n i
00
Monday
April 8, 1996
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 148, et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III;
Final Rule and Partial Withdrawal and
Amendment of Final Rule
-------
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 268,271, and 403
RIN 2050-AD38
[EPA * 530-Z-96-002; FRL-5438-3]
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—
Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate Wastes, and Spent
Potliners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating
treatment standards for hazardous
wastes from the production of
carbamate pesticides and from primary
aluminum production under its Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program.
The purpose of the LDR program,
authorized by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
is to minimize short- and long-term
threats to human health and the
environment due to land disposal of
hazardous wastes.
The Agency is also amending the .
treatment standards for hazardous
wastes that exhibit the characteristic of
reactivity. The rule also begins the
process of amending existing treatment
standards for wastewaters which are
hazardous because they display the
characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity. These wastes are
sometimes treated in lagoons whose
ultimate discharge is regulated under
the Clean Water Act, and sometimes
injected into deepwells which are
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Prior to today's rule, the treatment
standard for these wastes required only
removal of the characteristic property.
Today's revised treatment standards
require treatment, not only to remove
the characteristic, but also to treat any
underlying hazardous constituents
which may be present in the wastes.
Therefore, these revised treatment
standards will minimize threats from
exposure to hazardous constituents
which may potentially migrate from
these lagoons or wells.
Finally, EPA is codifying as a rule its
existing Enforcement Policy that
combustion of inorganic wastes is an
impermissible form of treatment
because hazardous constituents are
being diluted rather than effectively
treated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective on April 8,1996, except:
Sections 148.18(a), 268.39(a), (b), and
(f), which are effective on July 1,1996;
and
Sections 148.18(b) and 268.39(c),
which are effective on January 8,1997;
and
Sections 148.1 (a), (b), and (d), 148.3,
148.4,148.18 (c) and (d), 148.20(a),
268.1(e), 268.2 (k) and (1), 268.3 (a) and
(b), 268.9 (d), (e), (f), and (g), 268.39 (d)
and (e), 268.44(a), and 403.5 (c) and (d),
which are effective on April 8,1998.
ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are
available for viewing in the RCRA
information Center (RIC), located at
Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson
Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,
VA. The Docket Identification Number
is F-96-PH3F-FFFFF. The RCRA
Docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (703) 603-9230. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory document at
no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15
per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information on the LDR
program, contact the RCRA Hotline at
800-424-9346 (toll-free) or 703-412-
9810 locally. For general information on
today's rule, contact Peggy Vyas in the
Office of Solid Waste, phone 703-308-
8594.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Glossary of Acronyms
BAT—Best Available Technology
BDAT—Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
BIFs—Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
CAA--Clean Air Act
CWA—Clean Water Act
EP—Extraction Procedure
HON—Hazardous Organic NESHAPs
HSWA—Hazardous and Solid Waste
'Amendments
HWIR—Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
ICR—ignitable, corrosive, and reactive
wastes, or, Information Collection Request
(in section IX.D.)
ICRT—ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and TC
wastes
LDR—Land Disposal Restrictions
NESHAPs—National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
POTW—Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PSES—Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis
SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act
TC—toxicity characteristic
TCLP—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
TRI—rToxic Release Inventory
UIC—Underground Injection Control
UTS—Universal Treatment Standards
Outline
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements
of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments, and Requirements of the
* 1993 Consent Decree with the
Environmental Defense Fund
B. Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes That Exhibit a Characteristic—
The D.C. Circuit's Opinion in Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA
II. Miscellaneous Issues for Which EPA is
Not Finalizing an Approach in This
Final Rule
A. Treatment Standards for Organobromine
Wastes
B. Potential Prohibition of Nonamenable
Wastes From Land-Based Biological
Treatment Systems
C. Certain Sections of Completing
Universal Treatment Standards
D. Prohibition of Hazardous Waste as Fill
Material
E. Point of Generation
F. Prohibition on Using Iron Filings to
Stabilize Spent Foundry Sand
III. End-of-Pipe Equivalence: Treatment
Standards for Clean Water Act (CWA)
and CWA-Equivalent Wastewater
Treatment Systems
A. Types of Facilities to Which Treatment
Standards Apply
B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards
C. Why CWA Limitations and Standards
Can Also Be RCRA Treatment Standards
D. When CWA Limitations and Standards
Become the RCRA Standards
1. Direct Dischargers
2. Indirect Dischargers
3. Zero Dischargers Performing CWA-
Equivalent Treatment
E. Implementation
1. Where Permits Contain Standards for
Hazardous Constituents
2. Where Permits Do Not Contain a
Limitation for a Hazardous Constituent
3. Indirect Dischargers
4. Zero Dischargers Performing CWA-
Equivalent Treatment
5. Implementation When CWA Standards
and Limitations Will Not be the
Exclusive Standard
6. RCRA Controls Over Point Source
Discharges and Domestic Sewage?
7. Applicability to the Pulp and Paper
Industry
IV. Treatment Standards for Class I
' Nonhazardous Injection Wells and
Response to Comments
A. Introduction
B. Compliance Options for Class I
Nonhazardous Wells
C. Pollution Prevention Compliance
Option
D. De Minimis Volume Exemption
V. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed
Wastes
A. Carbamates
B. Spent Aluminum Potliners (K088)
1. Comments Received on the "Inherently
Waste-Like" Determination
2. Comments Received on Regulated
Constituents
3. Comments Received on Data
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15567
4. Comments Received on Technical Basis
for BDAT
VI. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Completion of Universal Treatment
Standards
1. Addition of Constituents to Table 268.48
2. Waste water Standard for 1,4-Dioxane
3. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
B. Aggressive Biological Treatment as
BDAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes
C. Dilution Prohibition
1. Inorganic Metal-Bearing Wastes
2. Inorganic Metal-bearing Wastes Not
Prohibited Under the LDR Dilution
Prohibition
3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes
4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes
D. Expansion of Treatment Options That
Will Meet the LDR Treatment Standard
"CMBST"
E. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
1. Section 268.8
2. Sections 268.10-268.12
3. Section 268.2(f)
4. Corrections to Proposed Rule Languages
VII. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
VIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures
for Specified Portions of Today's Rule
C. Effect on State Authorization
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to
Executive Order 12866
1. Methodology Section
a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected
Universe
b. Cost Methodology
c. Economic Impact Methodology
d. Benefits Methodology
2. Results
a. Volume Results
b. Cost Results
c. Economic Impact Results
d. Benefit Estimate Results
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Underground injected Wastes
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory
Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments, and
Requirements of the 1993 Consent
Decree With the Environmental Defense
Fund
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
enacted on November 8,1984, largely
prohibit the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes that do not meet
treatment standards established by EPA
under section 3004(m). Once a
hazardous waste is prohibited, the
statute provides only two options for
legal land disposal: meet the treatment
standard for the waste prior to land
disposal, or dispose of the waste in a
land disposal unit that has been found
to satisfy the statutory no migration test.
A no migration unit is one from which
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004
(d), (e), (fj, (g)(5).
The amendments also require the
Agency to set levels or methods of
treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short term and
long term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized. RCRA
section 3004(m)(l). To date, the Agency
has implemented this provision by
establishing treatment standards for
chemical constituents in hazardous
wastes based on the performance of the
best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) to treat the waste. EPA may
establish treatment standards as
specified technologies, as constituent
concentration levels in treatment
residuals, or both. When treatment
standards are set as levels, the regulated
community may use any technology not
otherwise prohibited (such as
impermissible dilution) to treat the
waste.
It should be noted that the Agency has
proposed risk-based exit levels—levels
at which wastes are no longer
considered hazardous for purposes of
RCRA subtitle C—for the majority of
hazardous constituents found in listed
hazardous wastes in the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR
66344, December 21,1995). Wastes
meeting these levels either before or
after treatment consequently could be
disposed in units not subject to RCRA
hazardous waste management
requirements (e.g., landfills without
subtitle C permits). A consent decree
approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia requires EPA to
finalize the HWIR exit levels by
December 15,1996. In the same notice,
the Agency proposed to allow the exit
levels for some constituents to serve as
alternative, risk-based LDR treatment
standards satisfying the "minimize
threat" standard of section 3004(m).
Where these risk-based levels are higher
(less restrictive) than current BDAT
treatment standards, they will
effectively supersede the BDAT
requirements. See Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F.2d
355, 362-63 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
EPA was required to promulgate land
disposal prohibitions and treatment
standards by May 8,1990 for all wastes
that were either listed or identified as
hazardous at the time of the 1984
amendments (RCRA sections 3004 (d),
(e), and (g)(5)), a task EPA completed
within the statutory timeframe. EPA was
also required to promulgate prohibitions
and treatment standards for wastes
identified or listed as hazardous after
the date of the 1984 amendments within
six months after the listing or
identification takes effect (RCRA section
3004(g)(4)).
The Agency did not meet this latter
statutory deadline for all of the wastes
identified or listed after the 1984
amendments. As a result, a suit was
filed by the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF). EPA and EDF signed a
consent decree that establishes a
schedule for adopting prohibitions and
treatment standards for newly identified
and listed wastes. (EDFv. Reilly, Cir.
No. 89-0598, D.D.C.). EPA also entered
into a settlement agreement with the
environmental petitioners in Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2
(D.C. Cir. 1992), cert, denied 113 S. Ct.
1961 (1993) regarding the procedural
effect of the mandate entered in that
case. This settlement calls for EPA to
take action to implement the portions of
the opinion dealing with centralized
management of wastewaters that
initially exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic within specified
timeframes.
Today's rule fulfills several provisions
of the settlement agreement and
proposed consent decree. First, the rule
amends the treatment standards for
initially characteristic wastewaters
managed in centralized wastewater
management systems containing land
disposal units. Three specific fact
patterns are covered by the rule: (1)
Where the wastewaters are ultimately
discharged and are subject to limitations
or standards established under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
treatment system preceding discharge
includes a surface impoundment; (2)
where a facility with initially
characteristic wastes treats those wastes
with CWA-equivalent treatment but
ultimately uses a form of land disposal
(such as spray irrigation) that is not
regulated under the CWA as the final
means of disposing of the treated
wastewaters; and (3) the initially
characteristic wastes are injected into
Class 1 non-hazardous deep wells
subject to regulation under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In all
cases, the wastewaters no longer exhibit
a characteristic at the point of land
disposal. The amended treatment
standards require treatment that
destroys, immobilizes, or removes the
hazardous constituents present in the
initially characteristic wastewaters
(referred to as "underlying hazardous
-------
'15568 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
constituents" because these constituents
are not typically the reason the waste is
•-classified as hazardous). Treatment of
•the underlying hazardous constituents
is nevertheless required in order to
minimize the long-term threats land
disposal of these wastes can cause. 976
F.2d at 16-17.
EPA is fulfilling provisions of the
consent decree by promulgating
prohibitions and treatment standards for
two "newly listed wastes" wastes from
production of carbamate pesticides, and
spent aluminum potliners from primary
aluminum production.
That being said, the risks addressed
by the portion of the rule dealing with
centralized wastewater management,
particularly UIC wells, are very small
relative to the risks presented by other
environmental conditions or situations.
In a time of limited resources, common
sense dictates that we deal with higher
risk activities first, a principle on which
EPA, members of the regulated
community, and the public can all
agree. For this reason, the
Administration is supporting HR 2036,
legislation which passed the House of
Representatives, that would remove the
mandate to automatically apply LDR
treatment standards to decharacterized
wastes managed in centralized
wastewater management situations
regulated by the CWA or the SDWA. If
this legislation passes in its current
form, it would affect the regulations
discussed in sections III., IV., and VLB.
of the preamble. It would not affect the
other sections of the preamble and rule.
The sections of preamble and rule that
are affected by the legislation have been
granted 2-year national capacity
variance (see §§ 148.18 (c) and (d) and
268.39 (c) and (d)). The sections of
preamble and rule not affected by the
legislation have more immediate
effective dates. If the legislation does
pass into law, the Agency could issue an
immediately effective final rule
remanding the affected portions.
Nevertheless, the Agency is presently
required to set treatment standards for
these relatively low risk wastes and
disposal practices, although there are
other actions and projects with which
the Agency could provide greater
protection of human health and the
environment. At the same time,
however, EPA has sought to exercise the
full extent of its authority under current
law to implement these mandates with
significantly lower cost while ensuring
protectiveness, such as giving credit for
up-stream reductions in hazardous
constituents, and crafting limited
exemptions for wastewaters containing
de minimis amounts of hazardous
constituents.
B. Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes That Exhibit a Characteristic—
The D.C. Circuit's Opinion in Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA
In Chemical Waste Management y.
EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992) cert.
denied 113 S. Ct. 1961 (1993), the court
made a number of far-reaching rulings
pertaining to treatment standards for
hazardous wastes that are hazardous
because they exhibit a characteristic.
First, the court held that land disposal
restriction requirements can continue to
apply to characteristic hazardous wastes
even after they no longer exhibit a
characteristic. 976 F.2d at 12-14.
Second, to satisfy the requirement in
RCRA section 3004(m) that treatment
address both short-term and long-term
threats posed by a waste's land disposal,
it is not enough that characteristic
hazardous wastes be treated to remove
the short-term property (viz. ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity) that makes
them hazardous. Long-term threats, in
the form of toxic underlying hazardous
constituents, also must be addressed.
976 F.2d at 16-17. Third (as EPA reads
the opinion), the court held that
dilution was ordinarily not a
permissible means of treating hazardous
constituents. Such constituents
generally must be destroyed,
immobilized, or removed from the waste
to satisfy the requirements of section
3004(m), specifically, the requirement .
that long-term threats be minimized.
976 F.2d at 23, 25 and n. 8; 60 FR at
11706-11708 (March 2, 1995). Fourth,
centralized wastewater management
systems whose discharge is ultimately
regulated under the Clean Water Act,
and which dilute characteristic
hazardous wastes before treatment in
surface impoundments, may continue to
do so provided the wastewater
treatment system destroys, immobilizes,
or removes the same volume of
hazardous constituents as would be
removed, immobilized, or destroyed if
the wastes were treated separately. 976
F.2d at 22-24. In other words,
notwithstanding that these wastes are
disposed in impoundments without
being fully treated, the practice is
permissible provided equivalent
treatment occurs before the waste is
ultimately discharged. Fifth, this option
of demonstrating equivalent treatment
across a treatment system is not
available for Class I nonhazardous deep
Well injection systems because such
units are permanent disposal rather than
treatment units'. 976 F.2d at 24-6.
These portions of the opinion are
addressed in various sections of today's
rule. .,....• :,
The Agency is also addressing the
issue of equivalent treatment by Clean
Water Act treatment systems managing
de-characterized wastes in
impoundments by promulgating
treatment standards and related
requirements that would be used to
measure this so-called end-of-pipe
equivalence. Finally, EPA is
implementing the court's mandate with
respect to Class I nonhazardous
injection wells by requiring treatment of
underlying hazardous constituents in
ignitable, and corrosive characteristic
wastes being injected into such wells,
and prohibiting dilution as a means of
achieving those standards.
Responses to the comments on EPA's
reading of the court's opinion are found
in the Response to Comment
Background Document which is part of
the administrative record for this rule.
In general, however, the Agency adheres
to the reading set out in the proposed
rule's preamble at 60 FR 11706-11708.
EPA is also amending the treatment
standards for reactive wastes (other than
reactive sulfide and cyanide reactive
wastes) so that treatment addresses both
the property of reactivity and the threat
posed by disposal of underlying
hazardous constituents in these wastes
" (with an exception for ordnance and
other explosives which are the subject
of an emergency response, as explained
in the next paragraph). The Agency is
taking this action despite the fact that
the court found reactive wastes did not
contain sufficient concentrations of
hazardous constituents to require any
treatment beyond that of removing the
characteristic. The Agency believes that
it is as likely that reactive wastes
contain underlying hazardous
constituents at levels that may create a
threat as do ignitable and corrosive
wastes, and consequently, proposed to
regulate reactive wastes in the Phase III
proposal. Commenters submitted no
data suggesting that reactive wastes do
not contain the same types and
concentrations of underlying hazardous
constituents. Therefore, EPA is
promulgating treatment standards for
reactive wastes (other than reactive
sulfides and cyanides) in this rule that
require treatment of all underlying
hazardous constituents reasonably
expected to be present in the reactive
wastes at the point of generation.
EPA is, however, temporarily
deferring application of these amended
LDR treatment standards for reactive -
wastes with respect to uhexploded-
ordnance and other explosive devices
which are the subject of an emergency
response. An emergency response is an
action taken to prevent imminent risk of
explosion. (See 40 CFR 264.1(g)(8)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15569
setting out circumstances where such.
responses are exempt from RCRA
permitting requirements.) During the
development of the proposed Military
Munitions Rule: Hazardous Waste
Identification and Management;
Explosives Emergencies; Redefinition of
On-site proposed rule (60 FR 56468,
November 8,1995), the Department of
Defense, the military services, and other
Federal agencies raised concerns that
LDR requirements requiring treatment of
underlying hazardous constituents
might impede the most effective
emergency responses involving these
materials. If a responding team had to
determine LDR applicability before
deactivating an explosive subject to an
• emergency response, the response could
be significantly delayed or complicated.
Furthermore, concern about LDR
applicability might discourage the team
from responding at all. This discussion
serves as EPA's initial response to these
comments.
EPA agrees that the primary goal in
emergency responses to explosives is
the safe and prompt elimination of
immediate threats to human life and
property, and the Agency would be
concerned if LDR or other regulatory
requirements complicated these
responses. The issue is too important
and potentially complicated to resolve
in today's rule. Therefore, EPA is
temporarily deferring final action while
it considers this issue further.
In deferring action for this limited
class of reactive wastes, EPA notes that
emergency responses present issues
different from routine management of
reactive wastes, where there is no
competing consideration of need for
immediate action to prevent an
imminent threat. In non-emergency
response management situations, as
discussed earlier, the Agency believes
these wastes can be fully treated to
minimize both short and long-term
threats posed by land.disposal of
wastes.1 EPA also is amending the
treatment standards for wastes
exhibiting the toxicity characteristic to
include standards for underlying
hazardous constituents.
Toxic wastes can also contain
underlying hazardous constituents in
the same potentially harmful
concentrations as ICR wastes. 60 FR at
11706. Today's final rule consequently
conforms standards for toxic
characteristic hazardous wastes to
assure treatment of underlying
hazardous constituents as well,
when
> EPA also notes that it is not reopening the issue
of open burning/open detonation of reactive wastes.
In 1986, EPA determined that such activities are not
a form of land disposal. See 51 FR at 40580 (Nov.
7,1988). '.'.'..,
such constituents are present at levels
exceeding the minimize threat level (as
established either by the current
technology-based standards or, if risk-
based levels are established, exceeding
a risk-based level.) Thus, the
prohibitions and standards in today's
rule will apply to ignitable, corrosive,
reactive and toxic characteristic wastes,
as just discussed.
II. Miscellaneous Issues for Which EPA
Is Not Finalizing an Approach in This
Final Rule
A. Treatment Standards for
Organobromine Wastes
Organobromine wastes are not yet
listed as hazardous. EPA anticipates
making a final listing determination in
a future rulemaking.
Although EPA proposed treatment
standards for Organobromine wastes, it
clearly would be putting the cart before
the horse to promulgate treatment
standards in advance of a determination
of whether the wastes are hazardous.
The Agency intends to establish
treatment standards for Organobromine
wastes should these wastes are listed in
the future.
B. Potential Prohibition of Nonamenable
Wastes From Land-Based Biological
Treatment Systems
The proposed rule contained an
extensive discussion of whether certain
wastes should be prohibited from
placement in biological treatment
surface impoundments because they are
not amenable to biological treatment. To
allow more time to gather comments,
the Agency has decided to address this
issue in the LDR Phase IV rule, which
was proposed on August 22,1995 (60
FR 43654) and is scheduled to be
finalized in June of 1996.
C. Certain Sections of Completing
Universal Treatment Standards
The LDR Phase III proposed rule
included a section on the completion of
universal treatment standards (60 FR at
11727, March 2,1995). Possible
nonwastewater universal treatment
standards (UTS) for eleven constituents
were discussed in the proposal, and
comments and data were solicited. In
general, commenters felt more data
should be gathered before EPA proposes
nonwastewater standards for these
constituents, and EPA agrees. EPA had
also solicited comment and data on
extending certain universal treatment
standards to fill gaps in the § 268.40
table of universal treatment standards
where "NA" appeared for either the
wastewater or nonwastew.ater form of a
regulate.d hazardous constituent.
Commenters were opposed to this,
stating that it would be arbitrary to add
a standard to a waste code where before
there was none without supporting data.
The Agency again agrees. Therefore,
EPA is not taking final action at this
time.
D. Prohibition of Hazardous Waste as
Fill Material
EPA proposed to prohibit use of
hazardous waste as fill material. 60 FR
at 11732. Because issues raised in the
proposal are related to those in a
number of other pending rulemakings,
including the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule, and the proposed
rule relating to land-based uses of
hazardous waste K061 (59 FR 67256
(Dec. 29,1994)), EPA is not taking final
action on the proposal at this time.
E. Point of Generation
The Agency discussed possible
changes that could be made to the
"point of generation"—or point at
which LDR requirements attach to a
hazardous waste (see 60 FR 11717,
March 2,1995). The Agency is still
considering the options discussed in the
proposal and potentially other options
not discussed. The Agency will reopen
the point of generation issue for further
comment, and is intending to finalize an
option in a future rulemaking.
F. Prohibition on Using Iron Filings to
Stabilize Spent Foundry Sand
The Agency proposed designating the
practice of adding iron dust/filings to
spent foundry sand as impermissible
dilution (60 FR 11731, March 2, 1995).
The Agency is gathering data on the
stability of the chemical bond formed
between the iron and lead in the spent
foundry sand. After the Agency analyzes
these data, as well as further studies the
public comments on this issue, it may
take final action on the proposal.
III. End-of-Pipe Equivalence: Treatment
Standards for Clean Water Act (CWA)
and CWA-Equivalent Wastewater
Treatment Systems
A. Types of Facilities to Which
Treatment Standards Apply
As explained above, the D.C. Circuit
established a standard of so-called end-
of-pipe equivalence, allowing CWA
treatment systems with surface
impoundments to dilute characteristic
wastes before land disposal in those
impoundments without violating LDR
requirements, provided the treatment
system destroys, immobilizes, or
removes an equivalent amount of
hazardous constituent as if the
characteristic waste were treated
separately to meet RCRA standards. EPA
-------
1557O Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
is establishing in this rule the treatment
standards that must be satisfied in order
to demonstrate that equivalent treatment
is occurring.
These treatment standards apply to
the following types of facilities: (1)
facilities treating formerly characteristic
wastes in surface impoundments whose
ultimate discharge is subject to
regulation under either section 402 or
307 of the CWA. The rule thus
encompasses both direct dischargers
(facilities discharging to navigable
waters) and indirect dischargers (those
discharging to POTWs); and, (2)
permitted and unpermitted zero
dischargers engaging in treatment that is
equivalent to that of the CWA-regulated
facilities (see 40 CFR 268.3 7(a) denning
CWA-equivalent treatment), including
facilities treating formerly characteristic
wastes in tanks prior to release on the
land for such purposes as irrigation or
land treatment.
EPA also wishes to make clear the
types of wa'stewater management
situations to which these standards do
not apply. First, the standards do not
apply to facilities that discharge to
navigable waters or POTWs and that
manage decharacterized wastes in
treatment systems without surface
impoundments. Consequently, if a
facility generates a characteristic waste,
dilutes it so that it no longer exhibits a
characteristic, and then treats the waste
in tanks before ultimate discharge to a
navigable water or a POTW, this rule
does not apply. There is no land
disposal of a prohibited waste occurring
and consequently no RCRA requirement
that the characteristic waste be
pretreated. Applicable CWA limitations
and standards would, of course,
continue to apply (as would a one-time
recordkeeping requirement under RCRA
(see §268,9).
Second, the standards do not apply in
situations where RCRA hazardous waste
(subtitle C) impoundments are used.
The statute already sets out the
requirements for subtitle C
impoundments receiving wastes which
may not yet have met a treatment
standard. RCRA section 3005(j)(ll).
These requirements are not altered by
the Third Third opinion. 976 F. 2d at 24
n. 10.
Finally, in response to comment, EPA
has determined that the end-of-pipe
treatment standards should not apply to
stormwater impoundments. Stormwater
impoundments are used by treatment
facilities to catch stormwater during
rain events, because their biological
treatment systems cannot adequately
handle such sudden, large volumes of
water. At some treatment facilities,
however, because they have a combined
wastewater system, stormwater
impoundments also receive process
water containing decharacterized •;
wastes.
The Agency agrees with commenters
who stated that stormwater /• ... ....'.:
impoundments are necessary to
maintain the efficacy of biological
treatment units. In addition, such
impoundments are empty most of the
time because they are designed for
emergency rain events. In the Third
Third opinion, the court focused on
wastewater treatment surface
impoundments. It seems likely that •
stormwater impoundments were outside
the court's consideration. Furthermore,
imposing treatment standards on such
impoundments could require treatment
of the stormwater/decharacterized waste
before it could permissibly go into the
impoundment, not a practical
alternative during a major storm event.
