require that all visible staining be
removed in addition to design and operation
under specified conditions. High pressure
water sprays do not apply water to the debris
surface for a sufficient time -to leach
contaminants that have diffused into the '
debris. For this reason, the uae of high
pressure water, sprays may not meet the
performance standards of appendix DC when '
used on debris categories that are permeable
to contaminants, such as wood and paper.
' Ultra-high pressure water sprays (21,000 to
• 241.000 kPa) may be used to remove debris
surface layers. Ultra-high pressure water -
sprays are useful IB removing surface layers
from dehris-that is firmly mounted to
' withstand the force of the water stream. This
technique is applicable primarily on •
structural surfaces, such as concrete walls or'.
steel tanks. We d¬ anticipate that the
performance standards for this technique can
be met when used to decontaminate small
objects or looiw'debris, such As paper,'cloth,''
or loose wooden boards. •'•'>. .y-'•-••' •
All pressurized spray, application
techniques generate a contaminated '
wastswater stream that must bie further •
treatedI to ranjb^ pftrgd^ c^iJtapJnant, •
levels tq meet the F039 treatment standards.
Steam .spray tecJmia«es,gefleiaUy generate.
legs wastewatctr than water spray techniques, Would:bp ttio»t aJfootive on debris which has
.
that the design aad .
oporaUog rap^inmoata for b{pdegradat%>*
oxygen), microorganisms pan biodegrade
organic contambumts into methane, carbon
dioxide, and cell protein. Biodegradation is
applicable to contaminant* which are on the
surface or contained jtn.tbe pores of all types
of debris. , . . . -. ,.,;-, .-,
MicroorgaoUiBii require nutrients, oxygen,
and w«ter to biodagrade contaminants. Two
types of biotreatatonlt systems are commonly
employed to provide microorganisms with the
proper environment to facilitate ,
biodegradation ol: hazardous contaminants
and include solid phase (biofilm) systems,
and.bioskury. systems. • •'
la solid pha*» (bicfihn) bioremediatkm
ay stems, contaroiMted material is placed on
a lined treatmeat bed. A layer of sand and •
perforated laterals may b« placed on the
liner, below th« (jontauninated material, to
collect Uachatc. The treatment bed may be
covered to coneeirM water and capture
fugitive volatile emioaions. An overhead
spray irrigation system is used to provide
moisture and a means' of distributing
nutrients and mkrobial innoculum. Air may
be provided by mixing 'or by pumping air
through pipes buried in tk* material being
treated. Conterjsiaatad debitfs may have to be
homogenized aatl preproceBsed htto small
pieces to provide a high smiacs-to-vohune .
ratio. ' '' '' . . ' •,:''•• ". •
BiosKutry treatment-entails: mixing the •
contaminated material with water to form a
slurry, Nutrients and oxygen are added to the
water, and the stony is mixed to keep the
solids in suspension. Bipshury treatment has
the advantages of providing greater process
management and. control, and increased :
contact between microorganisms and
contaminants. Tl it's frequently results in
faster biodegracUition jmtes^ Debris inav have'
hiit atan'tMKf foi VATa'HI'TV'
generating an sir emission ora contaminated
vapor stream. VolatiBzedrcontaniinaiits have
to be separated from the vapor stream or .....
' !
•. spray techniques also'geneirate^ solid waste';!
• stream' in the form of the'debris surface layer .
removed which must be treated or disposed.
' The dislodged debris surface layer arid other'"
residuals' are subject to tneFQSBLDR ' ' '
treatment standards. •' .'". ' •" '; •
2. Destruction Technologies, " • • • '
a. Biodegradation. Bfodegradatfon is a '
destruction technology that uses the capacity
of microorganisms to degrade and transform
organic hazardous compounds into, „ ...
compouhd« of reduced toxidty. Bacteria, ' •
fungi, andyeflsts are the microorganisms . '•
moat frequently employ ed tp biodegrade •
hazardous compounds. Under :aeroWc .
cbmprsh«psiv« aaewgh to ensure effective; ,
retentipo HIM, imkxobial population .
acdimatiocvpeBiod and other parameter* as '
appropriate, •; ,••' ' • ... •• • •' .. > • -• .- •
•. b. Chemical Ojcidation. Chemical oxidation
is a, treatmasft pjnMSBs* used to chemically
gank'«diniMNmd8i cyanides, and
sulfides to yield' carbon dioxide, water, salts,
staple organic tifsidfl. and i^ the cases of •
"See fodtmfio 8 tn the proamble toitoday'a"
proposedfula. ., . ;''''''
been wted to tMitiaictal debris, txintamlnated
'-with^anW«;::.:- ••V . : ^ . • •)'^'; /
' Chemical oxidation processes which treat' "'
debris u>volwsxj{»»sabm«rsion of debrts in
one or nM>re«b9ii^cal baths- containing '.' ';'
chemicals whfch oiddfza hnrardqusi organic'
.cbmppuqd>, cyanides, and sulfidea.The " '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. ,57. NQ. ,6 ./ Thursday. January 9, 1992 / Proposed Rules
1041
principal chemical oxidants used are
hypochlorite. chlorine gas, chlorine dioxide,
hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and potassium
permanganate. Debris is lowered into the
chemical baths in wire baskets. Agitation of
the wire basket or debris may be conducted
to increase chemical contact with debris
surfaces. Treated debris may require rinsing
in order to remove residual rhpmir^fe from
the debris. The spent chemical both solution
is considered residue subject to the F039 LDR
treatment standards. .