Alternatively, imposingLDR u-eaiment
standards might require the .facility to
replace its combined wastewater
system, which would be a major
disruption to most of these facilities and
hardly seems justified when stormwater
impoundments are used only on an
emergency basis. These are the very
types of disruptions that the integration
clause in RCRA 1006(b) is intended to
prevent. Consequently, EPA is •'..•-.
indicating that today's rule does not
apply to stormwater impoundments.
B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards
The treatment standards that EPA is
promulgating for characteristic
wastewaters are found in the table of
LDR treatment standards at 40 CFR
268.40 and 268.48. As explained more
fully in the following section, these
treatment standards generally adopt the
limitations or standards that apply to
the facility's discharge as the RCRA ".
treatment standards. The reason EPA is
taking this approach is that the CWA.
industry category or case-by-case
industrial POTW limitations and
standards represent 'specific
determinations of what Best Available
Treatment (BAT) technology is capable
of achieving for that plant's wastewater,
or, in the case of Water Quality Criteria-
based limitations, what an appropriate
limit is based on BAT treatment plus
risk-based considerations. In the event a
hazardous* constituent present in the
wastewater at point of generation of the
original characteristic hazardous waste
is not already regulated pursuant to a
CWA limitation or standard, the RCRA
Universal Treatment Standard for that
constituent would apply.
These treatment standards may be met
at the CWA point of compliance,
typically the point the wastewater is
discharged to a navigable water or a
POTW. For CWA-equivalent facilities,
the treatment standards must be met at
the point where the wastewater is
sprayed onto the land in irrigation (or
similar) activities, or injected into a
non-Glass.I injection well. This accords
with the equivalence standard
established by the court: "hazardous
constituents are [to be] removed from
the waste before it enters the
environment." 976 F. 2d at 24; see also
id. at 23 and n. 8. Most commenters
likewise agreed with an end-of-pipe
measuring point. Indeed, requiring full
treatment before ultimate discharge
could destroy the very accommodation
with the CWA regime that the court
thought critical. See 60 FR at 13677
(Aug. 22,1995).
However, EPA also agrees with
commenters that there is no reason to
impede individual facilities from
choosing an alternative point of
compliance (i.e. other than end-of-pipe)
provided the facility can demonstrate
that the prohibited waste (the
decharacterized portion of the combined
effluent) has been treated by means
other than dilution to remove an
equivalent mass of hazardous
constituents. This is specifically
consistent with the principle announced
in the Administration's report on
"Reinventing Environmental
Regulation" to "providfe] maximum
flexibility in the means of achieving our
environmental goals, but requiring
accountability for the results".
Consequently, the Agency is allowing a
facility to designate any compliance
point downstream of treatment that
destroys, immobilizes, or removes
hazardous constituents as the point for
demonstrating that equivalent treatment
occurs. This point can, but need not be,
the NPDES or pretreatment point of
compliance. Examples of alternative
points of compliance that would be
permissible (assuming the treatment
standard is being satisfied) would be
prior to initial placement in an
impoundment, or after treatment in an
impoundment but before final
discharge.
The Agency also agrees with
commenters that there can be alternative
points of compliance for different
underlying hazardous constituents.
Again, the reason is to allow flexibility
of compliance alternatives when a
facility can demonstrate that it is
destroying, immobilizing, or removing
an equivalent mass of hazardous
constituents through wastewater
treatment as would be achieved by
segregating the characteristic
wastestream for separate RCRA
treatment. Thus, if a facility generated a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15571
characteristic waste containing metal
and organic underlying hazardous
constituents and the waste was treated
sequentially by means not involving
impermissible dilution, there could be
different compliance points for the
metal and organic hazardous
constituents.
EPA notes, however, that if alternative
points of compliance are utilized,
enforcement would normally be
pursuant to RCRA, not the Clean Water
Act. This is by necessity, since CWA
permits (or, for indirect dischargers,
control mechanisms) would not
normally apply to effluent quality before
final discharge. See further discussion
on means of implementing today's
standards below in this preamble.
C. Why CWA Limitations and Standards
Can Also Be RCRA Treatment
Standards
As explained above, when a
hazardous constituent is already subject
to a OVA industry category or Water
Quality Criteria-based limitation, or a
case-by-case industrial POTW limitation
or standard, the Agency believes (and
the final rule provides) that the CWA
limitations and standards satisfy RCRA
section 3004(m) requirements and
consequently become the RCRA
treatment standard for purposes of
demonstrating equivalent treatment.
EPA believes that this is an obvious and
effective means of integrating CWA and
RCRA requirements, in accord with the
court's objective. 976 F. 2d at 22; RCRA
section 1006(b). This approach was
generally supported by commenters as a
reasonable means of satisfying the
court's mandate and the underlying
policy of integration of the two statutes.
Several commenters, however, argued
that CWA limitations and standards
could not be equivalent to RCRA
because such standards can reflect
(among other things) "the cost of
achieving such effluent reduction", and
"the age of equipment and facilities
involved". CWA section 304(b)(2)(B)
(factors to be considered in determining
Best Available Technology). EPA
disagrees. While it is true that
technology-based standards developed
to address toxic pollutants from various
industrial categories are developed after
consideration of levels that can be
achieved through application of the best
available technology economically
achievable, the CWA limitations and
standards nevertheless represent the
best evaluation of what technically
advanced wastewater treatment is
capable of achieving for a particular
industry's (or, in some cases, particular
plant's) wastewater. Although there is
no requirement that a particular
treatment technology must be used to
achieve the facility's limits, it is
expected that plants utilizing BAT will
have treated their effluent so that there
are substantial reductions in
concentration and mass of hazardous
constituents. As the Agency has stated
many times, EPA believes that section
3004(m) is satisfied by treatment that
substantially destroys, immobilizes, and
removes the hazardous constituents that
are present in the waste,
notwithstanding that minor amounts of
hazardous constituents remain after
treatment. Put another way, the statute
does not require that every conceivable
threat posed by land disposal be
eliminated by treatment. 55 FR at 6641
and n. 1 (Feb. 26,1990); 56 FR at 12355
(March 25,1991); 57 FR 37259 (August
18,1992); 55 FR at 22596 (June 1,1990).
In fact, the legislative history states
explicitly that the treatment standards
are not to be technology forcing, but
rather are to utilize the available
effective treatment technologies. 130
Cong. Rec. S. 1978 (daily ed. July 25,
1984) (statement of Sen. Chaffee); 56 FR
at 12355. That is precisely what EPA
has done here.
Second, with specific regard to use of
CWA limitations, EPA notes that
virtually all of the current LDR
treatment standards for wastewaters are
already drawn from CWA limitations
and standards. See 55 FR at 22601
(wastewater standards for U and P
wastes and F039, which essentially
became the universal treatment
standards, were transferred from
treatment data from CWA programs),
and see also the Final BDAT
Background Document for U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate
(F039) Volume C (documenting that
most of existing RCRA wastewater
standards were transferred from CWA
limitations and standards). Moreover,
the technologies that are often used to
achieve CWA limitations and standards
are, in most cases, the same
technologies upon which the RCRA
Universal Treatment Standards are
based. As EPA has already stated,
"because most treatment technologies
cannot be so precisely calibrated as to
achieve, for example, 3.5 ppm rather
than 2.7 ppm, the likely result is that
the same amount of treatment will
occur." 59 FR at 47989 (Sept. 19,1994).
Since frequently the same technologies
are used to treat wastewaters, EPA
expects the degree of treatment to be
comparable.
EPA also emphasizes that RCRA
section 1006(b) requires EPA (among
other things) to integrate provisions of
RCRA and the CWA when
implementing RCRA, and to avoid
duplication to the maximum extent
possible with CWA requirements. The
Agency feels it is accomplishing this
requirement by allowing a constituent-
specific, CWA treatment standard to
satisfy RCRA 3004(m). The Agency
reiterates that a technology-based CWA
limitation or standard for a hazardous
constituent satisfies RCRA because such
a limitation or standard directly reflects
the capability of BAT technologies to
treat a specific industry's or facility's
wastewater, whereas the RCRA UTS for
wastewaters were developed by
transferring performance data from
various industries, and thus EPA need
not make that same transfer when
industry-specific (or plant-specific)
wastewater treatment data is available.
A water-quality based limitation
would also satisfy RCRA section
3004(m). A CWA water quality-based
limitation must be at least as stringent
as the limitations required to implement
an existing technology-based standard.
(See CWA section 301(b)(l)(c).) Even
where there is no existing BAT
limitation for a toxic or
nonconventional pollutant, a permit
writer must determine whether BAT
would be more stringent than the
applicable water quality-based
limitation, and again, must apply the
more stringent of the two potential
limitations. (40 CFR 125.3(c)(2).)
If a facility has received a
Fundamentally Different Factors (PDF)
variance, the limitations established by
that variance also satisfy RCRA
requirements. Limitations established
by the FDF variance process are
technology-based standards reflecting
facility-specific circumstances, and
hence can appropriately be viewed as
BDAT as well, just as with RCRA
treatability variance standards. See 51
FR at 40605 (Nov. 7, 1986).
EPA also believes that there are
adequate constraints in the CWA
implementing rules to prevent these
end-of-pipe standards from being
achieved by means of simple dilution.
First, many of the effluent limitation
guidelines and standards regulate the
mass of pollutants discharged, and thus
directly regulate not only the
concentration of pollutant discharged
but the degree of wastewater flow as
well. Even where rules are
concentration-based, NPDES permit
writers can set requirements which
preclude excessive water use, and EPA
has so instructed permit writers. (See 58
FR 66151, December 17,1993,
encouraging permit writers to estimate
reasonable rate of flow per facility and
factor that flow limit into the permit.)
These permit conditions can take the
form of best management practices,
-------
1.5572 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 /Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
explicit mass limitations, and ......
conditions on internal waste streams. 40
CFR 122.44(k); 122.45 (f), (g) and (h).
Indirect dischargers are also subject to
specific CWA dilution rules in both the
general pretreatment rules and the
Combined Wastestream Formula (as
well as through many of the categorical
standards). 40 CFR 403.6 (d) and (e).
Many of the guidelines and standards
also preclude addition of stormwater
runoff to process wastewater to preclude
achieving treatment requirements by
means of dilution. The Agency is
accordingly of the view that end-of-pipe
equivalence would be achieved by
treatment that removes, immobilizes, or
destroys hazardous constituents, and
therefore we have determined the
treatment satisfies the requirements of
RCRA section 3004(m).
EPA emphasizes, however, that it is
not addressing the issue of whether
cross-media transfers of hazardous
constituents become so extensive as to
invalidate the wastewater treatment
function of a land-based unit. This is the
subject of the pending Phase IV
proposed rule (60 FR at 43654 (August
22,1995)), and will be addressed as part
of that proceeding.
D. When CWA Limitations and
Standards Become the RCRA Standards
Today's rule establishes the following
principles:
1. Direct Dischargers
A CWA limitation becomes the RCRA
treatment standard as well in the
following situations: (a) where there is
a categorical BAT or NSPS limitation for
the underlying hazardous constituent;
(b) where there is a facility-specific
limitation for the underlying hazardous
constituent pursuant to 40 CFR 125.3
(c)(2) and (d)(3); (c) where there is a
Water Quality-based limitation'
established'pursuant to 40 CFR
122.44(d); or (d) where the facility has
received a Fundamentally Different
Factors variance establishing an
alternative limitation pursuant to 40
CFR Part 125 subpart D.
2. Indirect Dischargers
A Clean Water Act pretreatment
standard becomes the RCRA treatment
standard as well in the following
circumstances: (a) where there is a
categorical PSES or PSNS for a
particular hazardous constituent; and,
(b) where POTWs have developed local
limits, in addition to categorical
standards, to prevent pass through and
interference and apply them to indirect
dischargers.
EPA proposed that if pretreatment
standards reflected a finding that a
particular hazardous constituent will
not pass through to navigable waters
because of efficacious,treatment by the
POTW, that standard would also satisfy
RCRA. The reason is that there will be
full-scale treatment of the hazardous,
constituent before its final release into
the environment. Such full-scale
treatment satisfies the court's
equivalency test. 60 FR at 11711. EPA
is adopting this provision in today's rule
for these reasons.
The Agency also proposed that
pretreatment standards based on
interference with POTW operations
would not be considered to satisfy
RCRA. Id. EPA is adopting this position
in the final rule. The reason is that
interference findings reflect the effect
the pollutant may have on overall
POTW treatment, not necessarily
treatment of the particular constituent.
Because the relationship of an
interference-based standard with
treatment of a particular hazardous
constituent is tenuous, EPA does not
believe that such a standard can be said
to be equivalent to RCRA treatment.
Several commenters disagreed with this
reasoning, but provided no empirical
information calling the Agency's
conclusion into question. EPA is
consequently adopting this provision as
proposed.
3. Zero Dischargers Performing CWA-
Equivalent Treatment
In the May 24,1993 emergency.rule,
EPA established the principle that zero
discharge facilities performing CWA-
equivalent treatment on decharacterized
wastewaters would be subject to the
rules for direct dischargers, and thus :
would retain the ability to use surface
impoundments as part of the treatment
process for decharacterized wastes
provided equivalent treatment occurs.
58 FR at 29863-29864. The reason is
that these facilities can be performing
wastewater treatment identical to, or
more stringent than, that required of
direct dischargers, and thus the same
policy of integrating RCRA and the
CWA should apply to such facilities. Id.
EPA is consequently also applying
today's rules on equivalency to zero
dischargers performing CWA-equivalent
treatment, including tank-based systems
that ultimately land dispose rather than
discharge treated effluent. "CWA-
equivalent treatment" is defined in
268.37(a) to mean "biological treatment
for organics, alkaline chlorination or
ferrous sulfate precipitation/
sedimentation for metals, reduction of
hexavalent chromium, or other
treatment technology that can be
demonstrated to perform equally or
greater.than these technologies".
E. Implementation :
1. Where Permits Contain Standards for
Hazardous Constituents
If a direct discharger subject to the
rule (i.e. generating a characteristic
waste containing Underlying hazardous
constituents at concentrations exceeding
the treatment standard, at the point the
waste is generated, and is treating those
decharacterized wastes in surface
impoundments) has an NPDES, permit _.
containing a limitation for that
hazardous constituent based on BAT,
NSPS, BPJ, or a water quality standard,
then there are no independent RCRA -,
requirements beyond documenting in
the facility's records that this is the .
facility's mode of compliance.
EPA notes further that if the Agency
(or authorized State), as part of the CWA
decisionmakirig process for setting the
limitations, affirmatively decided that
such hazardous constituents need not be
.regulated due to low toxicity, low
bioavailability or other environmental
factors and that fact is reflected in the
rulemaking record, permit or permit
record, rio additional RCRA standards -
would apply. If the rulemaking or
permit and permit record do not contain
such a finding, the permitting authority
should reexamine the NPDES permit
upon reissuance in order to clarify
•whether such hazardous constituents
need not be regulated. During the time
between the date this rule becomes "
effective and the date the permit is
reissued, however, the RCRA Universal
Treatment Standards for those ,
constituents must be met.
In addition, if EPA (or an authorized
State) affirmatively decided either-in the
rulemaking or in the permitting process
that a particular hazardous constituent
is controlled through controls on an .
indicator pollutant, then again, no
additional RCRA standards would
apply. For this purpose, however, the
Agency would only accept as a valid
indicator situations where a toxic
pollutant parameter is used as an
indicator for another toxic pollutant. •,
The Agency does not believe that use of
conventional pollutants (such as BOD or
COD) as indicators for toxic constituents
guarantees the type of equivalent
treatment of hazardous constituents, •
which EPA feels is necessary to . .
implement the equivalence requirement.
976 F. 2d at 23 n. 8.2
2 In making this statement, EPA is of course not
calling into question the use of conventional
pollutants as valid indicators to satisfy Clean Water
Act requirements. The language in the text is
directed solely at implementing the court's mandate
for purposes of RCRA. * '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15573
2. Where Permits Do Not Contain a
Limitation for a Hazardous Constituent
If the CWA permit either does not
contain a limitation for the pollutant or
does not regulate the pollutant through
an indicator, or in cases when this rule
becomes effective before the reissuance
of a facility's permit, the RCRA
universal treatment standards would
apply as they do for any other RCRA
hazardous wastestream. In this
situation, the owner or operator of a
facility has several choices. The owner/
operator could do nothing, in which
case the hazardous constituent would be
subject to the UTS. These standards
would be implemented by rule, and
thus would not be embodied in a CWA
permit. Enforcement consequently
would be solely under RCRA. As noted
earlier, the point of compliance could,
but need not be, at the end-of-pipe point
of discharge.
In the alternative, a facility could seek
amendment of its NPDES permit
pursuant to § 122.62(a)(3), requesting
that the applicable permitting authority
modify the permit at reissuance, or
sooner, to add limits for the underlying
hazardous constituents reflecting BAT
for that pollutant at the facility.3
Assuming proper design and operation
of the wastewater treatment technology,
a permit writer in such a case could
modify the permit to add a limitation for
the pollutant based on Best Professional
Judgement reflecting actual BAT
treatment (40 CFR 125.3(c)).
Modification requests would be
processed pursuant to the procedures
found at § 124.5. The modified permit
limitation would be a CWA requirement
and enforceable solely under that
statute, but would be deemed by the
Agency to satisfy RCRA 3004(m), so that
meeting UTS per se would not be
required.
A final alternative is for the facility to
seek a RCRA treatability variance. EPA
is amending the grounds for granting
such a variance to include situations
where a facility is treating
decharacterized wastes by treatment
identified as BAT or NSPS (New Source
Performance Standards), the technology
is designed and operated properly, but
is not achieving the UTS (see
§ 268.44(a)).
3. Indirect Dischargers
The same alternatives exist for
indirect dischargers. If an underlying
hazardous constituent is regulated by a
categorical PSES, PSNS, or by a local
3 EPA is interpreting the language in
§ 122.62(a)(2) to indicate that the D.C. Circuit's
opinion in the Third Third case is new information
warranting reopening a permit.
limit in a control mechanism reflecting
PSES or PSNS—level treatment, then
that standard satisfies both RCRA and
the CWA. In addition, if there is no
pretreatment standard (i.e., PSES/PSNS)
for an underlying hazardous
constituent, because the Agency
determined that there was no pass
through, then section 3004(m) is
satisfied and the RCRA standard for that
underlying hazardous constituents does
not apply.
If an underlying hazardous
constituent is not regulated nationally
by a PSES or PSNS, or by a local limit,
it becomes subject to the UTS for that
constituent. That UTS would be
enforced as a RCRA standard. However,
in cases where an underlying hazardous
constituent is not already subject to
categorical PSES, categorical PSNS, or
to a local limit in a control mechanism
reflecting PSES or PSNS-level treatment,
water quality, or pass through, the
control mechanism between the indirect
discharger and the applicable control
authority would have to be modified in
order to avoid application of the UTS by
rule. EPA is amending §403.5(c)(l) and
§403.5(c)(2) of the pretreatment rules to
specifically authorize control authorities
to make such determinations.
The final option is for a facility to
obtain a RCRA treatability variance.
Thus, the amendment to the treatability
variance rules also applies to indirect
dischargers properly operating
technology identified as the basis for
their PSES or their PSNS standard.
4. Zero Dischargers Performing CWA-
Equivalent Treatment
The implementation options for zero
dischargers performing CWA-equivalent
treatment are similar. Some of these
facilities may have CWA permits
authorizing specified levels of
discharge. If these permit limitations
apply to underlying hazardous
constituents present in the RCRA-
prohibited portion of the discharge, the
CWA permit limit satisfies RCRA as
well. The facility also could seek to
amend the CWA permit to add
limitations for the hazardous
constituent. Enforcement then would be
exclusively pursuant to the CWA.
If the zero discharger has no CWA
permit, or the permit does not contain
limitations for underlying hazardous
constituents and is not amended to do
so, then the facility would have to meet
the RCRA UTS or an alternative
standard established by treatability
variance either at the point of
discharge 4 or at an earlier point of its
choosing (assuming, of course, that a
valid demonstration of bona fide
treatment can be made at an earlier
point).
5. Implementation When CWA
Standards and Limitations Will Not Be
the Exclusive Standard
If the facility treats to UTS and does
not modify its CWA permit or control
mechanism to include a CWA standard/
limitation for an underlying hazardous
constituent, EPA is finalizing minimal
recordkeeping requirements, under
RCRA authority. Generators can use
their knowledge to identify the
underlying hazardous constituents
reasonably expected to be present at the
point of generation of the ICRT wastes
which are not covered-by a CWA
limitation or standard and hence must
be treated to meet UTS (assuming no
permit modification). EPA is requiring
that this information be kept on-site in
files at the facility. The facility will then
monitor compliance with the UTS
standard for each of these constituents
at the point of ultimate discharge or
alternative compliance point, on a
quarterly basis, and results of this
monitoring must be kept in the facility's
on-site files. An exceedence of the
RCRA UTS standard must be
documented in the facility's on site
records.
These same requirements apply to
facilities without NPDES permits
documenting compliance as zero
dischargers with CWA-equivalent
treatment who are affected by this rule.
The absence of a permit necessitates
some alternative means of documenting
compliance, and the scheme outlined
above seems to be the least burdensome
scheme which would still provide a
reasonable means of enforcing this rule.
6. RCRA Controls Over Point Source
Discharges and Domestic Sewage
Both RCRA and the implementing
regulations provide that point source
discharges and domestic sewage
(including mixtures of domestic sewage
with other wastes) are not subject to
4 The point of compliance for a zero discharger
choosing the point of discharge as a compliance
point would be at the point of ultimate disposal.
For those zero dischargers who discharge to a dry
river bed [common in the western U.S.) not
considered a "water of the U.S." under the CWA,
the point of compliance would be at the end-of-
pipe. For those zero dischargers who spray irrigate,
or otherwise place the wastewaters on the land after
treatment in the surface impoundment, the point of
compliance would be at the point just prior to the
land placement. Furthermore, zero dischargers
treating wastewaters in a tank system followed by
spray irrigation or another form of land placement
are also subject to this rule. For those zero
dischargers who use evaporation ponds, the point
of compliance is before the wastewater enters the
surface impoundment, as this is the ultimate
disposal point.
-------
. _ '"'.'.$ I ' ' - V' -*i;:
15574 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
RCRA subtitle C jurisdiction. RCRA
section 1004(27) and §261.4(a) (1) and
(2). Some commenters questioned
whether by allowing CWA limitations
and standards to satisfy the RCRA
treatment standard requirement, EPA
were somehow imposing RCRA controls
where it lacks authority to do so.
This is not the case. EPA is creating
here a mechanism for evaluating
whether RCRA-equivalent treatment has
occurred for purposes of determining
whether surface impoundments (i.e.
RCRA land disposal units) can
permissibly be used as part of that
treatment process. 976 F. 2d at 22-24.
The effect, for RCRA purposes, of failing
to satisfy the limitations or standards is
that the facility has engaged in illegal
land disposal by virtue of not
performing equivalent treatment. Id.
Thus, the effect of the rule is on activity
upstream of the discharge point, and
these activities are within RCRA's
jurisdictional purview.
7. Applicability to the Pulp and Paper
Industry
The concerns about integration of
CWA and RCRA standards are
particularly acute with respect to the
pulp and paper industry. EPA is at a
critical stage in developing
comprehensive multi-media rules for
this industry (to control both hazardous
air emissions and wastewater
discharges). These rules were proposed
at 58 FR 66078 (Dec. 17, 1993) and are
slated for promulgation by mid-1996.
The rules should fundamentally affect
(for the better) the types of wastewaters
managed at pulp and paper facilities
and the potential releases of hazardous
constituents from such wastes. The^
Agency believes that it would be putting
the cart before the horse, and would fail
to properly integrating RCRA with the
CWA (and potentially CAA in this case)
by proceeding with implementation of
the court's decision for this industry in
advance of completion of this
rulemaking. Cf. Edison Electric Inst. v.
EPA, 2 F. 3d 438, 453 (B.C. Cir. 1993)
noting when temporary deferrals of
action to allow better integration of
overlapping statutes is permissible. The
Agency will revisit the question of how
to implement the court's decision for
the pulp and paper industry upon
completion of the existing multi-media
rulemaking.
IV. Treatment Standards for Class I
Nonhazardous Injection Wells and
Response to Comments
A. Introduction
Generally, Class I nonhazardous
injection well owners/operators
injecting decharacterized ICRT wastes
do not substantially treat their waste
beyond removing the characteristic by
aggregating and diluting wastestreams,
plus filtering of solids in order to
facilitate injection. There are as many as
100 such nonhazardous facilities in •
addition to the approximately 54
hazardous facilities injecting ICRT
wastes. As discussed in the Phase III
proposed rule, EPA estimates that the
average flow of a "typical" Class I
nonhazardous well is 107,000 gallons/
day. Typically, the volume of hazardous
wastes comprises 25% or less of the
aggregated injected wastestream.
In the Third rule, EPA proposed that
characteristic wastes were not
prohibited from injection into these
deep wells provided they no longer
exhibited a characteristic at the point
they are injected.e. land disposed. 60 JR
at 11704-11705. The B.C. Circuit
rejected this portion of the rule, holding,
in EPA's reading of the opinion, that the
statutory requirements could not be
satisfied absent treatment that addressed
both short term and long term threats
posed by land disposal of the waste, and
hence that hazardous constituents in the
waste had to be destroyed, removed or
immobilized before injection, not
merely diluted. 60 JR at 11706-11708.
EPA is implementing that mandate in
this rule. (However, EPA reiterates, as it
did at proposal, that EPA is taking this ..
action to implement the court's
mandate, not because it is an
environmental priority, or prudent use
of the Agency's or the regulated
community's resources. The
Administration is in fact pursuing a
legislative change which would restore
EPA's original policy determination
reflected in the 1990 Third rule.)
The effect of today's final rule is to
prohibit the land disposal of
characteristic waste streams at the point
they are generated. If those wastes
contain underlying hazardous
constituents at levels exceeding the
Universal Treatment Standards and (as
• explained further below) at levels and
volumes greater than designated de
minims amounts, those constituents
would have to be destroyed, removed,
or immobilized before the waste is
injected. This could be accomplished
either by segregating the characteristic
portion of the injectate for treatment, or
by treating the commingled injectate
before disposal (i.e. before injection).
The rule further provides that if a
facility removes an equivalent mass of
the hazardous constituent through
source reduction, or waste treatment,
that the treatment standard is satisfied.
The final, alternative means of ,.
compliance is for the unit to have
received a no-migration determination.
A number of commenters believed
that aggregation or dilution of wastes to
remove the hazardous characteristic of
the waste stream prior to injection was
sufficient and that the requirement to
treat underlying constituents was legally
unnecessary and onerous. EPA's reading
of the Third Third opinion and section
3004(m) is that treatment that destroys,
immobilizes, or removes hazardous
constituents is required, and that this
requirement is not satisfied merely by
dilution. The statutory findings of the
inherent uncertainty of land disposal of
hazardous wastes, the propensity to
bioaccumulate these same constituents,
the statutory goals of waste
minimization and proper waste
management, plus the legislative history
documenting Congressional intent not
to permit treatment by dilution supports
the Agency in rejecting these comments.
60 FR at 11706-708. Therefore, the
Agency has decided not to allow Class
I nonhazardous wells to dilute or
aggregate their waste streams in order'to
fulfill, substitute, or avoid treatment
levels or methods established in the
LDRs. See the dilution prohibition
added in § 148.3 of today's final rule.
Furthermore, the Agency, as
proposed, is expanding the applicability
of 40 CFR Part 148 to now require
owners/operators of Class I
nonhazardous wells to determine
whether LBRs apply to their facilities.
Commenters likewise sharply
questioned the Agency's determinations
as to when land disposal prohibitions
should attach, and state, correctly in the
Agency's view, that the opinion did not
compel a determination that
prohibitions must attach at the initial
point of waste generation or when
underlying hazardous constituents are
present at that point in concentrations
exceeding the UTS. EPA is in fact
pursuing alternatives on both of these
fronts. The Agency proposed
alternatives to the strictest point of
generation approach, 60 FR at 11715-
716, and expects to take final action on
this proposal well before the effective
date of tibie Phase III prohibitions for
Class I non-hazardous UIC wells. The
source reduction compliance option in
this rule is a related means of dealing
with this issue, since it can be
conceptualized as allowing the requisite
hazardous constituent reductions to be
achieved by means other than
downstream treatment notwithstanding
presence of hazardous constituents
above UTS at what is technically point
of waste generation.
.: With regard to whether presence of
hazardous constituents above UTS
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15575
would be the trigger level for the LDR
prohibition, EPA has recently proposed
risk-based hazardous constituent
concentration levels which would
implement the "minimize threat"
requirement in section 3004(m), and
would cap the technology-based
treatment standards whenever the
technology-based standards are lower
(60 FR 66344, December 21,1995). The
de minimis feature of today's rule
further addresses situations where EPA
believes that prohibitions need not
apply due to the low concentrations and
volumes of hazardous constituents in
the decharacterized portion of the
injectate.
B. Compliance Options for Class I
Nonhazardous Wells
In the proposed rule, the Agency
indicated that facilities could segregate
their hazardous wastes, and treat just
that volume of the total waste stream to
UTS levels in order to conform to the
treatment requirement. A number of
commenters maintained that the Agency
oversimplified this approach and that
such segregation was impractical from
both a technical and economic
standpoint. EPA acknowledges that
many facilities may not practically be
able to segregate streams. These
facilities may utilize of other LDR
compliance options as discussed below.
One option would be to apply for an
exemption from treatment standards via
the no-migration petition variance. EPA
is promulgating a clarifying revision to
40 CFR 148.20 which allows facilities to
seek a no-migration variance for their
Class I nonhazardous wells, and has
long indicated that this compliance
option is available (see pp. 25-27,
Supplemental Information Report
prepared for the Notice of Data
Availability, January 19,1993, 58 FR
4972). If these facilities demonstrate to
EPA that their formerly characteristic
wastes (including any hazardous
constituents) will not migrate out of the
injection zone for 10,000 years, or no
longer pose a threat to human health
and the environment because the wastes
are attenuated, transformed, or
immobilized by natural processes, then
they may continue to inject without
further treatment.
A significant number of commenters
responded to the proposed rule's
discussion on the Agency's position on
granting no-migration petitions.
Comments included that petitions were
a too costly option, took too much time
to be processed, generic petitions for
Class I non-hazardous wells should be
granted, and existing no-migration
exemptions should not require
modification to include Phase III wastes.
These comments, among others, will be
discussed in detail in the "Response to
Comments" background document for
this rule, but basically many had partial
merit.
First, although the Agency has
estimated earlier that the average
petition costs an operator $343,000,
several individual petition reviews have
far exceeded that amount. The Agency
will examine the possibility of revising
petition cost data in future LDR rules.
Second, although a petition may take up
to 3 years to process, the Agency (as
noted above) indicated as early as 1992
(after the Third Third opinion) that it
would begin review of Class I
nonhazardous injection well no-
migration petitions if submitted (58 FR
4972, January 19,1993). Although time
and resource restraints on the Agency
are real, the Agency will continue to
work with affected Class I operators in
order to facilitate the no-migration
petition review process. Third, although
EPA has established a reasonable
knowledge base on the review process
for Class I hazardous facilities, it cannot
automatically infer that all Class I
nonhazardous facilities will
successfully make a no-migration
demonstration. Well site geology,
hydrogeology, abandoned well area of
review, and the specific characteristics
of the injectate and receiving formation
are site specific factors which, as a
factual matter, must be evaluated
individually in order to demonstrate "to
a reasonable degree of certainty" (RCRA
section 3004(g)(5)) that the no migration
standard has been satisfied. See
Supplemental Report to Notice of Data
Availability, January 19,1993, at 25-26
9. It must be remembered that not every
Class I injection well applying for the
variance has been able to make the
demonstration, and that one salutary
effect of the no migration process has
been to identify certain (albeit a limited
number of) wells that would not be
capable of adequately pontaining
injectate over the long term.
EPA agrees completely with
commenters, however, that wells that
already have approved no migration
exemptions are not affected by the Third
Third opinion and thus are not affected
by land disposal restrictions affecting
decharacterized wastes. (In fact, EPA
does not read the proposal to suggest
otherwise.) Absent a change in the
waste being injected, there is no reason
to reopen no migration determinations
that have already evaluated the entire
injected waste stream. 57 FR at 31963
(July 20, 1992).
EPA is also promulgating additional
means for Class I nonhazardous
facilities to comply with the LDR
requirements. Revisions to 40 CFR
148.1(c)(l) and 148.4 will allow Class I
nonhazardous owners and operators to
apply for a case-by-case extension of the
capacity variance for up to one year
(renewable for up to an additional year)
in order to acquire or construct
alternative treatment capacity. Based on
experience, EPA believes that the
availability of the case-by-case
extension coupled with national
capacity variance(s) should allow
operators more than adequate time to
acquire alternative treatment or
complete the no-migration petition
process. Two other options include the
pollution prevention option and the de
minimis volume exclusion.
C. Pollution Prevention Compliance
Option
The final rule provides an alternative
means of obtaining the reductions in
mass loadings of hazardous constituents
mandated by the Third Third opinion.
Under this alternative, mass reductions
can be achieved by removing hazardous
constituents from any of the
wastestreams that are going to be
injected, and these reductions in mass
loadings can be accomplished by means
of source reduction (i.e. equipment or
technology modifications, process or
procedure modifications, reformulation
or redesign of products, substitution of
raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training, or
inventory control), recycling, or
conventional treatment. As an example,
if a facility can make process changes
that reduce the mass of cadmium by the
same amount that would be removed if
the prohibited wastestream was treated
to satisfy UTS, the facility would satisfy
LDR requirements. The facility could
also remove cadmium from any of the
streams (prohibited or non-prohibited)
which are going to be injected, or could
find a means of recycling some portion
of the injectate to reduce injected mass
loadings of cadmium. In all cases, the
result would be that the mass loading of
hazardous constituents into the
injection unit would be reduced by the
same amount as it would be reduced by
treatment of the prohibited,
characteristic portion of the injectate.
976 F. 2d at 23 n. 8; see also Specialty
Steel Inst. v. EPA, 27 F. 3d 642, 649
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (treatment standards
that result in lower volume of waste to
be disposed—precisely what the
alternative standard here can achieve—
are a permissible means of complying
with RCRA section 3004 (m)).
Commenters further requested that
this alternative be available on a
hazardous constituent by hazardous
constituent basis. EPA agrees that this is
-------
15576 federal. Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
reasonable since it still results in the
requisite reduction of hazardous
constituent mass loading and provides
desirable compliance flexibility. Of ,
course, if the pollution prevention
alternative is used partially, there must
still be compliance by some alternative
means for the remaining hazardous
constituents subject to the prohibition.
The Agency is not, however, adopting
any type of hazardous constituent
trading provision as part of this rule. It
first is not clear that such a provision
would satisfy the equivalency test
enunciated by the court. In addition,
given the narrow time frame available to
the Agency to develop this rule, the
Agency lacks the time and resources to
properly evaluate the ramifications of
the idea in this proceeding.
As a means of implementing this
alternative, EPA is adopting the method
proposed. The mass/day reduction of a
particular underlying hazardous
constituents is to be calculated by
comparing the injected baseline with
the allowance. The injected baseline is
determined by multiplying the volume/
day of prohibited hazardous waste
generated and subsequently injected
times the concentration of hazardous
constituents before the pollution
prevention measure. The allowance is
determined by multiplying the volume/
day of a hazardous constituent
generated/injected times the UTS for
that constituent. The difference between
the injected baseline and the allowance
is the required mass/day reduction.
EPA proposed, and is adopting the
requirement that after successful
employment of a pollution prevention
measure, the facility must demonstrate
that the injected mass achieves the
required mass/day reduction. Because
the amount of an underlying hazardous
constituent in the injectate is dependent
upon the level of production, a
correction factor for production is
needed. In the example given in the
proposal (60 FR 11714), the calculation
for the injected baseline was corrected
by a production variability factor based
on volume. The Agency had solicited
comment on whether there are
production parameters other than
volume (e.g., mass, square footage, etc.).
One commenter gave a specific example
where square footage would be a more
appropriate parameter. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating today that any
appropriate parameter may be used to
calculate the production variability
factor. Another commenter was
concerned that in the example the
baseline used after pollution prevention
seemed to be based on the production
rate, whereas the baseline before
pollution prevention was not. The
commenter misunderstood the purpose
of the production variability factor. In '
the example the post-pollution
prevention injectate was adjusted by the
production variability factor; however,
the example could have been
reorganized such that the initial : .
baseline was adjusted for production
variability. It was not necessary to
adjust both the pre- and post-pollution
prevention baselines for production
variabilty; hi fact, doing so would cause
the variability factor to cancel out.
Several commenters were concerned
that there are other factors besides rate
of production which could cause
variability in the level of an underlying
hazardous constituent. One commenter
mentioned variations in operation of
specific source unit operations such as
distillation and/or stripping trains •
feeding the injection unit. Another
commenter stated that since they do not
actually produce anything, they have no
production rates to use, and suggested
basing production on man-hours
worked or total water consumed by a
facility. The Agency agrees with all
these suggestions. The mass/day of an
underlying hazardous constituent after
pollution prevention is based on the
flowrate multiplied by the concentration
of the constituent, and must be less than
or equal to the calculated mass/day
allowance for that underlying hazardous
constituent. Beyond this basic formula,
the facility can adjust for any factors
which would cause a variation in the
concentration of the underlying
hazardous constituent, provided .the
variation(s) are part of a normal
operating procedure.
Under this approach, a facility would
make a one-time change in operating
practice. Because the mass loading
reductions resulting from the practice
are obtained from the time of the change
forward, it obviously is not necessary
(and neither practical or likely feasible)
for the facility to make on-going
(potentially daily) changes to qualify
under the provision.
A number of commenters, although
supporting the Agency's proposal,
argued that it should apply to facilities
that already have implemented source
reduction or other pollution prevention
practices before the effective date of the
rule, not just those making the change
prospectively (as EPA proposed). Their
point is that facilities that have already
implemented source reduction, and as a
result may now have fewer,
opportunities to do so, should not be on
a worse footing than facilities who have
been laxer and thus now have a wider
range of possible means of reduction.
This argument certainly has equitable
force. At the same time, however, there
has to be some objectively defined
baseline period for the rule to be
enforceable, and for there to be some
nexus between the pollution prevention
measure and the reduced mass loadings
in current injectate. Balancing these
considerations, the Agency is
establishing 1990 as the base year for
establishing a baseline. This was the
year EPA adopted (per Congressional
schedule) the prohibitions for
characteristic hazardous waste and
(coincidentally) the year of the Pollution
Prevention Act.
EPA is sensitive to other comments
regarding the need for this alternative to
be objectively verifiable. The Agency is
therefore requiring that facilities must
monitor the underlying hazardous
constituent concentration and the
volume of the prohibited hazardous
waste stream (i.e. all characteristic
streams subject to LDR treatment
standard requirements that will be
decharacterized before injection), both
on the day before and the day after
successful implementation of pollution
prevention. Results of this monitoring
must be reported to the EPA Region or
authorized State on a one-time basis.
The Agency had solicited comment on •
whether more than one day is needed
for monitoring. Several commenters
were concerned that certain pollution
prevention methods would take several
weeks, liot one day, to show results. It
should be noted that the Agency did not
intend for the pollution prevention
method to show results in one day.
Results should be achieved by'the •
effective date of the rule for the facility
to be in compliance, and the pollution
prevention method should have been
employed no earlier than 1990. The
facility must also include a description
of the pollution prevention method used
(including any recycling alternative). In
addition, the facility will monitor and
keep on-site records of the results on a
quarterly basis (this tune period is
selected to match the quarterly
monitoring already required under
SDWA regulations at 40 CFR 146.13 (b)).
If the facility changes its means of
complying with this alternative, it must
renotify the EPA Region or authorized
State, and again document the basis for
its compliance by monitoring.
D. De Minimis Volume Exemption
EPA is finalizing the de minimis
exemption proposed. 60 FR at 11714—
11715. The terms of the exemption are
that if decharacterized wastewaters
comprise no more than 1% of the total .
injectate, if the total volume of the
characteristic streams do not exceed
10,000 gallons per day, and if
underlying hazardous constituents are
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15577
present in the characteristic wastes at
concentrations less than 10 times UTS
at the point of generation, then the
wastes are not prohibited from injection
in a Class I non-hazardous deepwell
(assuming the injectate is not hazardous
at the point of injection). The Agency
continues to believe that under these
circumstances, the relatively small
decharacterized hazardous waste
streams would not appreciably alter the
risks posed by the injection practice.
Generally, the proposed approach was
well received. Some commenters stated,
however, that the de minimis volume
exemption, as proposed, would allow
excessively large volumes of routinely
generated characteristic wastes to go
untreated to disposal in deep wells,
while others believe that the specific
quantifying parameters are overly
restrictive. The Agency analyzed
potential risks associated with
concentrations of 5 contaminants
detected in Class I facility waste streams
at 10, 20, and 50 times UTS. (This
analysis was conducted in conjunction
with revising the Regulatory Impact
Analysis For Underground Injected
Wastes for this rule. See 60 FR 11715.)
In brief, risk estimates for 4 geologic
settings and 2 well malfunction
scenarios were found to be below levels
of regulatory concern at 10 and 20 times
UTS. However, at 50 times UTS, risk
estimates for cancer and hazard index
were above regulatory concern for a
waste stream containing carbon
tetrachloride, assuming an abandoned
borehole failure within 500 feet of the
injection well. Taking into account the
statutorily enumerated "long-term
uncertainties associated with land
disposal" (RCRA section 3004(d)(l)(A)),
EPA believes the 10 x UTS level to be
well within the zone of reasonable
values it could select as de minimis. The
one percent volumetric requirement is
consistent with other longstanding de
minimis exemptions for wastewater
management systems in the subtitle C
rules (see § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (A) and (E)),
and would normally cap the total
volume of characteristic injectate at
approximately 1100 gallons per day,
given average Class I UIC non-hazardous
injection rates.
At a rate of 1100 gallons per day,
lOxUTS for carbon tetrachloride would
mean a mass loading of approximately
165 mg of the constituents being
injected each day. Mass loadings for the
other hazardous constituents would
similarly be modest. EPA again believes
that these small mass loadings would
have de minimis effect on the risk
potential posed by the injection practice
and consequently should be exempted
from the prohibition.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Does the
''Facility Generate a""
'Characteristic Hazardous"
Waste that is Diluted
to Remove the
^ Characteristic ^
Facility is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
Does the
''Facility Segregate''
'its Characteristic Waste'
' Stream for Separate Treatment^
(By Means Other than
Dilution) to Meet
UTS
Does the
"Facilty Manage a""
Decharacterized Waste
'Using a Land-Based Unit Other
'than Subtitle C Surface Impoundments, ]
vTank-Based Wastewater Treatment^
Systems or Stormwater
Impoundments
Waste Treated to Meet
Universal Treatment
Standards; These Standards
are Enforceable Under RCRA
Facility is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
Does the
Decharacterized
Waste Contain UHCs
as Defined in
§268.2(i)
Is the
Facility a
Member of the
Pulp and Paper
Industry
Waste is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
Facility is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
Examine Treatment Standards
for Decharacterized Wastes
Managed in CWA and CWA-
Equivalent Wastewater
Treatment Systems
Direct Dischargers .
"* Go to Figure 2
Indirect Dischargers'
"''Go to Figure 3
Zero-Dischargers
"''Go to Figure 4 .
wi
Si
05
ct>
i
CD
M
<
o^
o>
O3
CD
8-
CO .
to
CD
05
I
ET
ff.
B
CO
Figure 1. General Applicability Criteria for Treatment Standards for Clean Water Act (CWA) and
CWA-Equivalent Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15579
insidered
Standards;
ceable
8*5
0 i c
SSI"J
li§
ra *~ «
•=<•£<
Sg«g
wo: ct>
i^f!
U Q) S 0)
01 CO o "D
|52f5
j .
n --
>-
/
SlZ -0
S E «
/ill
VI!
\20fl
^k \
I
%
en vi
N l»
'C -tt
oj C
-S 01
° c
C3 C
1_ *^
E u
•S .2
. "
U
n. c
eoo
-------
Examine the Following for
Clean Water Act Indirect
Discharging Wastewater
Treatment Systems
The CWA Standards are Considered
to Be the RCRA Treatment Standards;
These Standards are Enforceable
Under the CWA.
Does the
Facility Have
PSES, PSNS, FDF
Variance or Local Indirect
Discharge Limits
forAIIUHCs
Has
the Facility
Obtained a Modificaton
of Its Local Limits to
Include Limitations
forAIIUHCs
Does the
'Facility Seek''
'a Variance from a"
Treatment Standard
'Under! 268.44 (This Includes"
' a Demonstration that the Facility
is Treating the Waste Using
a Properly Designed
v and Operated PSES^
System)
Has
the EPA"
' Administrator''
Granted the
Variance
v Request^
The Facility is Not Subject to
Phase III Treatment Standards.
The Owner/Operator is Required
to Comply with the Applicable
Provisions of §268.44 and §268.7.
- The Facility Must Treat its Wastewater
by a Means Other than Dilution to Achieve
the UTS Levels for all UHCs as Required
By §268.3 and §268.9; Compliance is
Required at the End-of-Pipe, and is
Enforceable Under RCRA.
- The Facility Must Monitor Compliance
with the UTS Standard for Each UHC
at the End-of-Pipe on a Quarterly
Basis; Results Must Be Kept in Facility
On-site Files as Required By §268.9(e).
Figure 3. Applicability Criteria and Treatment Standards for Decharacterized Wastes Managed
in Clean Water Act Indirect Discharging Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Examine the Following for Clean Water Act -
Equivalent Zero-Discharging Wastewater
Treatment Systems
Is the
Decharacterized
Waste Land Disposed
(e.g., Spray Irrigation,
Land Farming)
Does the
Facility Have
a State-Implemented
CWA or CWA-Equivalent
Permit that Covers
all UHCs
Waste is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
The State Standards are
Considered to Be the RCRA
Treatment Standards; These
Standards are Enforceable
By the State Permitting
Authority.
Does the^
Facility Seek"
a Variance from a
Treatment Standard
Under§ 268.44 (This Includes "
a Demonstration that the Facility
is Treating the Waste Using
a Properly Designed and
Operated BAT/PSES^
System)
- The Facility Must Treat its Wastewater by a
Means Other than Dilution to Achieve the
UTS Levels for all UHCs as Required By
§268.3 and §268.9; Compliance is Required
at the Point Just Prior to Placement on the
Land, and is Enforceable Under RCRA.
- The Facility Must Monitor Compliance
with the UTS Standard for Each Constituent
at the Point-of-Discharge on a Quarterly
Basis; Results Must Be Kept in Facility
On-site Files as Required By g268.9(e).
Has"
the EPA"
' Administrator^
Granted the
Variance
^ Request^
The Facility is Not Subject to
Phase III Treatment Standards.
The Owner/Operator is Required
to Comply with the Applicable
Provisions of §268.44 and §268.7.
I
£
S3.
en
<
o
05
OD
s
o
OD
CD
CO
05
s
ft
o"
Figure 4. Applicability Criteria and Treatment Standards for Decharacterized Wastes Managed
in Clean Water Act - Equivalent Zero-Discharging Wastewater Treatment Systems
en
09
-------
01
Does the
Facility Inject
(i.e., Land Dispose)
a Decharacterized
Waste into a Class I
Non-Hazardous
Injection Well
Does the
acilty Segregate
ts Characteristic Waste
tream for Separate Treatment
(By Means Other than
Dilution) to Meet
UTS
Does the
Decharacterize
Waste Contain UHCs
as Defined in
268.2(1)
Facility is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
Waste Treated to Meet
Universal Treatment
Standards; These Standards
are Enforceable Under RCRA
Waste is Not Subject
to Phase III Treatment
Standards
Has
the Facility
eceived a No-Migration
Variance Under
§148.20
Has
the Facility
eceived a Treatability
Variance Under
§268.44
Does the
Waste Meet the
De Mlnlmis Volume
Exclusion Under
§ 268.1 (e)(4)
Does the
Facility Meet the
Dilution Prevention Compliance
Option Under
§268.9(d)(3)
Facility May Inject Wastes
Without Meeting Phase III
Treatment Standards
Facility is Not Subject to Phase III
Treatment Standards; Rather, Facility
is Subject to Alternative Treatment
Standards
Facility May Inject Without Having
to Treat to Meet Phase III Treatment
Standards. Generators Must Place
a One-Time Notice in Their Files as
Required Under§268.9(d) and, §268.9(f).
Facility May Inject Without Having
to Treat to Meet Phase III Treatment
Standards. Facility Must Monitor
and Keep On-Site Records of Results
on a Quarterly Basis as Required By
§268.9(e).
N
- The Facility Must Treat its Wastewater
by a Means Other than Dilution to Achieve
the UTS Levels for all UHCs as Required
' By §268.3 and §268.9; Compliance is
Required at the Point-of-lnjection, and is
Enforceable Under RCRA.
- The Facility Must Monitor Compliance
with the UTS Standard for Each UHC
at the Point-of-lnjection on a Quarterly
Basis; Results Must Be Kept in Facility
On-site Files as Required By §268.9(e).
9
r-
'<
o
Z
p
O)
05
§
P-
!-!_
t—I
CO
CO
CD
.0)
•s
o
p
en
Figure 5. General Applicability Criteria and Treatment Standards for SDWA-Regulated Facilities Discharging
Decharacterized Waste Into Class I Non-Hazardous Injection Wells
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15583.
V. Treatment Standards for Newly
Listed Wastes
A. Carbamates
Hazardous Wastes From Specific
Sources (K Waste Codes)
K156—Organic waste (including heavy
ends, still bottoms, light ends, spent
solvents, filtrates, and decantates)
from the production of carbamates
and carbamoyl oximes.
K157—Wastewaters (including scrubber
waters, condenser waters,
washwaters, and separation waters)
from the production of carbamates
and carbamoyl oximes.
K158—Bag house dust, and filter/
separation solids from the production
of carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.