c. Chemical Reduction. Chemical reduction
is a treatment technology which, may be used
to treat halogenated organic compounds and
hexavalent chromium. The treatment
technology dehalogenatea. halogenated
compounds and reduces hexavalent .
chromium to its less toxic bivalent state.
Chemical reduction techniques include
spraying foams or solutions containing
reducing agents onto debris surfaces or
submerging debris into solutions of reducing
agents. Spray techniques require several
applications and may require rinsing or steam
cleaning after treatment to remove residual
reducing agents from debris surfaces.
Submersion techniques also require rinsing or
steam cleaning after treatment to remove
residual reducing agents.
Reducing agents typically used include:
Sulfur dioxide; sodium, potassium or alkali
salts of sulfides, bisulfides, or metabigulfides
and polyethylene glycol (including NaPEG
and KPEGJ; sodium hydrosulfide; and ferrous
salts.
Debris containing hexavalent chromium
which is reduced to the bivalent state
requires additional treatment for bivalent
chromium. Spent reducing solutions and post-
treatment debris wash water are considered
residue subject to the F039 LDR treatment
standards.
d. Photochemical Treatment This type of
debris treatment technology uses
photochemical energy in the form of
ultraviolet (UV) radiation to degrade
halogenated contaminants such as
polychlorinated biphenyls fJPCBs), and
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs).
These compounds are quite reactive in the
presence of UV radiation. The photoreduction
mechanism involves the substitution of
hydrogen for chlorine, leading to the
formation of detoxified substances.
Contaminated debris types tested include
concrete, vegetation, and glass. In
photochemical treatment, the source of the
UV radiation is usually artificial, although
tests have been performed using natural UV
light in conjunction with a solvent
In photochemical treatment, the material to
be treated is exposed to UV radiation, which
causes the contaminants (PCBs, PCDDs, or
PCDFs) to photodegrade. The presence of a
hydrogen donor molecule is thought to be
necessary for treatment of PCDDs and
PCDFs, but has been found to be not
necessary for the treatment of PCBs.
However, the presence of an organic solvent
such as methanol or hexane can greatly
improve the efficiency of the
photodegradation.
Photochemical treatment can be used to
degrade PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs from the
surface of materials such as concrete,
vegetation, and glass. Photochemical
degradation will not work on deeply
imbedded contaminants, because VV light
cannot penetrate through these surfaces. The
presence of dust and dirt will also reduce the
effectiveness of this technique.
We are concerned that the proposed
performance standards for photochemical
treatment may hot ensure effective treatment
in all cases. We specifically request data or
information that would support additional
operating conditions addressing use of
natural sunlight presence of adequate
hydrogen donor molecules, presence of dust
or dirt and penetration of contaminants
below the surface layer of permeable debris
types. " • • • . •
e. Thermal Destruction. Thermal
destruction includes treatment in an
incinerator operated under subpart O, parts
264 or 265, boilers or industrial furnaces
operating under subpart H, part 266, or in
other thermal treatment devices, such as
pyrolysis units, operating under subpart P,
part 265, (for interim status facilities) or
subpart'X, part 264.
Thermal destruction uses heat to cause
contaminants to chemically react to form
nonhazardous chemicals and/or to cause
debris to chemically react to achieve a
volume reduction of the debris. Thermal
destruction units may use either an oxidizing
or a nonoxidizing atmosphere. Units in which
an oxidizing atmosphere is employed cause
combustible debris and contaminants to
oxidize (ideally) to iSarbon dioxide and water.
Units that employ a 'non-oxidizing.
atmosphere frequently employ nitrogen. In
these units, organic debris and contaminants
are reacted to form carbon monoxide and
methane gas.,
Many incinerators require size-reduction of
debris or debris agitation during incineration
in order to ensure that all of the debris being
treated reaches the operating temperature of
the unit Units can be run under a slightly
negative pressure to prevent fugitive
emissions of volatilized or incompletely
combusted contaminants. Thermal
destruction units must also control emissions
of metals, participate matter, acid gases, and
products of incomplete combustion.
Thermal destruction units must produce
wastewater from air pollution scrubbers and
a solid treatment residual, the ash, which
consists of the noncombustible portion of
debris and contaminants. These residuals
would be subject to the F039 treatment
standards. Inert debris separated from
residue (Le., ash) would be treated debris
excluded from subtitle C if the contaminated
debris did not contain a metal contaminant
subject to treatment.