K159—Organics from the treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
K160—Solids (including filter wastes,
separation solids, and spent catalysts)
from the production of thiocarbamates
and solids from the treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
K161—Purification solids (including
filtration, evaporation, and
centrifugation solids), baghouse dust,
and floor sweepings from the
production of dithiocarbamate acids
and their salts. (This listing does not
include K125 or K126.)
Acute Hazardous Wastes (P Waste
Codes)
P203 Aldicarb sulfone
P127 Carbofuran
P189 Carbosulfan
P202 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
P191 Dimetilan
P198 Formetanate hydrochloride
P197 Formparanate
P192 Isolan
P196 Manganese
dimethyldi thiocarbamate
P199 Methiocarb
P190 Metolcarb
P128 Mexacarbate
P194 Oxamyl
P204 Physostigmine
P188 Physostigmine salicylate
P201 Promecarb
P185 Tirpate
P205 Ziram
Toxic Hazardous Wastes
U394 A2213
U280 Barban
U278 Bendiocarb
U364 Bendiocarb phenol
U271 Benomyl
U400 Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram
tetrasulfide
U392 Butylate
U279 Carbaryl
U372 Carbendazim
U367 Carbofuran phenol
U393 Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate
U386 Cycloate
U366 Dazomet
U395 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
U403 Disulfiram
U390 EPTC
U407 Ethyl Ziram
U396 Ferbam
U375 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-
butylcarbamate
U384 Metam Sodium
U365 Molinate
U391 Pebulate
U383 Potassium dimethyl
dithiocarbamate
U378 Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-n-
methyldithiocarbamate
U377 Potassium n-
methyldi thiocarbamate
U373 Propham
U411 Propoxur
U387 Prosulfocarb
U376 Selenium, tetrakis
(dimethyldithiocarbamate)
U379 Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate
U381 Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate
U382 Sodium
dimethyldithiocarbamate
U277 Sulfallate
U402 Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide
U401 Tetramethylthiuram
monosulfide
U410 Thiodicarb
U409 Thiophanate-methyl
U389 Triallate
U404 Triethylamine
U385 Vernolate
EPA is promulgating the treatment
standards that were proposed for wastes
from the carbamate industry specified
above.
The preamble of the proposed rule
described the basis for these treatment
standards in greater detail (60 FR
11720). For background information on
waste characterization data, data
gathering efforts, and applicable
technologies, see the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT)
Background Document for Newly Listed
or Identified Wastes from the
Production of Carbamates.
The concentration-based treatment
standards being promulgated today for
carbamate wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are at UTS levels for
certain constituents, and at newly-
established levels for other constituents
that are today being added to the UTS
list. The UTS standards have already
been promulgated for 21 of the
constituents of concern (16 organic
constituents and 5 metals). The Agency
is promulgating new UTS for 42
constituents associated with carbamate
wastes. Forty of these constituents are
chemicals produced by the carbamate
industry which may be grouped into the
following categories: carbamates and
carbamate intermediates, carbamoyl
oximes, thiocarbamates, and
dithiocarbamates. Please refer to the
Background Document for definitions of
these chemical groups and the
categorization of these 40 chemicals.
The other 2 constituents for which new
UTS are being promulgated
(triethylamine, and o-phenylene
diamine) are not carbamate products,
but are hazardous constituents present
at levels of regulatory concern in
carbamate wastes.
One commenter requested
clarification on the applicability of the
carbamate treatment standards, stating
that the summary section of the
proposed treatment standards said that
treatment standards were being
proposed for certain hazardous wastes
"including those from the production of
carbamate pesticides", whereas the
section of the rule that directly
addressed carbamate wastes referred to
carbamates without the pesticide
limitation. EPA points out in response
that the final listing rule which defined
the new waste codes does not limit the
definition to pesticides only. The
treatment standards being promulgated
apply to all wastes which fit the
definitions of the waste codes
established in the final listing rule.
One commenter stated that EPA
exceeded its authority under RCRA
section 3004 and violated the
Administrative Procedure Act by
preparing the proposed treatment
standards and sending this rule to OMB
well before the final listing had been
promulgated. EPA points out that the
proposed treatment standards were
actually published after publication of
the final listing rule. The proposed
treatment standards were modified to
conform with the changes that appeared
in the final listing; thus, treatment
standards were only proposed for those
carbamate wastes whose listing had
been promulgated in final form.
Proposed standards for wastes whose
listings were not finalized were
eliminated from the proposed treatment
standards rule. Given the statutory
requirement described above (i.e., the
requirement to finalize LDR treatment
standards six months after the listing is
finalized), Congress must have
envisioned that the two rulemaking
activities would occur in close
proximity.
One commenter had several
objections to the proposed standards for
thiocarbamate wastes, stating that 1)
nonwastewater standards should not
have been based on detection limits
compiled from sampling and analysis
performed as part of the listing process
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
because the Agency made errors in the
sampling and analysis; 2) that EPA has
no data to support the assertion that the
proposed UTS limits can be met by
thermal destruction technologies and
that the source of the detection limit
used to develop the nonwastewater
standard was not clearly identified; and,
3) that no document was found in the
record to support the proposed
wastewater limit of 0.003 mg/1 for
thiocarbamate constituents (A2213,
Butylate, Cycloate, EPTC, Molinate,
Pebulate, Prosulfocarb, Triallate,
Vernolate), based on granular activated
carbon absorption, giving the
commenter no basis to evaluate the
acbievability of this treatment standard.
To respond, the nonwastewater limit
for thiocarbamate wastes was actually
based on a detection limit of 0.5 mg/kg
by GC/NPD, identified in a general
characterization report addressing the
newly regulated constituents, rather .
than on die limit of 0.125 mg/kg by SW—
846 8270B, identified in the sampling
and analysis reports. The commenter
has not yet provided any data to
indicate that the proposed treatment
standards for nonwastewaters cannot be
met.
The Agency has decided to
promulgate a treatment standard of
0.042 mg/1 in wastewaters for the
thiocarbamate constituents identified
above. This standard is based on an
analytical detection limit of 0.015 mg/1
for Butylate, identified in an activated
carbon isotherm test performed by the
Office of Water to support development
of effluent guideline limitations. The
Agency had proposed a wastewater
limit of 0.003 mg/1, based on data taken
from the PEST (Pesticide Treatability
Database) database: containing
treatability data for pesticides, prepared
and maintained by RREL (Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory) in
Cincinnati, Ohio. However, upon review
of the available data, the Agency has
decided that the Office of Water data is
more accurately representative of
available wastewater treatment than the
pilot-scale data from the PEST database,
and has decided to change the final
treatment standard accordingly.
EPA is today clarifying that the LDRs
do not apply to waste streams which
were specifically exempted from the
definition of hazardous waste in the .
final listing rule for carbamates. These
waste streams include sludges from the '
biological treatment of K156 and K157
and streams which satisfy the
concentration-based exemption from the
definition of K156 and K157 codified at
§261.3(a)(2)(iv)(G).
The promulgation of treatment
standards for carbamate wastes has
greatly expanded the number of
constituents covered by the Universal
Treatment Standards at Section. 268.48.
The Agency wishes to clarify that only
a very limited number of generators or
treaters, such as manufacturers or users
of carbamate products, are expected to
have these new constituents present in
their wastes. Therefore, affected parties
may rely on process knowledge to
determine if it is necessary to analyze
for these constituents.
The commenter has not yet provided
any data to indicate that the proposed
treatment standards cannot be met. The
commenter did indicate an intention to
submit biological treatment data for
thiocarbamate wastes. This commenter
was instructed to submit this data
quickly (by the end of August) to allow
the Agency time to give consideration to
this data prior to issuing the final rule.
B. Spent Aluminum Potliners (K088)
K088—Spent potliners from primary
aluminum reduction.
EPA proposed to establish treatment
standards for K088 expressed as
numerical concentration limits (see 60
FR11722) for the following
constituents: acenapthene, anthracene,
benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)-anthracene, fluoranthene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene,
pyrene, antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
cyanide and fluoride. Today, EPA is
promulgating these treatment standards
as proposed. The nonwastewater
treatment standards for cyanide, and the
organic constituents, are based on a total
composition concentration analysis. The
nonwastewater treatment standards for
fluoride, and the metal constituents, are
based on analysis using the TCLP. All
wastewater treatment standards are
based on total composition
concentration analysis.
1. Comments Received on the
"Inherently Waste-Like" Determination
The majority of the comments
received on the issue of declaring K088
"inherently waste-like" opposed such a
determination. As discussed in the
proposal, declaring K088 inherently
waste-like would require that allKOSS
treaters/recyclers obtain a RCRA Part B
permit regardless of whether the K088 is
recycled, reused, used as a feedstock in
a process, or conventionally treated. The
commenters asserted that this
designation would discourage recycling/
reuse and development of innovative
technologies, and would be overly
burdensome for many of the small
companies pursuing recycling
technologies.
The Agency was persuaded by
commenters that a determination of
"inherently waste-like" is unnecessary
at this time. Instead, any determination
of whether a particular K088 processing
technology is a type of excluded
recycling activity would need to be
made on a case-hy-case basis by EPA
Regions or authorized states. EPA was
persuaded by commenters that allowing
individual flexibility in making such a
determination is desirable here.
Criteria that are typically relevant in
making any such determinations are set
out (among other places) at 50 FR at 638
(Jan. 4,1985); 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8,
1988); and 56 FR at 7159 and 7185 (Feb.
21,1991). EPA also repeats the concerns
voiced in the proposed rule that spent
aluminum potliners contain high
concentrations of cyanides and
polyardmatic hydrocarbons which may
t>e conventionally treated by thermal
recovery processes, and that these and
other hazardous constituents are present
in the potliners in concentrations well
exceeding those found in the raw
materials or products for which the
spent potliners would be substituting.
60 FR at 11723 n. 11. Other concerns are
that the thermal recovery processes
appear to pose the same potential risks
of harmful air emissions as processing
hazardous wastes in industrial furnaces,
that the residues" of recovery processes
may not be adequately treated, and that
storage of spent potliners can (and
indeed has) posed significant risk. Id. at
11723—24. EPA also repeats that many
of these units may already be subject to
the rules for industrial furnaces burning
hazardous wastes, since those rules
apply to industrial furnaces that burn
hazardous wastes for energy recovery,
material recovery, or destruction.. Id. at
11722 and n. 10; 56 FR at 7142; 50 FR
at 49171-49174 (Nov. 29, 1985); 40 CFR
266.100.
A consequence of EPA's decision to
allow for individualized determinations
is that it is also unnecessary (and
indeed, not factually justified) to make
a general determination of "substantial
confusion" pursuant to 270.10(e)(2)
which could establish an opportunity
for interim status eligibility. That
finding would have been premised on
the generic inherently wastelike
determination (see 60 FR at 11723),
which the Agency is not making. EPA
is also not pursuing in this proceeding
the idea of toxic air emission standards
under section 112(d)(l) of the Clean Air
Act for these sources. These sources
could be subject to these standards if
they are major (or, in some cases, area)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15585
sources under section 112, but that
determination need not he part of the
present rulemaking.
2. Comments Received on Regulated
Constituents
EPA requested comment on regulating
the phthalates: bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate and di-n-
octyl phthalate. These constituents have
seemingly been detected in the
untreated potliner and the treated
residue; however, EPA believes that
their presence may simply be due to lab
contamination. Commenters
overwhelmingly requested that these
phthalates not be regulated. The Agency
agrees and is not including any
phthalates in the list of regulated
constituents for K088.
A number of commenters requested
that benzo(a)pyrene be used as a
surrogate for analyzing organics. The
commenters were concerned that
analytical costs for other PAHs would
be excessive. EPA is not convinced that
analyzing benzo(a)pyrene would be
sufficient for determining proper
treatment of all organics. The
concentration of one constituent does
not always reflect the concentration of
similar constituents hi a waste.
Surrogate analyses assume that all PAHs
are present at similar concentrations
which may or may not be true. Because
of the variability of concentrations
found in K088 wastes, benzo(a)pyrene
may not be present while other PAHs
may be present. Analyzing only for
benzo(a)pyrene or any other potential
surrogate does not ensure the treatment
to UTS concentrations of other PAHs. In
addition, the Agency believes that since
all of the PAHs are analyzed by a single
method the cost increase for additional
PAHs should not be significant.
Therefore, the Agency does not believe
the organic constituents monitored in
K088 wastes should be limited to a
surrogate indicator. EPA is allowing,
however, flexibility in the waste
analysis plans developed by the
companies with their permit writers to
analyze only for those constituents
expected to be present in the generated
K088.
The Agency proposed to regulate
fluoride in K088. While fluoride is not
a "hazardous constituent", i.e., listed in
Appendix VIII of part 261, it is present
in very high concentrations in K088 and
is capable of causing substantial harm in
the form of groundwater degradation,
adverse ecological effects and potential
adverse human health effects. The
Agency's view thus is that, unless
fluoride in this waste is treated, the -
legal standard in section 3004(m) would
not be satisfied. That is, treatment
would not "substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste * * * so that short-
term and long-term threats to human
health and the environment are
minimized." RCRA section 3004(m)(l).
In addition, as discussed hi the
proposed rule, EPA reads the language
in section 3004 (d)(l), (e)(l), and (g)(5)
to require that land disposal may still be
prohibited after treatment of hazardous
constituents if the waste might still pose
substantial hazards due to presence of
other constituents or properties. 56 FR
at 41168 (August 19,1991); NRDCv.
EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146,1171-72 (B.C. Cir.
1990) (dissenting opinion). These
hazards could be posed due to lack of
treatment of other constituents in the
waste, in this case, fluoride.
The Agency requested comment on
whether fluoride should be added to
Appendix VIII, as well. The
overwhelming response of the
commenters is that fluoride should not
be added to Appendix VIII. The Agency
agrees that fluoride does not pose the
same risks in other wastes because it
does not occur in such high
concentrations. Furthermore, adding
fluoride to Appendix VIII has associated
potential analytical costs which would
be unwarranted. Therefore, even though
the Agency is regulating fluoride in
K088, it is not adding it to Appendix
Vm at this time.
3. Comments Received on Data
Several comments were received
regarding EPA's use of data on K088.
One comment in particular suggested
that EPA ignored relevant data gathered
by the Aluminum Association. The
Agency did not ignore these data. They
were submitted after the proposal and
are currently in the docket for this final
rule. The Agency has reviewed these
data and found that they do not support
any changes to the proposed treatment
standards that are being finalized in this
rule. This issue is discussed in greater
detail in the Response to Comments
background document.
4. Comments Received on Technical
Basis for BDAT
There were a number of comments
submitted on the technical basis for the
numerical treatment standards. As
described in the preamble to the
proposed rule, most of the treatment
standards are taken from the universal
treatment standards (UTS) (59 FR
47988, September 19,1994) which were
developed for each constituent by
evaluating all existing Agency data from
various technologies. The exception to
the UTS, for K088 constituents is the
fluoride treatment standard, which was
taken from the .Reynolds delisting
petition. While K088 is a unique waste,
available data indicate that these UTS
levels can be routinely achieved.
There seemed to be some confusion in
that some commenters believed that
EPA was proposing a required
technology for the treatment of K088.
This is not the case. The longstanding
position of the Agency is when
numerical treatment levels are
established under the LDR program, any
treatment technology (other than
impermissible dilution) can be used to
achieve those levels.
Additional K088 comments along
with EPA's responses are provided in
the Response to Comments Background
Document located in the docket for this
rule.
VI. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Completion of Universal Treatment
Standards
1. Addition of Constituents to Table
268.48
As discussed in the section on
carbamate wastes, EPA is today adding
42 new constituents to the table of
universal treatment standards (Table
268.48), for which treatment standards
are being promulgated today.
2. Wastewater Standard for 1,4-Dioxane
EPA proposed on March 2,1995 (60
FR 11702), to establish a wastewater
treatment standard for 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-
Dioxane was the only UTS constituent
for which EPA had promulgated a
nonwastewater treatment standard but
not a wastewater standard. At that time,
the Agency proposed a wastewater UTS
for 1,4-dioxane of 0.22 mg/1. This
proposed standard was based on the
maximum daily limit for 1,4-dioxane
that had been developed as part of the
proposed effluent guidelines for the
pharmaceutical industry (60 FR 21592,
May 2,1995). This standard was based
on a transfer of distillation performance
data from methanol to 1,4-dioxane.
Today, the Agency is promulgating a
revised treatment standard for
wastewater forms of 1,4-dioxane based
on 5 data points. This data was
submitted by one of the commenters
and represents actual treatment of
wastewaters containing 1,4-dioxane.
The Agency prefers to use actual
treatment data in lieu of a data transfer
whenever possible. These data show
that wastewaters containing between
2265-7365 mg/1 of 1,4-dioxane can be
treated by distillation to levels between
3-7 mg/1, representing a 99.9% removal
rate for the dioxane. As a result of this
data submittal, the Agency is today
promulgating a UTS of 12.0 mg/1 for 1,4-
-------
Federal Register /.Vol. 61, No. .68 /Monday, April :8; 1996 / Rules and Regulations
dioxane waste-waters based on the
performance of distillation. The
standard was calculated following the
standard methodology employed by <
EPA in developing all BDAT treatment
standards.
Comments received on the wastewater
treatment standard for 1,4-dioxane
focused on three major points: (1) The
unavailability, at the time of proposal,
of data from the effluent guidelines
proposed rule for the pharmaceutical
industry, from which the proposed
standard had been derived; (2) the
inappropriateness of transferring
distillation data from methanol to 1,4-
dioxane (based on the effluent
guidelines data); and (3) analytical
difficulties inherent in analyzing for 1,4
dioxane in wastewater.
In the proposed rule, EPA referenced
effluent guidelines data that would be
made available to support the proposed
wastewater treatment standard for 1,4-
dioxane (60 FR 11727, footnote 13).
Although the Agency believed that these
data would be available for public
inspection shortly after signature of the
proposed rule, this was not the case.
The data were available one day
following the close of the comment
period on the Phase III proposed rule. •
As a result, many comments were
received that criticized the Agency for
not providing appropriate pubic review
of data that was used, to develop a
treatment standard.
In light of the delayed release of the
effluent guidelines data, the Agency
decided to accept comments on these
data and the proposed 1,4-dioxane
treatment standard for 30 additional
days. In addition, the Agency provided
notice of this extension to all
commenters of the proposed rule.
Several comments were received in
response to this memo. Most of the
commenters who had raised issue with
the proposed standard commented on
the EPA memo.
In response to the second concern
raised by commenters, the Agency has
received actual wastewater treatment
data on 1,4-dioxane and as such has
developed a UTS based on that data. As
stated earlier, the Agency prefers to use
actual constituency data from available
treatment technology in lieu of
transferred data from other constituents
whenever feasible.
Finally, several commenters raised
concerns regarding the analytical
difficulties of reliably detecting and
quantifying 1,4-dioxane in wastewater.
CMA, in particular, stated that any UTS
under 20 mg/1 for 1,4-dioxane would be
impractical. Other commenters noted
extreme variability and difficulty in
testing for the presence of 1,4-dioxane
in wastewaters. While the analytical
results provided by one of the
commenters did show some . • ; • • :
irregularities, a comprehensive .-. ;
analytical protocol was not provided by
the any of the comments which would
be needed to fully assess their concerns-
regarding 1,4-dioxane. As such, the .
Agency believes that there should be no
difficulty in analyzing for 1,4-dioxane in
wastewater. Analysis can be:
accomplished by either direct injection
into a GCFID (SW 846, Method 8015B)
or a more sensitive analysis involving
the injection of an azeotropic distillate
preparation into a GCFID (SW-846,
Method 5031).
3. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
EPA proposed to raise the UTS for the
nonwastewater form of acetpnitrile from
1.8 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg. Commenters
generally supported this revision for the
reasons given in the proposed rule.
Therefore the Agency is promulgating
this revised treatment standard in this
rule for the reasons stated at 60 FR . '-.
11729. ...
Related to this, EPA also proposed
revoking the special wastewater/
nonwastewater definition for
acrylonitrile wastes (K011/13/14),
recognizing that these nonwastewaters
could consist of over 90% water, and
that wastewater treatment is an
appropriate means of treating these ,
wastes. Commenters agreed with this,'
and the Agency is finalizing this today.
B. Aggressive Biological Treatment as
BDAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes
EPA had solicited comment on
whether to specify aggressive biological
treatment (ABT) as the treatment
standard for decharacterized petroleum
refining wastewaters. The Agency is not
establishing such a treatment standard
in this final rule, but is instead ' i
promulgating a reduction in the
frequency of monitoring required for .
those facilities using ABT to treat their .
wastes. The reasons for this are.
discussed below.
This issue was raised by th:6 American
Petroleum Institute (API), which had
submitted data to the Agency on ten of
its facilities that used aggressive
biological treatment. Along with the ;
data, API requested that EPA specify •
aggressive biological treatment as the.
treatment standard for their wastes;
Such a standard, which would operate
in lieu of UTS, would, in API's view,
provide adequate treatment and could
reduce their monitoring burden. In a'
similar vein, CMA commented that EPA
should specify an optional treatment :
method (biological treatment) as anf~ •'--,
alternative'to meeting UTS for /i- i ••'-•••.;;
underlying hazardous constituents
reasonably expected to be present in
characteristic wastes.
The Environmental Technology
Council (ETC) opposed setting ABT as
a new technology-specific treatment
standard. They argued that biological
treatment only partially destroys
underlying hazardous constituents.
They also felt that reducing the
monitoring burden is inadequate
justification for creating a new
technology-specific standard.
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (60 FR at 11719),
biotreatment systems vary in
performance both in general and as to
specific constituents; the Agency is
therefore reluctant to designate ABT as
BDAT based on data from only ten
facilities. The main reason given by both
API and CMA for having a treatment
method as the treatment standard was
the elimination of the compliance ,
monitoring burden. Although we agree
with ETC that reducing monitoring
burden is not an adequate justification
for creating a new technology-specific
treatment standard, EPA is certainly
willing to consider more efficient means
of ensuring compliance with LDR
requirements. •
Therefore, EPA is not designating
ABT as BDAT, but is, however,
requiring that decharacterized wastes
affected by today's rule, which are
managed in a wastewater treatment
system involving ABT, must be
monitored annually to ensure
compliance with the treatment
standards for underlying hazardous
constituents. Other decharacterized
wastes affected by today's rule must be
monitored quarterly. EPA has been
reviewing the paperwork burden posed
by the LDR program; this was discussed
in the supplemental notice to the LDR
Phase TV proposed rule (61 FR 2338,
January 25,1996). As part of this
paperwork burden reduction effort, the
Agency is considering reducing the
monitoring burden for all facilities
complying with LDRs. The Agency
considers reducing the monitoring
burden for facilities treating wastewater
with ABT to be a positive step towards
this goal, and therefore believes it is
justified. Reductions of this type for
other typesvof treatment will be
explored in future rulemakings.
C. Dilution Prohibition
Under the existing LDR dilution
prohibition (40 CFR 268.3), burning
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
wastes can be a form of impermissible
dilution. On May 27,1994, the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response issued
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15587
a Statement of Policy which clarified
this point (59 FR 27546-27547). Today
the Agency is codifying and quantifying
those principles.
As discussed in the proposed rule,
impermissible dilution may occur when
wastes not amenable to treatment by a
certain method (i.e., treated very
ineffectively by that treatment method)
are nevertheless 'treated' by that method
(55 FR 22666, June 1,1990; 52 FR at
25778-25779, July 8,1987). Today's
rule provides a general distinction
between "adequate treatment" and
potential violations of the dilution
prohibition.
1. Inorganic Metal-Bearing Wastes
The Agency has evaluated the
hazardous wastes and has determined
that 43 of the RCRA listed wastes (as set
forth in 40 CFR part 261) typically
appear to be inorganic hazardous wastes
that do not contain organics, or contain
only insignificant amounts of organics,
and are not regulated for organics.
BDAT for these inorganic, metal-bearing
listed wastes is metal recovery or
stabilization. Thus, impermissible
dilution may result when these wastes
are combusted. When an inorganic
metal-bearing hazardous waste with
insignificant concentrations of organics
is placed in a combustion unit,
legitimate treatment for purposes of LDR
ordinarily is not occurring. No treatment
of the inorganic component occurs
during combustion, and therefore,
metals are not destroyed, removed, or
immobilized. Since there are no
significant concentrations of organic
compounds in inorganic metal-bearing
hazardous wastes, it cannot be
maintained that the waste is being
properly or effectively treated via
combustion (i.e., thermally treated or
otherwise destroyed, removed, or
immobilized). For this reason,
combustion of inorganic wastes is not a
"methofd] of treatment * * * which
substantially diminish[es] the toxicity of
the waste or substantially reduce[s] the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste * * *"
(RCRA § 3004(m)) and so is not a
permissible method of treatment under
that provision.
In terms of the dilution prohibition, if
combustion is allowed as a method to
achieve a treatment standard for these
wastes, metals in these wastes will be
dispersed to the ambient air and will be
diluted by being mixed in with
combustion ash from other waste
streams. Adequate treatment
(stabilization or metal recovery to meet
LDR treatment standards) has not been
performed and dilution has occurred. It
is also inappropriate to regard eventual
stabilizing of such combustion ash as
providing adequate treatment for
purposes of the LDRs. Simply meeting
the numerical BDAT standards for the
ash fails to account for metals in the
original waste stream that were emitted
to the air and for reductions achieved by
dilution with other materials in the ash.
(In most cases, of course, the metal-
bearing wastes will have been mixed
with other wastes before combustion,
which mixing itself could be viewed as
impermissible dilution).
These inorganic, metal-bearing
hazardous wastes should be—and are
usually—treated by metal recovery or
stabilization technologies. These
technologies remove hazardous
constituents through recovery in
products, or through immobilization,
and are therefore permissible BDAT
treatment methods.
There are eight characteristic metal
wastes; however, only wastes that
exhibit the TC as measured by both the
TCLP and the EP for D004-D011 are
presently prohibited (see 55 FR 22660-
22662, June 1,1990). EPA recently
proposed prohibition and treatment
standards for wastes identified as
hazardous solely because they exhibit
the TC (60 FR at 43682, August, 22,
1995). Characteristic wastes, of course,
cannot be generically characterized as
easily as listed wastes because they can
be generated from many different types
of processes. For example, although
some characteristic metal wastes do not
contain organics or cyanide or contain
only insignificant amounts, others may
have organics or cyanide present which
justify combustion, such as a used oil
exhibiting the TC characteristic for a
metal. Thus, it is difficult to say which
D004-D011 wastes would be
impermissibly diluted when combusted,
beyond stating that as a general matter,
impermissible dilution would occur if
the D004-D011 waste does not have
significant organic or cyanide content
but is nevertheless combusted.
An "inorganic metal-bearing waste" is
one for which EPA has established
treatment standards for metal hazardous
constituents, and which does not
otherwise contain significant organic or
cyanide content. The table being
promulgated in 40 CFR part 268,
Appendix XI is the list of waste codes
for which EPA regulates only metals
that are affected by this rule.
2. Inorganic Metal-Bearing Wastes Not
Prohibited Under the LDR Dilution
Prohibition
Combustion of the following
inorganic metal-bearing wastes is not
prohibited under the LDR dilution
prohibition: (1) wastes that, at the point
of generation, or after any bona fide
treatment such as cyanide destruction
prior to combustion, contain hazardous
organic constituents or cyanide at levels
exceeding the constituent-specific
treatment standard for UTS; (2) organic,
debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,
plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
waste; (3) wastes that, at point of
generation, have reasonable heating
value such as greater than or equal to
5000 Btu/lb (see 48 FR 11157, March 16,
1983); (4) wastes co-generated with
wastes that specify combustion as a
required method of treatment; (5)
wastes, including soil, subject to Federal
and/or State requirements necessitating
reduction of organics (including
biological agents); and (6) wastes with
greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon
(TOG).
Several commenters want EPA to add
additional criteria. One commenter
recommended adding a seventh
criterion, i.e., combustion that results in
a significant reduction in volume.
Several commenters recommended
adding a seventh criterion to allow
combustion of lab packs. The Agency is
not persuaded that a seventh criterion is
necessary. It has determined that
volume reduction is not a sufficient
reason to allow the combustion of
inorganic metal-bearing wastes because
metals are neither destroyed nor
immobilized, and it is possible that a
significant amount of metal is being
transferred to another media. As for lab
packs, in the Phase II final rule (59 FR
47982, September 19,1994), the Agency
specifically addressed lab pack issues
when it revised 268 Appendix IV to
specify those wastes that are prohibited
from inclusion in lab packs destined for
combustion. Today's dilution
prohibition does not supersede the
streamlined'treatment standards
promulgated in the Phase II final rule.
Therefore, metal-bearing inorganic
wastes may be included in a lab pack
unless it is prohibited under the list of
wastes in 268 Appendix IV.
3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes
A commenter questioned why EPA
allows the presence of cyanide to justify
combustion when there are adequate
alternative treatment methods for that
waste constituent. This approach was
adopted because cyanide is destroyed—
i.e., effectively treated and not diluted—
by combustion. Existing LDR rules, in
many cases, identify combustion as an
appropriate BDAT for destruction of
cyanide-bearing wastes. See, e.g.,
treatment standards for F009, F010, and
FOIL The LDR Phase III proposal
solicited comments on whether the
-------
15588 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
cyanide criterion should be dropped.,
Several commenters strongly supported
the continued use of combustion as a
treatment method for cyanide-bearing
wastes, stating that combustion is the
most efficient and effective method for
treating cyanide wastes. One
commenter, ETC, supported dropping
the cyanide criterion because of the
existence of alternative non-combustion
technologies to treat inorganic cyanide-
bearing wastes without dispersing
metals. The Agency disagrees;
combustion, when properly conducted,
can effectively destroy all the cyanide in
a waste. In the Agency's view, this
indicates that cyanide -wastes which are
treated by combustion are not being
diluted impermissibly. This issue of
whether metals are being dispersed
would be addressed through substantive
controls on the combustion unit.
4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing
Wastes
The table being promulgated in 40 .
CFR part 268, Appendix XI today
indicates the list of waste codes for
which EPA regulates only metals and/or
cyanides that would be affected by this
proposed rule. Except for P122, this list
is identical to the list originally
published in the aforementioned Policy
Statement on this subject. The Agency
is removing P122 (Zinc Phosphide
greater than 10%) from the list of
restricted inorganic metal-bearing
wastes, because the Agency has
previously promulgated a treatment
standard of INCIN for the
nonwastewater forms of this •waste. See
40 CFR 268.40. The policy memo was in
error on this point. EPA wishes to
clarify that this dilution prohibition is
limited to the 51 waste codes in this
table. In addition, if an Appendix IX
waste meets any of the six criteria
discussed above, it would be
permissible to combust the waste
despite the fact that it is an Appendix
IX waste. '
D. Expansion of Treatment Options
That Will Meet the LDR Treatment
Standard "CMBST"
EPA is modifying the treatment
standard expressed as INCIN, which
specifies hazardous waste incineration,
to CMBST, which allows combustion in
incinerators, boilers and industrial
furnaces. EPA also solicited comment
on whether the Catalytic Extraction
Process, for which Molten Metal
Technology received a determination of
equivalent treatment under § 268.42(b),
should also be allowed for all wastes
which have a treatment standard of
CMBST, and whether there are other
technologies which are equivalent to
CMBST. Commenters supported the
inclusion of the Catalytic Extraction
Process (CEP), and since the Agency has
determined that (properly operated) it
performs in a manner equivalent to
other combustion technologies, is
adding it to the CMBST standard.
Molten Metal Technology commented
that the CEP is not in fact a combustion
technology, and the Agency has
attempted to reflect this in the
definition. One commenter, Exide
Corporation, requested that their plasma
arc process for the recovery of lead also
be added to the definition of CMBST.
The Exide plasma arc process is in fact
an industrial furnace under § 260.10,
and is therefore already considered part
of the definition of CMBST.
EPA also notes that the new CMBST
standard requires diat wastes be
thermally treated in units that either are
subject to subtitle C standards, or, in
cases where non-hazardous but
prohibited wastes are being thermally
treated, in accordance with applicable
technical operating requirements. This
situation could arise, for example, if a '
decharacterized waste were then being
thermally treated. Such a waste need
not be managed in a hazardous waste
combustion unit. The regulatory
language makes clear that non-
hazardous waste combustion units can
be utilized. In fact, the predecessor to
the CMBST standard—INCIN—allowed
nonhazardous incinerators to be an
eligible type of unit because the INCIN
standard allowed burning in units
subject to applicable emissions "
standards, which standards did not
necessarily have to include subtitle C
standards (59 FR 48002, Sept. 19, 1994,
and 60 FR 242, June 3,1995). This
language was omitted inadvertently
from the CMBST standard, and is being
restored in today's rule.
E. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
EPA is finalizing changes to the LDR
program to achieve the goal of
simplified regulations.
1. Section 268:8
Because treatment standards for all
scheduled wastes were promulgated in
the Third Third rule in 1990, the § 268.8
"soft hammer" requirements are no
longer necessary. Therefore, § 268.8 is,
removed from part 268. <
2. Sections 268.10-268.12
The purpose of Subpart B of 268 was
to set out a schedule for hazardous
wastes by the date when treatment
standards were to be established.
Deadlines in all three of these sections
were met on time, and the wastes are
subject to treatment standards.' •
Therefore, these three sections are no
longer necessary, and are removed.
3. Section 268.2(f)
With the promulgation of UTS in the
LDR Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982,
September 19,1994), distinctions in the
definitions of wastewaters are •
unnecessary. The Agency is therefore
removing paragraphs (1)—(3) from
§268.2(f).
4. Corrections to Proposed Rule
Language
A number of commenters pointed out
properly that EPA had proposed an
amendment to § 268.9 of the rules
which would have the effect of
subjecting all listed wastes which also
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous '
waste to evaluate whether the waste
contains underlying hazardous
constituents not covered by the
treatment standard for the listed waste,
and if so, to treat for them. See 60 FR
at 11741. EPA agrees with the
commenters that this provision is
unnecessary and is not adopting it. (In
fact, the Agency did not intend any far-
reaching change in proposing the
revised language.) The provision is
unnecessary because EPA already
evaluated which hazardous constituents
are present in listed wastes at the time
of developing the treatment standards
(any of tiie Background Documents
supporting the treatment standards
indicates the sampling done, and that
the sampling encompassed the whole ;
range of hazardous constituents
potentially present). There is no need to
duplicate this effort. Consequently, the
Agency is not amending § 268.9(b).
Other commenters pointed Out that ;
the proposed changes to the de minimis
exemption in § 268.1(e)(4)(i) (see 60 FR
11740) inadvertently omitted the
language which states that de minimis
losses are not prohibited. That language'
has been put back into the final rule
language.
VII. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
This section summarizes the results of
the capacity analysis for the wastes
covered by this rule. For background
information on data sources,
methodology, and a summary of each
analysis, see the Background Document
for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal
Restrictions, Phase III—Decharacterized
Wastewaters, Carbamate Wastes, and
Spent Potliners, found in the docket for
today's rule. For EPA's responses to
capacity-related comments, see the.
Response to Capacity-Related
Comments Received on the Phase El
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15589
Land Disposal Restrictions Rulemaking,
also found in the docket for today's rule.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis
methodologies focus on the amount of
waste to be restricted from land disposal
that is currently managed in land-based
units and that will require alternative
treatment as a result of the LDRs. The
quantity of wastes that are not managed
in land-based units (e.g., wastewaters
managed only in RCRA exempt tanks,
with direct discharge to a POTW) is not
included in the quantities requiring
alternative treatment as a result of the
LDRs. Also, wastes that do not require
alternative treatment (e.g., those that are
currently treated using an appropriate
treatment technology) are not included
in these quantity estimates.
EPA's decisions on whether to grant
a national capacity variance are based
on the availability of alternative
treatment or recovery technologies.
Consequently, the methodology focuses
on deriving estimates of the quantities
of waste that will require either
commercial treatment or the
construction of new on-site treatment
systems as a result of the LDRs—
quantities of waste that will be treated
adequately either on site in existing
systems or off site by facilities owned by
the same company as the generator (i.e.,
captive facilities) are omitted from the
required capacity estimates.
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
For the decharacterized ICR and TC
wastes managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, and Class I injection well
systems, EPA estimates that between 85
and 500 million tons per year (estimated
at end-of-pipe) will be affected as a
result of today's rule. EPA believes that
many affected facilities need time to
build treatment capacity for these
wastes, as wastewater volumes generally
make off-site treatment impractical.
Thus, EPA has determined that
sufficient alternative treatment capacity
is not available, and today is granting a
two-year national capacity variance for
decharacterized wastewaters.
Commenters to the rule generally
supported EPA's decision to grant a
national capacity variance for
decharacterized wastes managed in
CWA, CWA-equivalent, and Class I
injection well systems. Numerous other
comments were received on issues such
as those associated with the definition
of point of generation for ICR and TC
wastewaters and the applicability of
today's rule to wastewater management
units other than surface impoundments,
such as stormwater impoundments,
sumps, sewers, and trenches. The
Response to Capacity-Related
Comments Received on the Phase HI
Land Disposal Restrictions Rulemaking
background document provides a
detailed discussion of the capacity-
related comments on decharacterized
wastewaters and EPA's response to
them..
To assess the quantity of D003 wastes
that could be affected by the rule other
than those wastes managed in CWA and
CWA-equivalent systems, EPA extracted
information from the 1993 Biennial
Reporting System (BRS) on the
generation and management of D003
wastes. According to the BRS,
approximately 2.2 million tons of D003
wastewaters are currently deepwell
injected, 650 tons of D003
nonwastewaters are managed through
land application, and 17,600 tons of
D003 nonwastewaters are managed in
"other" disposal units (not specified in
the BRS). These wastes may require
additional treatment in order to meet
the LDRs. In addition, some D003 waste
that may be affected by the rule may not
be reported in the BRS, because these
wastes may not be considered
hazardous by the generator once they
have been decharacterized. Although
EPA believes that in general there is
adequate treatment capacity for these
wastes, such capacity may not be
immediately available. Therefore, EPA
is granting a 90-day capacity variance
for D003 wastes that are impacted by the
rule and are not managed in CWA and
CWA-equivalent systems in order to
allow facilities time to determine
whether their wastes are affected by this
rule, and identify and Iqcate alternative
treatment capacity if necessary.
EPA estimates that approximately
105,000—130,000 tons of newly listed
wastes included in today's rule will
require alternative treatment. In
particular, approximately 4,500 tons of
carbamate wastes (K156-K161, P127,
P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-
P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280,
U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379,
U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404,
U407, U409-U411) will require
alternative treatment. In addition,
100,000—125,000 tons (not including
contaminated media) of spent
aluminum potliners (K088) will require
alternative treatment capacity.
EPA received a number of comments
on its capacity analysis for K088 wastes.
Most commenters disagreed with EPA's
proposal not to grant a capacity variance
for K088 wastes. Specifically, these
commenters believe that EPA
overestimated the quantity of available
capacity and underestimated the
quantity of required capacity. In
performing the capacity analysis for the
final rule, EPA considered all of the
issues raised by the commenters and
reexamined its estimates of both
available and required capacity. EPA
found that adequate treatment capacity
does exist for K088 wastes, although the
amount of treatment capacity appears to
be just adequate to accommodate
demand. However, some of the facilities
capable of treating these wastes may
require pretreatment such as grinding or
crushing prior to accepting the waste. In
order to allow facilities generating K088
adequate time to work out logistics such
as transportation, pretreatment capacity,
and contracting for treatment capacity,
EPA has decided to grant a nine-month
national capacity variance for these
wastes—the time at which EPA
estimates existing treatment capacity
will be available as a practical matter. A
detailed discussion of the final capacity
analysis is provided in the Background
Document for Capacity Analysis for
Land Disposal Restrictions, Phase III—
Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate Wastes, and Spent Potliners
and EPA's responses to the individual
comments on the K088 capacity analysis
are provided in the Response to
Capacity-Related Comments Received
on the Phase III Land Disposal
Restrictions Rulemaking, both of which
are in the docket for today's rule.
EPA has determined that there is
adequate alternative treatment capacity
available for the 4,500 tons of carbamate
wastes generated each year and is
therefore not granting a national
capacity variance for these wastes.
The quantities of radioactive wastes
mixed with wastes included in today's
rule are generated primarily by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). EPA
estimates that 820 tons of high-level
waste and 360 tons of mixed low-level
waste that may be affected by this
proposal will be generated annually by
DOE. In addition, there are currently
7,000 tons of high-level waste, 10 tons
of mixed transuranic waste, and 2,700
tons of mixed low-level waste in storage
that may be affected by this rule. DOE
currently faces treatment capacity
shortfalls for high-level wastes and
mixed transuranic wastes. Although
DOE does have some available treatment
capacity for mixed low-level wastes,
most of this capacity is limited to
treatment of wastewaters with less than
one percent total suspended solids and
is not readily adaptable for other waste
forms. DOE has indicated that it will
generally give treatment priority to
mixed wastes that are already restricted
under previous LDR rules. Therefore,
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance to radioactive wastes
mixed with the hazardous wastes
affected by today's rule. Commenters to
the proposed rule supported EPA's
-------
3.559O Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
decision to grant a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
Table 1 lists each RCRA hazardous
waste code for which EPA is today
promulgating LDR standards. For each
code, this table indicates whether EPA
is granting a national capacity variance
for land^disposed wastes. Also, EPA is
granting a three-month national capacity
variance for all wastes in this rule to -
handle logistical problems associated
with complying with the new standards.
TABLE 1 .—VARIANCES FOR NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES
: Waste description1 '
Ignitable and corrosive wastes managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, or SDWA (D001 and D002)
Reactive wastes managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, or SDWA (D003)
Reactive wastes not managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, or SDWA (D003)
Newly identified pesticide wastes managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, or SDWA (D012-D017)
Newly identified TC organic wastewaters managed in CWA or CWA-equivalent systems, or SDWA (D018-D043)
Spent aluminum potliners (K088)
Carbamate production wastes (K156-K161, Pt27, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205
U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404, U407,
U409-U411) mixed radioactive wastes2. . • -...
Surface-dis-
posed wastes
2 Years
2 Years
3 Months
2 Years
2 Years
9 Months
3 Months
Deepwell-in-
jected wastes
2 Years
2 Years
3 Months
2 Years
2 Years
3 Months.
11ncludes soil and debris contaminated with each waste.
2The variance determinations listed apply only to radioactive wastes mixed with decharacterized D001-D003 or newly identified D012-D017
wastes managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems; to radioactive wastes mixed with newly identified TC organic wastewaters- and to radio-
active wastes mixed with spent aluminum potliners, or carbamate production wastes. . :
VIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013,
and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are
found in 40 GFR Part 271,
Prior to 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 were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New. Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in unauthorized 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. '
Today's rule is being promulgated
pursuant to sections 3004(d) through
(k), and 3004(in), of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6924(d) through (k), and 6924(m)).
Therefore, the Agency is adding today's
rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, States may apply for
final authorization for the HSWA
provisions in Table 1, as discussed in
the following section of this preamble.
Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.l(j) is also
modified to indicate that this rule is a
self-implementing provision of HSWA.
B, Abbreviated Authorization '
Procedures for Specified Portions of
Today's Rule
On August 22,1995, EPA proposed in
the Phase TV LDR notice an abbreviated
authorization procedure that would also
be used for certain parts of the Phase III
LDR rule that are minor in nature (EPA
also proposed to use this procedure for
the Universal Treatment Standards
(UTS) in the Phase H rule). This
procedure is designed to expedite the
authorization process by reducing the
scope of a State's submittal, for -
authorization to a State certification and
copies of applicable regulations and
statutes. EPA would then conduct a
short review of the State's request,
primarily consisting of a completeness
check (see 60 FR 43686 for a full
description .of the proposed procedures).
The parts of the Phase III rule to which
the streamlined authorization ....'•
procedures would be applicable are: (1)
treatment standards for newly listed
wastes, (2) improvements to the existing
land disposal restrictions program, and
(3) revisions and corrections to the " ;
treatment standards in §§ 268.40 and •-••
268.48. (Further discussion of this issue
also is found in the supplemental •r ;-
proposal.to the LDR Phase IV rule (61
FR 2358, 2365, January 25,1996)).
Although EPA is firmly committed to'
streamlining the RCRA State
authorization procedures, the Agency
has decided not to finalize the proposed
Category 1 authorization procedures for
parts of the Phase III rule today's notice.
EPA believes that public comments
from both the August 22 proposal arid
comments submitted for the recent
HWIR-contaminated media proposal
should be considered before finalizing
new procedures for authorization. This
full consideration will enable EPA to
make the best decision regarding how
the authorization process should work.
EPA intends to finalize both the '
Category 1 and Category 2 procedures at
the same time.
C. Effect oil State Authorization
Because today's Phase HI LDR rule is
being promulgated under HSWA
authority, those sections of today's rule
that expand the coverage of the LDR
program (e.g., to newly identified
wastes) would be implemented by EPA
on the effective date of today's rule in
authorized States until their programs
are modified to adopt these rules and
the modification is approved by EPA.
However, some of today's regulatory
amendments are neither more or less
stringent than the existing Federal
requirements. EPA clarified in a
December 19,1994, memorandum
(which is in the docket for today's rule)
that EPA would not implement the
Universal Treatment Standards
(promulgated under HSWA authority in
the Phase II LDR rule) separately for
those States for which the State has
received LDR authorization. EPA views
any changes from the'existing limits to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15591
be neither more or less stringent since
the technology basis of the standards
has not changed. Accordingly, EPA will
not implement the amendments to the
UTS in today's LDR Phase III rule for
those states with LDR authorization.
Because today's rule is promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive interim or final authorization
under RCRA section 3006(g)(2) or
3006(b), respectively, on the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The
procedures and schedule for State
program modifications for final
authorization are described in 40 CFR
271.21. It should be noted that all
HSWA interim authorizations will
expire January 1,2003. (See § 271.24
and 57 FR 60132, December 18,1992.)
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States with final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and to 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). 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
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 most cases,
EPA expects that it will be able to defer
to the States in their efforts to
implement their programs rather than
tak'e 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.
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant
to Executive Order 12866
Executive Order No. 12866 requires
agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is "significant." The
Order defines a "significant" regulatory
action as one that "is likely to result in
a rule that may: (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect, in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order."
The Agency estimated the costs of
today's rule to determine if it is a
significant regulation as defined by the
Executive Order. The analysis considers
compliance cost and economic impacts
for both characteristic wastes and newly
listed wastes affected by this rule. For
characteristic wastes, the potential cost
impacts of this rule depend on whether
facilities' current wastewater treatment
systems will meet the UTS levels or if
additional treatment will be required. If
current treatments are adequate,
facilities will only incur administrative
costs to have their permits revised as
well as on-going monitoring costs. In
general, the Agency expects that
facilities will seek permit modifications,
treatability variances, or certification of
adequate POTW treatment because these
compliance options can be implemented
at much lower cost than the option
requiring treatment to UTS levels. EPA
estimates the total annualized costs of
the rule for these wastes would range
from approximately $197,000 to
$598,000, of which $154,000 to
$425,000 would be incurred at the 28 to
73 potentially affected facilities in the
organic chemical industry, and
approximately $43,000 to $173,000
would be incurred at the 8 to 30
potentially affected facilities in the
petroleum refining industry. However,
at the high end, if current wastewater
treatment systems need to be augmented
with additional treatment steps, the
incremental compliance costs for
today's rule could be as high as $1
million per affected facility. The Agency
does not have adequate data to estimate
how many, if any, facilities may require
modification to their treatment facilities.
The Agency did conduct a sensitivity
analysis, considering the costs of the
rule under two scenarios: (1) Assuming
that 80 percent of the facilities comply
with the rule by obtaining permit
modifications and 20 percent comply by
treating their wastes, and, (2) assuming
that 60 percent comply by obtaining
permit modifications and 40 percent
comply by treating their wastes. Based
on the first scenario, the estimated
annualized costs of the rule would range
from $6.6 million to $18.2 million.
Based on the second scenario, the
estimated annualized costs would range
from $12.9 million to $35.7 million. For
newly listed wastes, the costs are
substantially higher and will be
incurred each year. These costs range
from approximately $11.9 million to
$47.3 million and are attributable to
thermal treatment of aluminum potliner
wastes (K088). Therefore, today's rule
may be considered an economically
significant rule. Because today's rule is
significant, the Agency analyzed the
costs, economic impacts, and benefits.
This section of the preamble for
today's rule provides a discussion of the
methodology used for estimating the
costs, economic impacts and the
benefits attributable to today's rule,
followed by a presentation of the cost,
economic impact and benefit results.
More detailed discussions of the
methodology and results may be found
in the background document,
"Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Land Disposal Restrictions Final Rule
for the LDR Phase III Newly Listed and
Identified Wastes," which has been
placed in the docket for today's rule.
1. Methodology Section
In today's rule, the Agency is
establishing treatment standards for the
following wastes: end-of-pipe standards
for ignitable, corrosive, and reactive
(ICR) wastewaters managed in CWA,
CWA-equivalent systems, and UIC
wells; Toxicity Characteristic pesticide
(D012-17) and organic (D018-43)
wastewaters managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent systems, and UIC wells; and
newly listed wastes from two
industries—spent aluminum potliners
and carbamates.
a. Methodology for Estimating the
Affected Universe. In determining the
costs, economic impacts, and benefits
associated with today's rule, the Agency
-------
15592 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
estimated the volumes of waste affected
by today's rule. The procedure.for
estimating the volume's of ICR waste and
TC organic and pesticide waste, and
newly listed wastes affected by today's
rule is summarized below.
First, the Agency examined all
industries which might be likely to
produce wastes covered under today's
standards. Through reviewing
comments to the Supplemental Notice
of Data Availability published by the..
Agency in 1993, reviewing runs from
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) of
volumes generated from particular
industry sectors, as well as discussions
with industry, and discussions with the
Office of Water at EPA HQ, the Agency
narrowed it down to 16 industries
which would potentially have
significant volumes of wastewater
affected by today's rule.
Using a host of databases and/or
sources, the Agency collected data on
the quantities, constituents, and
concentrations of the volumes affected
from each of the 16 industries. In
addition, the Agency gathered any data
on current management practices, plant
design, etc. The following sources were
used: Toxic Release Inventory (TRI),
Section 308 data from the Office of
Water, Industrial Studies Database
(ISDB), 1991 Biennial Reporting System
(BRS), primary summary and
development documents data from
effluent guidelines, TCRIA documents,
data gathered in the capacity analysis
performed for today's rule, as well as
comments from potentially affected
industries.