3. Immobilization Technologies. EPA
considers three immobilization technologies
to be BOAT for contaminated debris:
macroencapsulation, microencapsulation,
and sealing. These technologies are not
acceptable, however, for organic debris
types—wood, paper and cloth, and rubber
and plastic—because the organic material
may degrade over time. This could result in
the treated material losing its_structural
stability, which may cause a release of
contaminated debris. Further, immobilization
technologies are not appropriate for organic
contaminants because the organic . -
compounds may degrade the encapsulating.
coat or diffuse through the encapsulating coat
provided by macroecapsulation or sealing or
leach from microencapsulated debris. .
a, Macroencapsulation. '
Macroencapsulation is a treatment
technology that encases debris to provide a
physical barrier that prevents contaminants
from leaching from the debris. In this process,
debris is placed into sealed containers
entombed in concrete, or a jacket of an
impermeable substance, such as
polyethylene, is placed around the debris.
.. .The encapsulating material must be one •
•which is impermeable to both water and the
contaminants on the debris. Debris which is
macroencapsulated may be shredded or
otherwise sized before encapsulation or large
pieces of debris may be encapsulated.
Macroencapsulation processes must employ
coatings able to withstand stresses expected
to be applied to the coating in a landfill
without rupturing or breaking.
Macroencapsulation processes that use :
jacketing materials do not need to employ
materials which adhere tightly to the debris
surface. Jacketing materials are typically
applied to debria,by heating the material to
slightly above its melting point to form the
jacket to the shape of the debris and then
allowing it to cool; or by applying a liquid
monomer to the debris surface and then •
adding heat or a catalyst to the monomer to
form an impermeable polymer. The use of a
tank or container, as defined in 40 CFR
260.10, does not qualify as
; macroencapsulation.
b. Microencapsulation. Two types of
microencapsulation processes are typically
used for treatment of debris. The first
involves mixing the waste with cement, lime,
and fly ash, silicates, or other pozzolanic-type
materials; and second involves mixing the
waste with asphalt and/or plastic. In the
latter process, the mixture is heated to
slightly above the melting point of the plastic
or asphalt which causes the waste or debris
particles to be covered with a polymeric or
asphalt coating. The mixture is then cooled
and allowed to set (cure) prior to disposal.
In order to obtain a uniform stabilized
material, the particle size of the material
being stabilized should be kept at a fairly
small size (i.e., the large masses of material
should be reduced in size before being
stabilized). This may require shredding,
crushing, or grinding of the debris.
Vendors of various microencapsulation
processes have different size requirements,
but the particle sizes generally range in
diameter from 6.35 to 100 mm. Sizing
equipment is commercially available to size
most debris to meet the requirements for
microencapsulation processes. Currently,
shredding equipment is used to process
debris-like materials such as municipal solid
waste and scrap metal for volume reduction
and as an initial step in recycling processes.
Most shredders are equipped to reject
unahreddable objects from the shredder,
effectively separating them from shreddable
debris. This unshreddable debris, which
consists mostly of thick metal, such as
-------
1042
Federal Rrtbter T VoL ST. m « /; 'flmwday,
i$82 X
railroad rail*, cast ba treated otiag an
alternative technology (e.g, water washing or
sealing).
We Bole that the proposed rate would «ot •
allow, mlcroencapMilaUon of debris whar»' :
arsenic or mercury ara contaminants subject
to treatment. See note to propoaed tabu 2,
§ 208.45. Thia to because arsenic and mercury
may leach from microencapsnlated debris.
c. Sealing. Scaling i* a process.which
involvel the application of • surface coating
which tightly adhere* to the debda surface.
TW* sutfsce Anting npast be an Impermeable
barrier to both Water and tba contaminant on
the deDrUBenlants art generally applied
• using bnathtarofieiis, or by dipping debris
toto *f »«lentS*if«al application* of
eearantniaybcraquirsd. .
• Beforasealanta are appUed, debris must be
cleaned or otnerwise prepared to remove
gross contamination and to clean and
roughen the debris stnface to ensure that the
sealant adhere* to the debris surface. (We
specifically request comment on Mow to'
develop a[i
that *« awface ol' Ijw debrii J» prof 3jly
.
aad ur«aww»r»JSiiia.8«»l««t-:''
. :. ;-X':;--;;''-
.' ;• • :•' ,
|. . • 1 i '
.>.f'\'': ;•' '• '"
,r , * . . ; '•
Macroon-
caoauMugn
' "* i
' 'f
X
X .'
Ill t • "
VMMcatkm
•' : x
X
" I '
• . sx • •
• . - K •
-.-*• '
•.. X •
5
. X
X
X maans Ida lachnoloar la aoeepbMa far *te coottminant catagory.
IFRDoc.a2-2S4Fll9dl-»-«2;fc45amJ
BILLHW COOC
•ttU.S. Government Printing Office : 1992 - 312-014/40040
------- |