The Agency obtained volume
information for the newly listed
wastes—spent aluminum potliners
(K088) and carbamate wastes (K156-
161)—from the listing documents
prepared for these wastes during the
listing procedure.
b. Cost Methodology. The cost
analysis estimates the national level
incremental costs which will be
incurred as a result of today's rule. The
cost estimates for both the baseline and
post-regulatory scenarios are calculated
employing: (i) the facility wastestream
volume, (ii) the management practice *
(baseline or post-regulatory), assigned to
that wastestream, and (iii) the unit cost
associated with that practice. Summing
the costs for all facilities produces the
total costs for the given waste and
scenario. Subtracting the baseline cost
from the post-regulatory cost produces
the national incremental cost associated
with today's rule for the given waste.
The cost methodology section
includes three sub-sections: (i) ICR and
TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes
Managed in CWA and CWA-Equivalent
Systems, (ii) Newly Listed Wastes, (iii)
Testing and Recordkeeping Costs.
i. ICR and TC Pesticide and Organic
Wastes Managed in CWA and CWA-
Equivalent Systems. The Agency
employed the following approach to
estimate the incremental costs for the
ICR and TC wastes. First, using
information available on the affected
industries, the Agency created average-
sized model facilities for each industry.
Second, for a given model facility in an
affected industry, the Agency used
available unit cost data to develop costs
for the baseline management practices
(usually treatment in surface
impoundments followed by discharge
into receiving waters through a NPDES
permit). Third, the Agency used data on
the constituents and waste quantities for
each industry, where applicable, to
determine the necessary treatment
required to reduce to UTS levels the
constituents present. Fourth, the Agency
used unit costs to develop costs for the
post-regulatory management practices
for the treatment requirements
determined in the third step. Fifth,
subtracting the baseline from the post-
regulatory costs for an average facility in
an industry sector and using the data
available on the number of facilities
affected within each industry, the
Agency was able calculate the
incremental cost for a given industry.
Sixth., summing costs across affected
industries, the Agency determined the
incremental cost for the rule for the end-
of-pipe treatment standards.
ii. Newly Listed Wastes. The costs for
treatment of spent aluminum potliners
(K088) and carbamate wastes (K156—
161) will be determined using data from
the listings on baseline management
practices, judgment on the technology(s)
required to meet the UTS standards for
these wastes, and available unit cost
data.
iii. Testing and Recordkeeping Costs.
Testing and recordkeeping costs,
including costs that facilities will incur
for ensuring that hazardous constituents
in characteristic waste are meeting new
treatment standards and costs associated
with permit modifications will be based
upon an average, one-time testing cost,
on-going monitoring costs, and an
Information Collection Request,
respectively.
c. Economic Impact Methodology.
The economic effects of today's rule are
defined as the difference between the
industrial activity under post-regulatory
conditions and the industrial activity in
the absence of regulation (i.e., baseline
conditions).
The Agency used (1) historic average
capital expenditures for each industry,
(2) historic average operating . -•
expenditures for each industry, (3)
historic revenues, and (4) historic
average pollution abatement and control
expenditures (PACE) to determine the
economic impacts. However, the
Agency was unable to examine the ..' "
impacts on a facility-specific basis due
to lack of data. Therefore, the impacts '
are assessed on an industry-specific
basis.
d. Benefits Methodology. The
approach for estimating benefits
associated with today's rule involves
three components: (i) estimation of
pollutant loadings reductions, (ii)
estimation of reductions in exceedances
of health-based levels, and, (iii)
qualitative description of the potential
benefits. The benefits assessment is
based upon the waste quantity and :
concentration data collected for the cost
analysis. This incremental assessment
focuses upon reductions in toxic
concentrations at the point of discharge
and does not consider any potential
benefits resulting from reductions in air
emissions or impacts on impoundment
leaks and sludges which may occur as
part of treating wastes to comply with
the LDRs. It is expected that additional
treatment to comply with the LDRs may
result in risk reductions from air
emissions, leaks, and sludges.
EPA has conducted an assessment of
the benefits related to the effects of the
rule on newly listed spent aluminum
potliners. These benefits depend on the
incremental risk reductions that may
result from treatment of the wastes. In
conducting the risk assessment for spent
aluminum, potliners, EPA improved
upon the fate and transport modeling '
approach used in the RIA. Specifically,
in the RIA, EPA applied generic
dilution/attenuation factors (DAFs)
(which did not reflect constituent-
specific fate and transport processes,
site-specific hydrogeological conditions,
or waste characterization data) to relate
the concentration of contaminants in the
leachate to their concentration in a
down-gradient well. Instead, EPA used
its Composite Model for Leachate
Migration and Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) to perform constituent- "
specific fate and transport modeling. A
summary of the analysis can be found
in the Addendum to the RIA placed in
the docket for this rule. EPA data
indicate that approximately 120,000
metric tons of spent aluminum potliners
are generated annually. EPA has not
conducted an assessment of the benefits
related to the effects of the rule on
newly listed carbamate wastes. Because
the Agency expects facilities to comply
with LDRs through permit •
modifications, and because the quantity
of waste is very small, benefits for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15593
newly listed carbamate wastes are
expected to be minimal.
i. Estimation of Pollutant Loadings
Reductions. An incremental approach
was used to estimate reductions in
pollutant loadings. For the baseline
scenario, contaminant concentrations
were based upon data or estimates of
current effluent discharge concentration
levels. For the post-regulatory scenario,
concentration levels were assumed to
equal UTS levels.
ii. Estimation of Reductions in
Exceodances of Health-Based Levels.
The methods used for evaluating the
benefits associated with cancer and
noncancer risk reductions resulting
from the rule entail comparing
constituent concentration levels to
health-based standards to evaluate
whether implementation of the rule
reduces concentration levels below
levels that pose risk to human health.
To estimate benefits from cancer risk
reductions resulting from the rule, a
simple screening analysis was
performed. This analysis compared
contaminant concentrations for the
baseline and post-regulatory scenario to
health-based levels for carcinogens.
Further analysis may be undertaken to
quantify benefits associated with
facility/ wastestream combinations
identified in the contaminant
concentration comparisons.
Benefits associated with reductions in
non-cancer exceedances are estimated
based upon comparisons of contaminant
concentration levels in effluent
discharges of the affected wastestreams
to the reference health levels. These
benefits are expressed in terms of the
, number of exceedances of health-based
levels under the baseline scenario
compared to the number of exceedances
under the rule.
iii. Qualitative Description of the
Potential Benefits. A qualitative
assessment of potential benefits likely to
result from the rule is used where data
are limited. The Agency acknowledges
limited data availability in developing
waste volumes affected, constituents,
concentrations, cost estimates,
economic impacts, and benefits
estimates for the LDR Phase HI
rulemaking. The Agency continues to
request comment from industry
regarding constituents, concentrations,
waste volumes, and current
management practices.
2. Results
a. Volume Results. The Agency has
estimated the volumes of formerly
characteristic wastes potentially affected
by today's rule to total in the range of
33.5 to 500 million metric tons. The:
Agency requests comment on waste
volumes affected by the LDR Phase III
rule. For newly listed wastes, the
analyses supporting the listing
determination showed about 4,500
metric tons of carbamate wastes and
118,000 metric tons of spent aluminum
potliners are potentially affected by this
rule.
b. Cost Results. For characteristic
wastes, the potential cost impacts of this
rule depend on whether facilities'
current wastewater treatment systems
will meet the UTS levels or if additional
treatment will be required. If current
treatments are adequate, facilities will
only incur administrative costs to have
their permits revised. EPA estimates the
total annualized costs of the rule for
these wastes would range from
approximately $197,000 to $598,000, of
which $154,000 to $425,000 would be
incurred at the 28 to 73 potentially
affected facilities in the organic
chemical industry, and approximately
$43,000 to $173,000 would be incurred
at the 8 to 30 potentially affected
facilities in the petroleum refining
industry. However, at the high end, if
current wastewater treatment systems
need to be augmented with additional
treatment steps, the incremental
compliance costs could be as high as $1
million per affected facility. The Agency
does not have adequate data to estimate
how many, if any, facilities may require
modification to their treatment facilities.
The Agency continues to request
comment and data on how often
additional treatment may be required.
For newly listed wastes, the costs are
substantially higher and will be
incurred each year. These costs range
from approximately $11.9 million to
$47.3 million and are attributable to
thermal treatment of aluminum potliner
wastes (K088). The Agency requests
comment on where industry falls within
this range.
c. Economic Impact Results. The
Agency has estimated the economic
impacts of today's rule to represent less
than one percent of historic pollution
control and operating costs for the
organic chemical and petroleum
refining industries. However, for those
facilities that may need to treat to UTS
to comply with today's rule, costs could
be more significant. The estimated
compliance costs for treating newly
listed spent aluminum potliners
represents 40 percent of pollution
control operating costs for aluminum
reducers; however, treatment costs
represent only one percent of total
historic operating costs.
d. Benefit Estimate Results. The
Agency expects facilities to comply with
the LDRs through permit modifications.
As a result, the Agency has estimated
the benefits associated with today's rule
to be small. Assuming facilities comply
with the rule by treating their affected
wastestreams, loadings reductions
estimates range between 1,527 to 21,322
metric tons per year at 129 to 291
facilities (direct and indirect
dischargers) involving 175 to 647
constituent/wastestream combinations.
Ninety-eight percent of the reductions
occur at organic chemicals facilities,
with the remainder occurring at
petroleum refiners. Estimated loadings
reductions for direct dischargers range
between 36 and 267 tons per year,
representing between 0.03 and 0.2
percent of total Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) chemical loadings to surface
waters. For indirect dischargers,
estimated loadings reductions range
between 1,491 and 21,055 metric tons
per year, representing between 0.8 and
11.0 percent of total TRI chemical
loadings transferred to POTWs. Based
upon the results of the screening and
more detailed risk assessments, the
estimated baseline risks associated with
nine to twenty wastestreams (out of the
155 to 404 constituent/wastestream
combinations potentially affected by the
rule) exceed 10 ~6 under baseline
conditions and three to six wastestreams
with noncancer risk levels exceeding
reference doses. These 12 to 26
wastestreams contain one of five
constituents: aniline (9 to 19
wastestreams), acrylamide (0 to 1
wastestream), pyridine (2 waststreams),
barium compounds (1 wastestream), and
acetonitrile (0 to 2 wastestreams). For
these 12 to 26 wastestreams, EPA
conducted a more detailed risk
assessment, using site-specific data.
Results of the more detailed risk
assessment indicate that the benefits
from the rule are small. EPA identified
four wastestreams potentially posing
cancer risk exceeding the threshold risk
levels. Three wastestreams pose
baseline cancer risk ranging from 1 x
10~5 to 1 x 10~4 (due to exposure to
aniline) which potentially would be
reduced to between 8 x 10 ~ 8 and 3 x
10 -fi under the LDR Phase III rule. A
fourth wastestream containing
acrylamide poses baseline cancer risk at
a level of 2 x 10 ~3. The rule is estimated
to reduce this risk to between 2 x 10~4
and 4 x 10 ~36. All four of these
wastestreams are discharged to POTWs;
if POTW treatment removes these
constituents from the wastewater prior
to discharge to surface water and/or if
no drinking water intake is located
downstream from the POTW's outfall,
baseline risks will be lower. The Agency
expects facilities to comply with the
LDRs through permit modifications;
-------
federal Register / Vol.. 61,. No; 68 /Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
however, additional treatment may
result in potentially significant risk
reduction.
EPA performed constituent-specific
fate and transport modeling using its
EPACMTP to further assess cancer and
noncancer risks of spent aluminum
potliners. Using these additional data,
EPA assessment of baseline risks
indicates that individual lifetime cancer
risks increase to about 10 ~6 under
central tendency assumptions and 10 ~3
under high-end assumptions. In
addition, the new estimates suggest that
under high-end assumptions, baseline
concentrations in drinking water may be
high enough to present noncancer risks;
previously, noncancer risks were
estimated to be negligible.
Consequently, the benefits of regulating
spent aluminum potliners are higher
than previously estimated. Under
central tendency assumptions,
individual lifetime cancer risks
resulting from current waste
management practices are slightly
higher than post-regulatory risks (10 ~6
versus less than 10~6); some
incremental benefits may therefore be
realized as a result of the LDRs. Under
high-end assumptions, however, the
regulation could reduce cancer risks by
one or two order of magnitude, while
noncancer risks could be eliminated.
Although population risks would also
be reduced correspondingly, EPA is
unable to specify the magnitude of the
exposed population.
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Underground Injected Wastes
The Agency has completed a separate
regulatory impact analysis for
underground injected wastes affected by
the LDR Phase III final rule. This
analysis describes the regulatory
impacts only to the Class I injection
well universe. The new Phase III LDRs
cover decharacterized ICR and TC
organic wastes, and other newly-
identified hazardous wastes that are
distinctly industrial wastes injected by
owners and operators of only Class I
hazardous and non-hazardous injection
wells.
According to the available data
outlined in the RIA, our best estimate
indicates that of the 223 Class I injection
facilities in the nation, up to 154
facilities will be affected by the new
Phase III LDRs. Of these facilities, 100
inject nonhazardous waste and 54 inject
hazardous waste. Combined, these
facilities inject approximately 18 billion
gallons of waste annually into Class I
wells. These Glass I injection wells will
now be required to either treat wastes
onsite, segregate and ship affected
wastes offsite for treatment and
disposal, or file no migration petitions
as outlined in the UIC regulations in 40
CFRPart 148 (See 53 FR 28118, July 26,
1988, preamble for a mote thorough
discussion of the no migration petition
review process). Additional options for
compliance with the finalPhase III ;:,
LDRs, including a de minimis
exemption and a pollution prevention
option discussed in detail elsewhere in
this rule and in the final UIC RIA.
Of the newly affected Class I facilities,
38 already have no migration .,
exemptions approved by EPA, but they
may be required to submit a petition
modification to EPA due to the Phase III
rule unless their original petition
already addressed affected Phase III
wastes, including Underlying hazardous
constituents in decharacterized wastes..
In the cases where the petition already
covers all hazardous wastes and
underlying hazardous constituents in
the injected waste stream [i.e., the
injectate that was evaluated during .the
no migration petition process: has not
changed), no further Agency review of
these petitions is necessary. For the
facilities which do not have approved
no migration exemptions, the rule will
add compliance costs to those incurred
as a result of previous rulemakings. The
Agency analyzed costs and benefits for.
the final Phase III rule using the same
approach and methodology developed
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Underground Injection Control Program:
Proposed Hazardous Waste Disposal .
Injection Restriction (53 FR 28118) and
subsequent LDR rulemaking. An
analysis was performed to assess the
economic effect of associated
compliance costs for the additional
volumes of injected wastes attributable
to this rule. , ,
In general, Class I injection facilities
affected by the LDR Phase III rule have
several options. As previously outlined,
some facilities will modify existing no
migration petitions already approved by
the Agency, others may submit entirely
new petitions, and still others may
accept the prohibitions and either
continue to inject treated wastes or » .
cease injection operations altogether. "
And some facilities with approved
petitions already addressing Phase III -
wastes will have no or little additional
compliance costs. EPA assessed : '
compliance costs for Class I facilities
submitting no migration petitions,
employing alternative treatment, and/or
implementing pollution prevention
measures. Although facilities using ,
pollution prevention/waste ... ; •
minimization to comply with!the Phase
III LDRs will likely lower.overall- .;• •:..•-
regulatory compliance costs, these: ; ,.:.'
situations are site-specific and,t :w -. :.:;•,
therefore, EPA cannot estimate these
costs savings at this time.
For, Class I facilities opting to use
alternative treatment, the Agency
derived costs for both treating wastes
on-site, and/or shipping wastes and
treating them off-site at a commercial
facility. However, EPA believes that the
segregation and transportation of large
volumes of liquid wastes off-site is not
very practical or cost-effective. This
makes the off-site treatment scenario, at
best, a highly conservative analysis and
in actuality, a least likely and therefore
discountable scenario. EPA expects that
all injection facilities .will opt for the
most cost-effective approach in
complying with the Phase III final rule
and they will either submit a no
migration petition or treat their wastes
on-site. EPA also assumes that non-
commercial facilities will segregate
wastes for treatment on-site, whereas
commercial facilities will find it more
cost effective to not segregate LDR Phase
III wastes. For the final rule, EPA
estimates that the total annual
compliance cost for petitions and
alternative on-site treatment to industry
affected by the new LDR Phase III
prohibitions will range between $32.91
million to $34.08 million per year. The
average annual compliance costs per
affected facility employing on-site
alternative treatment were $217,500.
The range of costs for alternative
treatment is the result of applying a
sensitivity analysis. Only file
incremental treatment costs for the new
waste listings are calculated in this RIA.
All of these costs will be incurred by
Class I injection well owners and
operators. The average annual
compliance costs per affected facility
employing on-site alternative treatment
were $217,500. The total annual
compliance costs for the 154 potentially
affected facilities would therefore be
$33.4 million. These figures were
derived by applying the probability of
certain outcomes occurring, via the
decision tree methodology described in
the RIA, to the costs associated with
those outcomes for each affected
facility.
Additionally, as part of the RIA
analysis, the costs associated with three
differing scenarios also were derived.
These scenarios are represented by (1) a
minimum case, where all facilities incur
only petition costs, (2) a mid-line case,
where all facilities incur treatment costs
(commercial facilities treat oil-site with
no waste segregation while non-
commercial facilities chose the least
cost treatment option), and a maximum
case, where all facilities incur both
petition and treatment costs. Costs
associated with these scenarios range
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15595
from $3.67 million per year for all
facilities incurring only petition costs to
$132.62 million per year for all facilities
incurring both petition and treatment
costs. Based on past EPA experience,
there is little probability that all
facilities will arrive at each of these
possible outcomes. However, this
indicated range provides an extreme
lower and upper bound estimate for
national compliance costs purposes.
"The benefits to human health and the
environment in the RIA are generally
defined as reduced human health risk
resulting from fewer instances of ground
water contamination. In general,
potential health risks from Class I
injection wells are extremely low.
EPA conducted a quantitative
assessment of the potential human
health risks associated with two well
malfunction scenarios. EPA developed a
methodology described in the RIA to
measure health risks of five Phase III
contaminants: benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, phenol, and
toluene. The results of these analyses
show that most of the cancer risks
calculated are below the 1 x 10 ~4 to 1
X10 ~6 risk range generally used by EPA
to regulate exposure to carcinogens.
Virtually all of the non-cancer risks are
below a hazard index (HI) of 1, which
represents a ratio used to compare the
relative health risks posed by
contaminants. Therefore, these cancer
and non-cancer risks calculated are
below any levels of regulatory concern.
Only two cancer risk estimates in the
high end scenarios, those calculated for
benzene and carbon tetrachloride,
slightly exceeded the risk range to
regulate exposure to carcinogens. Only
one hazard index calculated for carbon
tetrachloride exceeded EPA's level of
concern of a ratio greater than 1.
However, these results were derived
from a scenario where an abandoned
borehole (i.e. the "failure pathway")
was in very close proximity to the
injection well, substantial pumping of a
drinking water well was occurring, and
the local geology was typical of the
highly transmissive East Gulf Coast
Region. The assumptions used in
deriving these results were based on
conservative, upper-bound estimates,
therefore the cancer and non-cancer
risks represent worst-case estimates.
Considering the limitations imposed by
the failure scenarios, and the
documented low probability of Class I
failures, the overall risks from failure of
Class I injection wells would be below
regulatory concern.
There also is a potential qualitative
benefit to the no-migration process for
Class I nonhazardous wells. It is
possible that the process would uncover
certain wells that cannot satisfy the no-
migration standard and indeed may not
be suitable for Class I injection in any
case. This proved to be true for Class I
hazardous wells. However,
notwithstanding this potential benefit,
as noted in the early part of this
preamble, the Agency does not regard
this regulatory effort as deserving of the
priority afforded it, due to the litigation-
driven schedule and the B.C. Circuit's
mandate, and would not be undertaking
the effort at this time were it not for that
mandate and schedule.
The economic analysis of LDR Phase
in compliance costs suggests that
publicly traded companies probably
will not be significantly affected. The
limited data available for privately-held
companies suggests, however, that they
may face significant costs due to the
proportionally larger expenses they may
face due to the LDR Phase III rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., when
an agency publishes a notice of
rulemaking, for a rule that will have a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities, the agency
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that considers the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e.: small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions).
Under the Agency's Revised Guidelines
for Implementing The Regulatory
Flexibility Act, dated May 4,1992, the
Agency committed to considering
regulatory alternatives in rulemakings
when there were any economic impacts
estimated on any small entities. (See
RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), and (g)(5),
which apply uniformly to all hazardous
wastes.) Previous guidance required
regulatory alternatives to be examined
only when significant economic effects
were estimated on a substantial number
of small entities.
In assessing the regulatory approach
for dealing with small entities in today's
rule, for both surface disposal of wastes,
the Agency considered two factors.
First, data on potentially affected small
entities are unavailable. Second, due to
the statutory requirements of the RCRA
LDR program, no legal avenues exist for
the Agency to provide relief from the
LDR's for small entities. The only relief
available for small entities is the
existing small quantity generator
provisions and conditionally exempt
small quantity generator exemptions
found in 40 CFR 262.11-12, and 261.5,
respectively. These exemptions
basically prescribe 100 kilograms (kg)
per calendar month generation of
hazardous waste as the limit below
which one is exempted from complying
with the RCRA standards.
Given these two factors, the Agency
was unable to frame a series of small
entity options from which to select the
lowest cost approach; rather, the Agency
was legally bound to regulate the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes
covered in today's rule without regard
to the size of the entity being regulated.
The Agency has, however, included
an exemption covering injection
facilities where the decharacterized
portion of the injectate is minimal in
absolute terms, as a percentage of the
total injectate, and iri hazardous
constituent mass loadings. This de
minimis exemption provides a measure
of relief to both small and larger entities
satisfying its terms.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office .of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Four Information Collection
Request (ICR) documents have been
prepared by EPA, as follows. OSWER
ICR No. 1442.12 would amend the
existing ICR approved under OMB
Control No. 2050-0085. The additional
information requirements for the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program were submitted to OMB under,
ICR No. 0370.14; this will amend the
existing UIC approval under OMB
Control No. 2040-0042. OSWER ICR No.
1442.12 and UIC ICR No. 0370.14 have
not been approved by OMB and the
information collection requirements in
those ICRs are not enforceable until
OMB approves them. EPA will publish
a document in the Federal Register
when OMB approves the information
collection requirements. Until EPA
publishes a document displaying the
valid OMB control number, persons are
not required to respond to collections of
information in these two ICRs. Two
amendments to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
ICRs were approved at proposal. These
are ICR 0229.10 for the Discharge
Monitoring Report, approved under
OMB Control No. 2040-0004, and ICR
0226.11 for NPDES Applications,
approved under OMB Control No. 2040-
0086.
Copies of these ICRs may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington,
D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Include the ICR numbers in any request.
The information requirements for the
-------
15596 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
OSWERICR and the UICICR are not
effective until OMB approves them.
The additional burden associated
with the OSWER ICR 1442.12 is as
follows. The overall annual burden for_
the recordkeeping and reporting •
requirements is 4,202 hours. It is
expected that approximately 125 , -
respondents will be affected, therefore,
the annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden averages 33 hours per •
respondent. This time is necessary to
collect data, submit notifications and
certifications to waste treaters and
disposers, and to maintain records of
this information. The annual cost
burden for this rule is approximately
$177,045. Of this amount, it is estimated
that facilities will incur annual
operation and maintainence capital :
costs of approximately $8,375.
The additional burden associated
with the UIC Program, explained in ICR
0370.14, is as follows. The estimated
annual reporting burden averages 3845
hours per respondent (i.e., inclusive of •
incremental reporting burdens ;
associated with all affected Class I :'
facilities and Primacy States). The
average incremental annual reporting
and recordkeeping burdens are about
4,442 hours per each affected Class I
nonhazardous facility and about 2,700
hours per each affected Class I ;
hazardous facility. For efforts associated
with implementing tne rule
amendments, the annual incremental
State burden equals about 22 hours for "
each Class I respondent. • ~-
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Send comments on the Agency's need
for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through
the use of automated collection of .
techniques to the Director, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of,-.. .
Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
Include the ICR numbers in any
correspondence.
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of ,1995, signed
into law on March 22,1995, EPA must
prepare a statement to accompany any
rule where the estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, will
be $100 million or mqre in any one year.
Under Section 205, EPA must select the
most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements;
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any :
small governments that may be
significantly impacted by the rule.
EPA has completed an analysis of the
costs and benefits from the LDR Phase
III rule and has determined that this rule
does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs of $100 "
million or more to either State, local or
tribal governments in the aggregate. As.
stated above, the private sector may
incur costs exceeding $100 million per
year depending upon the option chosen
in the final rulemaking. EPA has • :
fulfilled the requirement for analysis
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, and results of this analysis have
been included in the background • ,
document "Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Final Phase III Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule," which was placed in
the docket for today's rule.
List of Subjects , .'".'".'
40 CFR Part 148
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
40CFRPart268
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous materials .
transportation, Hazardous,waste,
Penalties, Reporting;and recordkeeping
requirements. , . , ; ; -
40 CFR Part 403
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: February 16,1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of die Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.
2: Section 148.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) to
read as follows:
§ 148.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
(a) This part identifies wastes that are
restricted from disposal into Class I
wells and defines those circumstances
under which a waste, otherwise
prohibited from injection, may be
injected.
(b) The requirements of this part •
apply to owners or operators of Class I
hazardous waste injection wells used to
inject hazardous waste; and, owners or
operators of Class I injection wells used
to inject wastes which once exhibited a
prohibited characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in 40 CFR part 261,
subpart C, at the point of generation,
and no longer exhibit the characteristic
at the point of injection.
* , * . * * *
(d) Wastes that are only hazardous
because they display a characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity that are otiierwise prohibited,
are not prohibited:
(1) If the wastes are disposed into a .
nonhazardous waste injection well
defined under 40 CFR 144.6(a); and
(2) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste
identified in 40 CFRpart 261, subpart
C, and either:
(i) Do not contain any hazardous
constituents identified in 40 CFR 268.48
.at levels greater than the 40 CFR 268.48
Universal Treatment Standard levels at
the point of generation;
(ii) Are de minimis in volume and
hazardous constituent concentration
levels, as defined in 40 CFR
268.1(e)(4)(ii). (Recordkeeping
requirements for this alternative are
found at 40 CFR 268.9(d)(4).); or
(iii)(A) The facility removes an
equivalent mass of hazardous
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15597
constituents as would be removed by
treating the characteristic hazardous
wastestream pursuant to the treatment
standards in 40 CFR268.48. This mass
reduction can come from:
(1) Treating nonhazardous portions of
the injectate;
(2) Recycling before ultimate
injection; or
(3) Engaging in pollution prevention
practices (such as equipment or
technology modifications, substitution
of raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training, or
inventory control).
(B) The compliance alternative in
paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section is
demonstrated by comparing the injected
baseline (determined by multiplying the
volume/day of characteristically
hazardous waste generated and injected)
times the concentration of hazardous
constituents before the treatment/
recycling/pollution prevention measure,
with the mass allowance obtained by
multiplying the volume/day of a
hazardous constituent generated and
injected times the universal treatment
standard for that constituent. The
baseline cannot include practices
initiated before the year 1990.
(Recordkeeping requirements for this
alternative are found at 40 CFR
268.9(d)(3).)
3. Section 148.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 148.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment.
(a) The provisions of 40 CFR 268.3
shall apply to owners or operators of
Class I wells used to inject a waste
which is hazardous at the point of
generation whether or not the waste is
hazardous at the point of injection.
(b) Owners or operators of Class I
nonhazardous waste injection wells
\vhich inject waste formerly exhibiting a
hazardous characteristic which has been
removed by dilution, may address
underlying hazardous constituents by
treating the hazardous waste, obtaining
an exemption pursuant to a petition
filed under § 148.20, or complying with
the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 268.9.
4. Section 148.4 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 148.4 Procedures for case-by-case
extensions to an effective date.
The owner or operator of a Class I
hazardous or nonhazardous waste
injection well may submit an
application to the Administrator for an
extension of the effective date of any
applicable prohibition established
under subpart B of this part according
to the procedures of 40 CFR 268.5.
5. Section 148.18 is added to subpart
B to read as follows:
§ 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—
Newly Identified Wastes.
(a) On July 8,1996, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers K156-K161,
P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
U379, U381-387, U389-U396, U400-
U404, U407, and U409-U411 are
prohibited from underground injection.
(b) On January 8,1997, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous waste number K088 is
prohibited from underground injection.
(c) On April 8, 1998, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers D018-043,
and Mixed TC/Radioactive wastes, are
prohibited from underground injection.
(d) On April 8,1998, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers D001-D003
are prohibited from underground
injection.
6. Section 148.20 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 148.20 Petitions to allow injection of a
waste prohibited under subpart B.
(a) Any person seeking an exemption
from a prohibition under subpart B of
this part for the injection of a restricted
hazardous waste, including a hazardous
waste exhibiting a characteristic and
containing underlying hazardous
constituents at the point of generation,
but no longer exhibiting a characteristic
when injected into a Class I injection
well or wells, shall submit a petition to
the Director demonstrating that, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, there will
be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone for
as long as the waste remains hazardous.
This demonstration requires a showing
that:
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
7. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
Subpart A—General
8. Section 268.1 is amended in
paragraph (e)(3) by removing the period
at the end of the paragraph and adding
"; or" in its place, by revising paragraph
(e)(4) and by removing paragraph (e)(5)
to read as follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(e)* * *
(4) De minimis losses of characteristic
wastes to wastewaters are not
considered to be prohibited wastes and
are defined as:
(i) Losses from normal material
handling operations (e.g. spills from the
unloading or transfer of materials from
bins or other containers, leaks from
pipes, valves or other devices used to
transfer materials); minor leaks of
process equipment, storage tanks or
containers; leaks from well-maintained
pump packings and seals; sample
purgings; and relief device discharges;
discharges from safety showers and
rinsing and cleaning of personal safety
equipment; rinsate from empty
containers or from containers that are
rendered empty by that rinsing; and
laboratory wastes not exceeding one per
cent of the total flow of wastewater into
the facility's headworks on an annual
basis, or with a combined annualized
average concentration not exceeding one
part per million in the headworks of the
facility's wastewater treatment or
pretreatment facility; or
(ii) Decharacterized wastes which are
injected into Class I nonhazardous wells
which wastes combined volume is less
than one per cent of the total flow at the
wellhead on an annualized basis, is no
greater than 10,000 gallons per day, and
in which any underlying hazardous
constituents in the characteristic wastes
are present at the point of generation at
levels less than ten times the treatment
standards found at § 268.48.
*****
9. Section 268.2 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f) and (i), and by
adding paragraphs (j), (k), and (1) to read
as follows:
§ 268.2 Definitions applicable in this part.
*****
(f) Wastewaters are wastes that
contain less than 1% by weight total
organic carbon (TOG) and less than 1%
by weight total suspended solids (TSS).
*****
(i) Underlying hazardous constituent
means any constituent listed in
§ 268.48, Table UTS—Universal
Treatment Standards, except fluoride,
vanadium, and zinc, which can
reasonably be expected to be present at
the point of generation of the hazardous
waste, at a concentration above the
constituent-specific UTS treatment
standards.
(j) 'Inorganic metal-bearing waste is
one for which EPA has established
treatment standards for metal hazardous
constituents, and which does not
otherwise contain significant organic or
cyanide content as described in
§ 268.3(b)(l), and is specifically listed in
appendix XI of this part.
-------
15598 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
(k) End-of-pipe refers to the point
where effluent is discharged to the
environment.
(1) Stormwater impoundments are
surface impoundments which receive
wet weather flow, and only receive
process waste during wet weather
events.
10. Section 268.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment.
(a) No generator, transporter, handler,
or owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility shall in any
way dilute a restricted waste or the
residual from treatment of a restricted
waste as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with
subpart D of this part, to circumvent the
effective date of a prohibition, in subpart
C of this part, to otherwise avoid a
prohibition in subpart C of this part, or
to circumvent a land disposal
prohibition imposed by RCRA section
3004.
(b) Dilution of wastes that are
hazardous only because they exhibit a
hazardous characteristic in a treatment
system which treats wastes
subsequently discharged to a water of
the United States pursuant to a permit
issued under section 402 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), or which treats
wastes for the purposes of pretreatment
requirements under section 307 of the
GWA, or zero discharge systems with
wastewater treatment equivalent to
these systems, is not impermissible
dilution, so long as the § 268.48
universal treatment standards are met at
the point of discharge, or at a prior point
of compliance specified under a CWA
permit, for all underlying hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be
present at the point of generation of the
hazardous waste.
(c) Combustion of the hazardous
waste codes listed in Appendix XI of
this part is prohibited, unless the waste,
at the point of generation, or after any
bona fide treatment such as cyanide
destruction prior to combustion, can be
demonstrated to comply with one or
more of the following criteria (unless
otherwise specifically prohibited from
combustion):
(1) the waste contains hazardous
organic constituents or cyanide at levels
exceeding the constituent-specific
• treatment standard found in § 268.48;
(2) The waste consists of organic,
debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,
plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
waste;
(3) The waste, at point of generation,
has reasonable heating value such as
greater than or equal to 5000 BTU per
pound;
(4) The waste is co-generated with
wastes for which combustion is a
required method of treatment;
(5) The waste is subject to Federal
and/or State requirements necessitating
reduction of organics (including
biological agents); or
(6) The waste contains greater than
1% Total Organic Carbon (TOG).
11. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a) introductory text, paragraphs
(b)(5)(iv), by removing "268.45';" at the
end of paragraph (a)(l)(iv) and adding
"268.45'; and" in its place, by removing
"; and," at the end of paragraph (a)(l)(v)
and adding a period in its place, by
removing paragraph (a)(l)(vi), and by
adding paragraph (b)(5)(v) to read as
follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.
(a) * * * If the generator determines
that his waste exhibits the characteristic
of ignitability (D001) (and is not in the
High TOG Ignitable Liquids Subcategory
or is not treated by CMBST or RORGS
of § 268.42, Table 1), and/or the
characteristic of corrosivity (D002), and/
or reactivity (D003), and/or the
characteristic of organic toxicity (DO 12-
D043), and is prohibited under § 268.37,
§ 268.38, and § 268.39, the generator
must determine the underlying
hazardous constituents (as defined in
§ 268.2, in the D001, D002, D003, or
D012-D043 wastes.
(1) * * *
(ii) The waste constituents that the
treater will monitor, if monitoring will
not include all regulated constituents,
for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001,
D002, D003, and D012-D043.
Generators must also include whether
the waste is a nonwastewater or
wastewater (as defined in § 268.2 (d)
and (f), and indicate the subcategory of
the waste (such as "D003 reactive
cyanide"), if applicable;
*****-
(2)* * *
(i) * * *
(B) The waste constituents that the
treater will monitor, if monitoring will
not include all regulated constituents,
for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001,
D002, D003, and D012-D043.
Generators must also include whether
the waste is a nonwastewater or
wastewater (as defined in § 268. 2(d) and
(f)) and indicate the subcategory of the
waste (such as "D003 reactive
cyanide"), if applicable;
*****
{3)* * *
(ii) The waste constituents that the
treater will monitor, if monitoring will
not include all regulated constituents,
for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001,
D002, DQ03, and D012-DQ43.
Generators must also include whether
the waste is a nonwastewater or
wastewater (as denned in § 268.2(d) and
(f)), and indicate the subcategory of the
waste (such as "D003 reactive
cyanide''), if applicable;
* * * * *
(b)* * *
t£\ * * *
(ii) The waste constituents to be
monitored, if monitoring will not
include all regulated constituents, for
wastes F001-F005, F039, D001, D002,
D003, and D012-D043. Generators must
also include whether the waste is a
nonwastewater or wastewater (as
defined in § 268.2(d) and (f), and
indicate the subcategory of the waste
(such as D003 reactive cyanide), if
applicable;
* * * * _ *
(5) * * *
(iv) For characteristic wastes D001,
D002, D003, and D012-D043 that are;
subject to the treatment standards in
§ 268.40 (other than those expressed as
a required method of treatment); that are
reasonably expected to contain
underlying hazardous constituents as
defined in § 268.2(i); are treated on-site
to remove the hazardous characteristicf
and are then sent off-site for treatment
of underlying hazardous constituents,
the certification must state the
following:
I certify under penalty of law that the
waste has been treated in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove
the hazardous characteristic. This
decharacterized waste contains underlying
hazardous constituents that require further
treatment to meet universal treatment
standards. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment.
(v) For characteristic wastes D001,
D002, D003 and D012-D043 that
contain underlying hazardous
constituents as defined in § 268.2(i) that
are treated on-site to remove the
hazardous characteristic and to treat
underlying hazardous constituents to
levels in § 268.48 Universal Treatment
Standards, the certification must state
the following:
I certify under penalty of law that the,
waste has been treated in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove
the hazardous characteristic, and that
underlying hazardous constituents, as
defined in § 268.2, have been treated on-site
to meet the § 268.48 Universal Treatment
Standards. I am aware that there are
-------
Federal Register /. Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15599
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment
§268.8 [Removed and reserved]
12. Section 268.8 is removed and
reserved.
13. Section 268.9 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (d) introductory
text, (d)(l)(i), and (d)(l)(ii), and by
adding paragraphs (d)(3), (e), (f), and (g)
to read as follows:
§268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that
exhibit a characteristic.
(a] The initial generator of a solid
waste must determine each. EPA
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
standards under subpart D of this part.
For purposes of this part 268, the waste
will carry the waste code for any
applicable listing under 40 CFR part
261, subpart D. In addition, the waste
will carry one or more of the waste
codes under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C,
where the waste exhibits a
characteristic, except in the case when
the treatment standard for the waste
code listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart
D operates in lieu of the standard for the
waste code under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart C, as specified in paragraph (b)
of this section. If the generator
determines that his waste displays a
hazardous characteristic (and the waste
is not a D004—D011 waste, a High TOG
D001, or is not treated by CMBST, or
RORGS of § 268.42, Table 1), the
generator must determine what
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2), are reasonably
expected to be present above the
universal treatment standards found in
§ 268.48.
*****
(d) Wastes that exhibit a characteristic
are also subject to § 26,8.7 requirements,
except that once the waste is no longer
hazardous, a one-time notification and
certification must be placed in the
generators or treaters files and sent to
the EPA region or authorized state,
except for those facilities discussed in
paragraph (f) of this section. The
notification and certification that is
placed in the generators or treaters files
must be updated if the process or
operation generating the waste changes
and/or if the Subtitle D facility receiving
the waste changes. However, the
generator or treater need only notify the
EPA region or an authorized state on an
annual basis if such changes occur.
Such notification and certification
should be sent to the EPA region or
authorized state by the end of the
calendar year, but no later than
December 31.
(1)* * *
(i) For characteristic wastes other than
those managed on site in a wastewater
treatment system subject to the Clean
Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers
engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment,
or Class I nonhazardous injection wells,
the name and address of the Subtitle D
facility receiving the waste shipment;
and
(ii) For all characteristic wastes, a
description of the waste as initially
generated, including the applicable EPA
Hazardous Waste Number(s), treatability
group (s), and underlying hazardous
constituents.
*****
(3) For characteristic wastes whose
ultimate disposal will be into a Class I
nonhazardous injection well, and
compliance with the treatment
standards found in § 268.48 for
underlying hazardous constituents is
achieved through pollution prevention
that meets the criteria set out at 40 CFR
148.l(d), the following information
must also be included:
(i) A description of the pollution
prevention mechanism and when it was
implemented if already complete;
(ii) The mass of each underlying
hazardous constituent before pollution
prevention;
(iii) The mass of each underlying
hazardous constituent that must be
removed, adjusted to reflect variations
in mass due to normal operating
conditions; and
(iv) The mass reduction of each
underlying hazardous constituent that is
achieved.
(e) For decharacterized wastes
managed on-site in a wastewater
treatment system subject to the Clean
Water Act (CWA) or zero-dischargers
engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment,
compliance with the treatment
standards found at § 268.48 must be
monitored quarterly, unless the
treatment is aggressive biological
treatment, in which case compliance
must be monitored annually.
Monitoring results must be kept in on-
site files for 5 years.
(f) For decharacterized wastes
managed on-site in a wastewater
treatment system subject to the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for which all
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2), are addressed by a
CWA permit, this compliance must be
documented and this documentation
must be kept in on-site files.
(g) For characteristic wastes whose
ultimate disposal will be into a Class I
nonhazardous injection well which
qualifies for the de minimis exclusion
described in § 268.1, information
supporting that qualification must be
kept in on-site files.
§§ 268.10-268.12 [Removed and Reserved]
14. Sections 268.10 through 268.12
are removed and reserved.
15. Section 268.39 is added to subpart
C to read as follows:
§ 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions—End-
of-pipe CWA, CWA-equivalent, and Class I
nonhazardous injection well treatment
standards; spent aluminum potliners; and
carbamate wastes.
(a) On July 8,1996, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K156-K161;
and in 40 CFR 261.33 as EPA Hazardous
Waste numbers P127, P128, P185, P188-
P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205,
U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372,
U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-
U396, U400-U404, U407, and U409-
U411 are prohibited from land disposal.
In addition, soil and debris
contaminated with these wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(b) On July 8,1996 the wastes
identified in 40 CFR 261.23 as D003 that
are managed in systems other than those
whose discharge is regulated under the
Clean Water Act (CWA), or that inject in
Class I deep wells regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), or
that are zero dischargers that engage in
CWA-equivalent treatment before
ultimate land disposal, are prohibited
from land disposal. This prohibition
does not apply to unexploded ordnance
and other explosive devices which have
been the subject of an emergency
response (such D003 wastes are
prohibited unless they meet the
treatment standard of DEACT before
land disposal (see § 268.40)).
(c) On July 8,1996, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste number K088 are
prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated
with these wastes are prohibited from
land disposal.
(d) On April 8,1998, decharacterized
wastes managed in surface
impoundments whose discharge is
regulated under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), or decharacterized wastes
managed by zero dischargers in surface
impoundments or tanks that engage in
CWA-equivalent treatment before
ultimate land disposal are prohibited
from land disposal. The following are
exceptions to this requirement:
(1) Surface impoundments which are
permitted under subtitle C of RCRA;
(2) Storm water impoundments as
defined in § 268.2;
-------
15600 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 68 •/ Monday,' April 8, 1996 /Rules and Regulations
(3) Surface impoundments which are,
part of facilities in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industrial category.
(e) On April 8,1998, Radioactive
wastes mixed with K088, K156-K161,.
P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
U379, U381-U387, U389-U396,' U400-
U404, and U407, U409-U411 are also
prohibited from land,disposal. In
addition, soil and'debris contaminated
with these radioactive mixed wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(f) Between July 8,1996 and April 8,
1998, the wastes included in paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section may
be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(g) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), .(b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section do
not apply if: , .
(1) The wastes meet-the applicable
treatment standards specified in Subpart
D of this part; . .
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;, , •• '•' ' -
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate treatment 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 these wastes covered by the
extension.
(h) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in § 268.40, the initial
generator must test a 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 this part 268 are
applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
16. Section 268.40 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) and the table at
the end of § 268.40 to read as follows:
§268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
* * * * *
(e) For characteristic wastes (D001-
D043) that are subject to treatment
standards in the following table
"Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes," all underlying hazardous
constituents (as defined in § 268.2(i)) •
must meet Universal Treatment
Standards, found in § 268,48, "Table
UTS," prior to land disposal.
(1) When these wastes are managed in
wastewater treatment systems regulated
by the Clean Water Act (CWA), ,
compliance with the treatment
standards must be achieved no later
than "end-of-pipe" as defined in
§ 268.2(k); or
(2) When these wastes are managed in
CWA-equivalent treatment systems and
tank-based systems that discharge onto
the land, compliance with the treatment
standards must be achieved no later
than the point the wastewater is
released to the land (e.g., spray
irrigation, discharge to dry river beds,
placed into:evaporation ponds); or
(3) When these wastes are managed in
Class I nonhazardous injection wells,
compliance with the treatment .
standards must be achieved no later
than the well head; or
(4) For all other, compliance with the
treatment standard must be met prior to
land disposal as defined in § 268.2(c).
* * *. * * •
Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes .
-------
te
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15601
S "'§,•'=
1st
O
cl-
CO 00
*: -Sin
S-gt b!
5 O
TJ T3
C C
CO CO
.
'co to
astewaters
tration in
or tech-
3'
TJ
CO
TJ TJ
CO CO
'•i
I
w
I
CO
g
i
<
2
<
Z
<
2
CM CM i
i-l ii :
U) LO '
c
c
I
c 5 •>. c
.9 c: .3 •§ fr.S
CO CD
I i
!
s ~
CO
£
«
-
&
o
w
."x:
1?
IS
°
&.
t
i;
0 CD
1
O
T>
t^
=J .
or
Unexploded
which ha
i
&
O
E
CO
Si S3
i
I
O CM "" 2. o > CM
CD CO
~: CM
.
:r -C-
SfJ*-
CD
?
O
%
I
Q
g
Q
O O
!-°-
go
D —-
S
§
s
o
Q
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
nnrm
D006
D007
D008
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the
characteristic of toxicity for barium based on the
extraction procedure (EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the
characteristic of toxicity for cadmium based on
the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
Cadmium Containing Batteries Subcategory. (Note:
This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters
only).
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the
characteristic of toxicity for chromium based on
the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the
characteristic of toxicity for lead based on the ex-
traction procedure (EP) in SW846 Method 1310.
Lead Acid Batteries Subcategory (Note: This stand-
ard only applies to lead acid batteries that are
identified as RCRA hazardous wastes and that
are not excluded -elsewhere from regulation
under the land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR
268 or exempted under other EPA regulations
(see 40 CFR 266.80). This subcategory consists
of nonwastewaters only.).
Radioactive Lead Solids Subcategory (Note: these
lead solids include, but are not limited to, all
forms of lead shielding and other elemental
forms of lead. These lead solids do-not include
treatment residuals such as hydroxide sludges,
other wastewater treatment residuals, or inciner-
ator ashes that can undergo conventional pozzo-
lanic stabilization, nor do they include organo-
lead materials that can be incinerated and sta-
bilized as ash. This .subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only).
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Arsenic; alternate6 standard for
nonwastewaters only.
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead ;
Lead; alternate6 standard for
nonwastewaters only.
Lead
Lead
CAS2 No.
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
NA
100
1.0
NA
5.0
5.0
NA
NA
NA
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
5.0 mg/l TCLP
100 mg/l TCLP
1.0 mg/l TCLP
RTHRM
5.0 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l EP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
RLEAD
MACRO
-------
go
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15603
CO
M-
o
cc
O
cc
CO
•tf
CO ,
CD '
0:5
1*
UJ
CC
o
d
zl X.
•5
id
"§,
0
10
•3|j
1
CO
S *- ~ £
5dSl
3 p S
0 £»
c
CO
X „ to !^ „
P 0)-D ° -ffi
O
CO
*f
7
d>
T
oj
CVJ
T
§
o
a
o
a
o
a
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
nniK
D016
nni7
nmfl
nniQ
D020
nnoi
nAoo
nfioQ
D024
D025
D026 v. ...»
D027 •
nn9R
nnoQ
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Wastes that are TC for Toxaphene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that : are TC for 2,4-D (2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) based on the TCLP
in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 131 1.
Wastes that are TC for Benzene .based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Carbon tetrachloride based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Chlordane based on the
TCLP in SW84.6 Method 1311..;
Wastes that are TC for Chlorobenzene based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Chloroform based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method .1311.
Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311. -
Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1 31 1 .
Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311. .
Wastes that are TC for Cresols (Total) based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for-p-Dichlorobenzene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC -for 1,,2-Dichloroethane based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 131,1,
Wastes that are TC for1,1-Dichloroethylene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method .131 1 .
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Toxaphene
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid).
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) ...
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (alpha and gamma iso-
mers).
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from m-cresol).
Cresol-mixed isomers (Cresylic
acid)(sum of o-, m-, and p-cre-
sol concentrations).
p-Dichlorobenzene (1 ,4-
.Dichlorobenzene). •
1 ,2-Dichloroethane ...
1 ,1-Dichloroethy)ene
"*•':" ' '
CAS 2 No.
8001-35-2
94-75-7
93-72-1
71-43-2
56-23-5
57-74-9
108-90-7
67-66-3.
:95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
1319-77-3
106-46-7
107-06-2
75-35-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/!3;:or tech-
nology code4
BIODG or
CMBST8
CHOXD, BIODG,
or CMBST8
CHOXD or
CMBST8
0.14
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.057
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.0033
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.057
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.046
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.11
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.77
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.77
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.88
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.090
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.21
and meet §268.48
standards8
0.025
and meet §268.48
standards8
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
2.6
and meet §268.48
standards8
10
and meet §268.48
standards8
7.9
and meet §268.48
standards8
10
and meet §268.48
standards8
6.0
and, meet §268.48
standards8
0.26
and meet §268.48
standards8
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards8
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards8
5.6
and meet §268.48
standards8
5.6
and meet §268.48
standards8
5.6
and meet §268.48
standards8
11.2
and meet §268.48
standards8
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards8
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards8
6.0
and meet §268.48
.standards8,
\
<
o
Z
p
05
03
£
I
a..
flo
CO
CO
O)
I
5T
CO
a
CL
t
Bi
B
to'
-------
0030
D031
D032
D033
D034
D035 ,
D036 .
D037 .
D038 .
D039 .
D040 .
D041 .
D042 .
D043 .
Wastes that are TC for 2,4-Dinitrotoloene based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes Jhat are TC for Hexachlorobenzene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobutadiene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachloroethane based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl ketone based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Pentachlorophenol based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Pyridine based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Tetrachloroethylene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Trichloroethylene based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Heptachlor „...
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine '.
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride
121-14-2
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
78-93-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
110-86-1
127-18-4
79-01-6
95_95_4
88-06-2
75-01-4
0.32
and meet §268.48
standards8
00012
and meet §268.48
standards8
0016
and meet §268.48
standards8
0055
and meet §268.48
standards8
0055
and meet §268.48
standards8
0055
and meet §268.48
standards8
028
and meet §268.48
standards8
0068
and meet §268.48
standards8
0089
and meet §268.48
standards8
0014
and meet §268.48
standards8
0056
and meet §268.48
standards8
0054
and meet §268.48
standards8
0 18
and meet §268.48
standards 8
0035
and meet §268.48
standards8
027
and meet §268.48
standards8
140
and meet §268.48
standards8
0066
and meet §268.48
standards8
0066
and meet §268.48
standards8
10
and meet §268.48
standards8
56
and meet §268.48
standards8
30
and meet §268.48
standards8
36
and meet §268.48
standards8
14
and meet §268.48
standards8
74
and meet §268.48
standards8
16
and meet §268.48
standards8
60
and meet §268.48
standards8
60
and meet §268.48
standards8
74
and meet §268.48
standards8
74
and meet §268.48
standards8
60
and meet §268.48
standards8
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
j
F001, F002, F003, F004, and/or F005 solvent
wastes that contain any combination of one or
more .of the following spent solvents: acetone,
benzene, n-butyl alcohol, carbon disulfide, car-
bon tetrachloride, chlorinated fluoracarbons,
chlorobenzene, o-cresol, m-cresol, p-cresol,
cyclohexanone, o-dichlorobenzene, 2-
ethoxyethanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl
ether, isobutyl alcohol, rhethanol, methylene chlo-
ride, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
nitrobenzene, 2-nitropropane, pyridine,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloro-1,2,2-trifluorethane, trichloroethane,
trichloromonofluouromethane, and/or xylenes [ex-
cept as specifically noted in other subcategories].
See further details of these listings in §261.31.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol '.. .-.
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene . ..
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from p-cresol);
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from m-cresol).
Cresol-mixed isomers (Cresylic
acid) (sum of o-, m-, and p-cre-
sol concentrations.
Cyclohexanone . ....
o-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
Isobutyl alcohol
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone ..
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
1 1 1 -Trichlorethane
1.1 .2-Trichloroethane .....
CAS2 No.
67-64-1
71-42-2
71-36-3
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
1319-77-3
108-94-1
95-50-1
141-78-6
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-83-1
67-56-1
75-9-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
98-95-3
110-86-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
79-00-5
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.28
0.14
5.6
3.8
0.057
0.057
0.11
0.77
0.77
0.88
0.36 .
0.088
0.34 :• '
0.057
0.12
5.6
5.6 '
0.089
0.28"
0.14
0.068
0.014
0.056
0.080
0.054
0.054
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg s unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
160
10
2.6
NA
6.0
6.0
T 5.6
5.6
5.6'
11.2'
1 NA
6.0
33
10
- 160 ""
170
NA'
:-'30
36
33 -
14- '•
16 "••-
6.6
10 -
6.0
6.0
,-W
'O5
'O-
O)
f
I
I
o:
00-
I
H:
00.
CD
CO
a>
CD
CO
<§:
c£
O';'
:-co.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15607
C*3 CO
D.
O
a. a.
Hi
[2 [2°
ci d
55
m
o
o.
P-
f§8f
i 5
: g
. ^ *- ^ o
-
8
o
j O O)
>od
°
CO
CO
d
5^55
P.PPP
a.
d
(O
cq
ci
01!
O*: i
. — O
CQ
, CO O> CO ,-- ^.
i CO CD 01 < <
ci ci co z z
l-HX
;: co r-.
Sc -5 8
Hi:?
02-i >^ <
OOO-
i^ CD
!^^
I Z CO
t
*SL
ill
: A cb
1 o c
Its
g E^
•111 1
*.
fl
o ^-G
"^" ^* O _—*_
I!!*f
O 0£ ^-^
"- C c/jTO CO
§ .9 ra S CM
=B g S .2 •=
gig"0 |
E j£ c fc
g 8 8.3 §•
U.
8
1
t? .
•j= co
ca c.
°-°
CO
CO
E-l
g 2
0
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Ul
Waste code
pmn
Ff)11
FD19
FD1Q
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal
heat treating operations where cyanides are used
in the process.
Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning
from metal heat treating operations.
Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from
metal heat treating operations where cyanides
are used in the process.
Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum except from zir-
conium phosphating in aluminum can washing
when such phosphating is an exclusive conver-
sion coating process.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Cadmium
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Nickel
Silver .
Cadmium
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable)7
Nickel ..
Silver
Chromium (Total) ;....
Cyanides (Total)7
Cvanides fAmenablel 7
CAS2 No.
57-12-5
57-12-5
744CM3-9
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
.1.2
0.86
NA
2.77
1.2
0.86
0.69
3.98
NA
NA
2.77
1.2
0.86
0.69
3.98
NA
2.77
1.2
0.86
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
590
30
0.19 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
30
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.30 mg/l TCLP
0.1 9 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
30
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.30 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590.
30
B
<
O!
O!
00
CO
CO
O5
I"
5T
en
§
en
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15609
8
o
o
o
d
8 8
o d
o
q
d
O
O
£3 co
CO CD
SE CD
O o
O o
q o
00 U
CD C
O C
O C
0 C
q c
3 00
I §1
3 00
.000063
?!8§&
°ddg
gggjqSgg
odd00 do
o'cjoi
2 T O ••
..li
CM CJ CM <
l^-i
i .5 co .9 .S CD ® ® .£^3
^Ip-llfs
S^c5-o-a2->,gSSH-
£ fills 111!"
ooo^oJSwS a>to>
LU
I
Si
o
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
cnoR
F027 •— —
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Condensed light ends from the production of cer-
tain chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, by free
radical catalyzed processes. These chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons are those having carbon
chain lengths ranging from one to and. including
five, with varying amounts and positions of chlo-
rine substitution. •
Spent filters and filter aids, and spent desiccant
wastes from the production of certain chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons, by free radical catalyzed
processes. These chlorinated aliphatic hydro-
carbons are those having carbon chain lengths
ranging from one to and including five, with vary-
ing amounts and positions of chlorine substi-
tution. F025— Spent Filters/Aids and Desiccants
Subcategory.
Discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-
-, or pentachlorophenol or discarded unused for-
mulations containing compounds derived from
these chlorophenols. (This listing does not in-
clude formulations containing hexachlorophene
synthesized from prepurified 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
as the sole component).
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Nickel
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform . •
1 2-Dichloroethane
1 1 -Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
•) -j 2-Trichloroethane .
Trichloroethylene -.
Vinyl chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hexachloroethane
Methylene chloride
11 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
HxCDFs (All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
PeCDFs (All
Pentachlorodibenzofurans).
PentachloroDhenol '..
CAS2 No.
7440-02-0
56-23-5
67-66-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
75-9-2
79-00-5'
79-01-6
75-01-4
56-23-5
67-66-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
75-9-2
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-01-^1
NA
NA
• NA
NA
87-86-5
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
3.98
0.057
0.046
0.21
0.025
0.089
0.054
0.054
0.27
0.057
0.046
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.089
0.054
0.054
0.27
0.059
0.059
:0.14
0.059
0.061
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
5.0 mg/l TCLP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
10
5.6
30
30
6.0
6.0
6.0
NA
3.4
10
3.4
3.4
i-t
or
01
ffl
8-
o,
O)
O)
CO
s
•8
u
CO
CD
OJ
I
aT
tn
P.
W.
fl-
B
6'
en
-------
F028,
F037
Residues resulting from the incineration or thermal
treatment of soil contaminated with EPA Hazard-
ous Wastes Nos. F020, F021, F023, F026, and
F027.
Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/solids separa-
tion sludge—Any sludge generated from the
gravitational separation of oil/water/solids during
the storage or treatment of process wastewaters
and oily cooling wastewaters from petroleum re-
fineries. Such sludges include, but are not limited
to, those generated in: oil/water/solids separa-
tors; tanks and impoundments; ditches and other
conveyances; sumps; and stormwater units re-
ceiving dry weather flow. Sludge generated in
stormwater units that do not receive dry weather
flow, sludges generated from non-contact once-
through cooling waters segregated for treatment
from other process or oil cooling waters, sludges
generated in aggressive biological treatment
units as defined in §261.31(b)(2) (including
sludges generated in one or more additional
units after wastewaters have been treated in ag-
gressive biological treatment units) and K051
wastes are not included in this listing.
TCDOs (AH Tetrachlorodlbenzo-p-
dioxins).
TCDFs (All
Tetracholorodlbenzofurans).
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
HxCDFs (All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
PeCDFs (All
Pentachlorodibenzofurans).
Pentachlorophenol
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
TCDFs (All
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
NA
NA
95-95-4
88-06-2
58-90-2
NA
NA
NA
NA
87-86-5
NA
NA
95-95-4
88-06-2
58-90-2
83-32-9
120-12-7
71-43-2
56-55-3
50-32-8
117 81 7
218-01-9
84-74-2
100-41-4
86-73 7
91-20-3
85-01-8
1 08-95-2
129-00-0
0.28
0.059
0.057
0057
0059
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0 080
0.32
2.77
1 2
069
3 98
0059
0059
0 14
0059
0061
0 28
0059
0057
0057
n (IRQ
0 059
0059
0039
0.067
28
3.4
28
10
NA
5.6
5.6
6.2
8.2
m
30
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
NA
*> 0 mn/I TCI P
NA
34
10
34
34
9R
34
28
10
IU
Mi
56
56
62
89
*n
8?
8-
I
ff
S3.
en
5
—
<
O)
H»
2
o
00
^_
1
p.
V
&
CO
F-»
CO
CO
o>
2
cT
en
(B
3
P-
c?
^
P
B-
O
CO
U1
O5
l-»
M
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
Fms
i"
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Petroleum refinery secondary (emulsified) oil/water/
solids separation sludge and/or float generated
from the physical and/or chemical separation of
oil/water/solids in process wastewaters and oily
cooling wastewaters from petroleum refineries.
Such wastes include; but are not limited to, all
sludges and floats generated in: induced air float-
ation (IAF) units, tanks and impoundments, and
all sludges generated in DAF units. Sludges gen-
erated in stormwater units that do not receive dry
weather flow, sludges generated from non-con-
tact once-through cooling waters segregated for
treatment" from other process or oily cooling wa-
ters, sludges and floats generated in aggressive
biological treatment units as defined in
§261.31(b)(2) (including sludges and floats gen-
erated in one or more additional units after
wastewaters have been treated in aggressive bi-
ological units) and F037, K048, and K051 are not
included in this listing.
)
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total) 7
Nickel
Benzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate .;
Chrysene .....
Di-n-butyl phthalate ....:
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene .•. ...
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene ; ... .......
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
• tions).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Lead "
Nickel ..:.. ...:....:......
CAS 2 No.
108-88-3
1330-20-7
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
218-01-9
84-74-2
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
1330-20-7
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.080
0.32
2.77
1.2
0.69
3.98
0.14
0'.061
0.28
0.059
0.057
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
2.77
•1.2
0.69
'NA
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
10
30
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP
10
3.4
28'
3.4
28
10
NA
5.6
5.6
6.2
8.2
10
30
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
NA
5.0 mg/t TCLP
01
O)
H>
to
n)
n
s
a
°
O)
O)
CO
r
CO
CD
CO
O5
(a
3
P.
§
tn
-------
F039 ........
Leachate (liquids that have percolated through land
disposed wastes) resulting from the disposal of
more than one restricted waste classified as haz-
ardous under sufopart D of this part. (Leachate
resulting from the disposal of one or more of the
following EPA Hazardous Wastes and no other
Hazardous Wastes retains its EPA Hazardous
Waste Number(s): F020, F021, F022, F026,
F027, and/or F028.).
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Acetone :
Acetonitrile
Acetophenpne
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
4-AminobiphenyI
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (difficult to
distinguish from
benzo(k)fluoranthene.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (difficult to
distinguish from
benzo(k)fluoranthene.
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bromodichloromethane
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) .
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
n-Butyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
(Dinoseb).
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (alpha and gamma iso-
mers).
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Chloroform
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chloromethane (Methyl chlorida)..
2-Chloronaphthalene
208-96-8
83-32-9
67-64-1
75-05-8
96-86-2
53-96-3
107-02-8
107-13-1
309-00-2
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
140-57-8
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
71-43-2
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
75-27-4
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
126-99-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
111-91-1
111-44-4
67-66-3
39638-32-9
59-50-7
74-87-3
91-58-7
0.059
0.059
0.28
5.6
0.010
0.059
0.29
0.24
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.059
0.36
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
0.14
0.059
0.11
0.11
0.0055
0.061
0.35
0.11
0.055
5.6
0.017
0.066
3.8
0.057
0.0033
0.46
0.057
0.10
0.057
0.057
0.27
0.036
0.033
0.046
0.055
0.018
0.19
0.055
3.4
3.4
160
38
9.7
140
NA
84
0.066
NA
14
3.4
NA
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
10
3.4
6.8
6.8
1.8
3.4
15
15
15
2.6
28
2.5
4.8 mg/l TCLP
6.0
0.26
16
6.0
NA
0.28
15
6.0
7.2
6.0
6.0
7.2
14
30
5.6
Htj
CD
a*
(D
s.
m
<§.
ft
>§
^_
^
r^
en
1-1
2
o1
<3>
00
£i
o
p
D-
^
>-l
1—1
00
1-1
CO
CO
en
^__
W
C?
CO
§
a-
U^J
CO
<9
ST
5'
CO
1-1
01
CD
W
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
• •
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
- ,
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
3-Chloropropylene
O-CreSOl .
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from m-cresol).
1 ,2-Dibromo-e-chloropropane
Ethylene dibromide . (1 ,2-
Dibromoethane).
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid).
op'-DDD ."
p p'-DDE
pp'-DDT .
Dibenz(a h)anthracene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 2-Dichloroethane
1 1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 2-Dichloroethylene
2 4-Dichiorophenol
cis-1 3-Dichloropropyiene
trans-1 3-Dichloropropyiene
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
2-4-Dimethyl phenol
2 6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
ni-n-nronvlnitrosamine
CAS2 No.
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
108-94-1
96-12-8
106-93^
74-95-3
94-75-7
53-19-0
72-54-8
3424-82-6
72-55-9
789-02-6
50-29-3
53-70-3
192-65-4
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-55-4
156-60-5
120-83-2
87-65-0
78-87-5
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
105-67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
.534-52-1
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
621-64-7
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.044
0.036
0.059
0.11
0.77
0.77.
0.36
0.11
0.028
0.11
0.72
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
0.0039
0.0039
0.055
0.061
0.036
0.088
0.090
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.044
0.044
0.85
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.20
0.036
0.047
0.057
0.32
0.28
0.12
0.32
0.55
0.017
0.40
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
5.7
30
3.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
0.75 mg/l TCLP
15
15
15
10
0.87
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
8.2
NA
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
14
14
18
18
18
0.13
28
'. 14
28
28
2.3
160
160
140
28
28
14
01
05
h*
I
s.
o
I—'
O!
2;
p
o>
CO
s-
o
p-
p
TJ
00
1-1
CO
CO
O)
CD
00
-------
1,4-Dioxane
Diphenyiamine (difficult to distin-
guish from dlphenylnitrosamine)
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to
distinguish from diphenylamine).
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ..„
Disulfoton „
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene ;
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
HxCDFs (All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropylene
Indeno (1,2,3-c.d) pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol '.
Isodrin
Isosafrole
Kepone ......'
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methapyrilene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methansulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
2-Naphthylamine
3-Nitroaniline
vlitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
)-Nitrophenol
>J-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
123-91-1
122-33-4
86-30-6
122-66-7
298-04-4
939-98-8
33213-6-5
1-31-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
141-78-6
107-12-0
100-41-4
60-29-7
117-81-7
97-63-2
75-21-8
52-65-7
206-^4-0
86-73-7
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
NA
NA
67-72-1
1888-71-7
193-39-5
74-88-4
78-83-1
465-73-6
120-58-1
143-50-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
91-80-5
72-43-5
56-49-5
101-14-4
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
66-27-3
298-00-0
91-20-3
91-59-8
100-01-6
98-95-3
99-55-8
100-02-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
0.22
0.92
0.92
0.087
0.017
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.34
0.24
0.057
0.12
0.28
0.14
0.12
0.017
0.068
0.059
0.0012
0.016
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.000063
0.000063
0.055
0.035
0.0055
0.19
5.6
0.021
0.081
0.0011
0.24
5.6
0.081
0.25
0.0055
0.50
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.018
0.014
0.059
0.52
0.028
0.068
0.32
0.12
0.40
0.40
170
13
13
1.5
6,2
0.066
0.13
. 0.13
0.13
0.13
33
360
10
160
28
160
NA
15
3.4
3.4
0.066
0.066
10
5.6
2.4
0.001
0.001
30
30
3.4
65
170
0.066
2.6
0.13
84
0.75 mg/l TCLP
1.5
0.18
15
30
30
36
33
160
NA
4.6
5.6
NA
28
14
28
29
28
2.3
M
1
el
1*3
*H
H— '
CO
^
CO
CO
CO
^__
td
R
cT
CO
§
w
1
&
o'
CO
Hi
Ul
O)
l-i
Ul
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS .WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
Waste descn'ption and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine .~. >
N-Nitrosophyrrolidine
Parathion
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB iso-
mer, or all Aroclors).
Pentachlorobenzene
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
PeCDFs (All
Pentachlorodibenzofurans).
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pehtachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phthalic anhydride
Safrole
Silvex (2 4 5-TP) ...;...
245-T . .
124 5~Tetrachlorobenzene
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
TCDFs (All
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).
111 2-Tetrachloroethane
111 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
234 6-Tetrachlorophenol
Bromoform (Tribromomethane) ....
12 4-Trichlorobenzene
1 1 1 -Trichloroethane
•j 1 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloromonofluoromethane
2 4 5-Trichlorophenol
2 4 6-Trichlorophenol
1 2 3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane.
CAS2 No.
924-16-3
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
56-38-2
1336-36-3
608-93-5
NA
NA
82-68-8
87-^86-5
62-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
23950-58-5
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
.93-72-1
93-76-5
95-94-3
NA
NA
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
58-90-2
108-88-3
8001-35-2
75-25-2
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
96-18-4
76-13-1
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.013
0.013
0.014
0.10
0.055
0.000063
0.000035
0.055
0.089
0.081
0.059
0.039
0.021
0.055
0.093
0.067
0.014
0.081
0.72
0.72
0.055
0.000063
0.000063
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.030
0.080
0.0095
0.63
0.055
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.020
0.18
0.035
0.85
0.057
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
17
2.3
2.3
35
35
4.6
10
10
0.001
0.001
4.8
7.4
16
5.6
6.2
4.6
28
1.5
8.2
16
22
7.9
7.9
14
0.001
0.001
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.4
10
2.6
15
19
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
7.4
7.4
30
30
fcj*
01
2
9
CD
I
I.
t»
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15617
£LQ.Q.5j^2j
dddppp
t-t-I-L. •" !~ .
a So.
CJIDC
8
•*cqcMoo
Q- O. Q.Q. Q. D.
P-P-
EE EE EE S E
f- co r-co f- co r^ co
coco coco coco coco
do do d
P-
&
oo d d
:io g
8
pp
p.
• E E E
CO t^ CO
cq co cq
d do
P =
£o?
Dlffi ,„
fe
O
P
*§>
fo
OOCOOO
«
O CM OCM
S.oi fc
Sit
A-§|«£t|.|,
Sfs. i E § .J S.;
IIS- -s||^
CO CO *_1 ^
ciTci
& I A £
•8 1^1
I jt§
!=• J £ CD
I 1^1
.§•8™ H
S-fi ? . >
.,
E
E
|
C
E
!3
*-*
"t
u
K
"a
•7=
•!
E
.3
(/
'
.
E
•
r-
E
g
a
"c
s
•C
1
0
CD
L£
.C
_
6 ra
°I
ll
2 CD
CD C
E CD
.s?
73
" T=
'E co
!
,0
b
E
3
t
E
*-
7i
!S
t
E
"s.
0
t
E
N
£
CO
.=
'E
'E
^_
0
c
t
E
zz
S
c
E
..
^
£
,s
(f
,=
•<:
t
'E
I
l§s.
"
_2
> "o p
!56
*t
^6
igi
JO
5
7,1
JS tr Si
35 11
>^-C
OO
3
T,!
5i5
3
p
16
ide
iu
CD >>^
-JOO
Ti
3
'•§
CD
S
CO 0 _!
Ssg
CB Q. CO
CD .£=
£= C3)9-
.C
Is-
to
O) 9
!i
fco
^)
CO ^
£ "S
o
m
g
^O
JC
Q
CD
§
o
1
"m
.E
1
a.
OJ^
f
£
o
a>
f
CO
I
2
w
S
5
CO
en
'a.
§,
I C
2
O
"D
g
I
CD
|
JZ
o
•5
73
ci
,
•§
•5
_j
Q.
CO
.g
1
(U
•8*3
^ E
S.5>
CD Q.
ii
co £
i: O)
v. CD
|! 2
«> "5
S "o
§
•a S
*i
CD ^"
£ c
CO
If
CO E
7?.l
13 a.
« c
CD
C ^
g D)
CO 73
o 'x
^ O
i- (a
S E
CO Q
s •§
1-5
§
ET?
s-S
• I
s|.
i«
^S
CD P
•g1.!
3 CL
"co c
| D)
S <"
CO 73
CD 'S
i: O
>- CD
1 1
CD "g
CO O
5
^
Q.
CO
S
g
f
To
(D o)
o
o
§
o
§:
s
g
CO
o
0
8
-------
15618 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 /Rules and Regulations
S2
3
CD
1
c
2
y.
CD
H
1
Si
^
3
C
8
CO
13
O
^
J=
•o
S
ct)
3
O)
CD
CE
^ CO O) o CD
1 =>"« 0 "
•gio co . „ ^
c^1^^ i"o
<3 EcH
c .
"c.^"
CO i- o
•£ ><
CDw'g)
0=^5
C O)O
«S£C
o
CM
P
C
1
^
M
O
C3)
CD
CD
*3 D>
•o-S
CO
i
T3
S
J
CD
T3
8
CD
1o
CO
o OCD -*coo°.oo
CD CO CO COCN^gCO
CD CD _* .*
^1- 'S-co Sm^CMCD
o o |S "N?: ^ _.:,„
do00
cp co cp *j" i- CM in co
CD ,co tr)"$2eDcocMio
h- K Jj&o^-r^io
CD co I — ~r~h-iot-~
" f
c p CD ^2 CD h-.Q*
| 2 g I ^,Sl|
o o < < S. tn u<
i i CD CD
§ 1 £ s
S 0 C C
05 ™ fs c
° 1 1
1 1 t i
= -a- CD ^
ill i
a. Q. g §
CD CD to. • Oj
£ £ § Q •55*: co »-
g CD g CD'S '•§ ?
W T3 W T> ^ Q. ^
Q Q m cc
§O ^ . C*"
o o , c
Sg3?§S
SroScvip
o o7-
Y r- cvi irjcp
2 co rt dun
O 'T T— p
offiClSK
=•§ £1
lie? <">=
g 1 o2§
•^e-clii
,^^s^
c
c
E
1
1
c
1
J 1
•1 1
O tt
£* ff
1 1
1 ci
Q
13 r
°- 1
a
"3
••• • '• c
.-— *
SS5|5
S a 2 cs§
0 ^ 0 ^ o
si
Acrylonitrile
Acrylamide
Benzene
Cyanide (Total)
Anthracene
A
o
£
1
0
c
o
- '~
" ^ ••" •' go
. r ..... -; • „ d10'
8^.. :5 -iifccig
d ° ° d d N m d
co.cvi s b_ / coc7<:?0T
-i :° i°i,^
& E 5 6
2 —
"5 - "5
1 If
S .SN
" flj , C
9: m
g ' S g-0
CO l£ Q) C C
-C C .C £ --^03
o| 2^5 '• 3 |
•1S£§2.= 1 £ I
IfltilgJ ¥ |
IffiflPllJ
N N ,<0 - 0
I
•
• -, - - - cc
,t T-
'-. c
-.'-.':
.CD •* o 0 °
J'lO OJ CO CD CD
' " -
ooi§§
o o o oo
co K CD 2! JI
CO
c
.2
coS 9!
JlfilS
Hexachjorobutac
Hexachiorocycloi
Hexachloroethar
Tetrachloroethylf
bis(2-Chloroethy
_L
O
O
C
1
c
CD
.C
E
4 ^
1 1
o c
CO ^
I 5
1 •§
*- a
'I 1
«- CD
I
>-
C
i£
co op
T- CO CO
»«cs
o oo
78-87-5
96-18-4
75-00-3
CD
CD §
C Q.
CO O
1 ,2-Dichloroprop
1 ,2,3-Trichloropr
Chloroethane ...
>•
H
c
d g
•§ -
>> ~c
"o °
^ .1
•§ re
s- i
-o |
o „
T^ <™
S -
-! J
e -I:
g
1 i
3 CO
X
cc
T-
c
ii
i
O)
o
3
i-~
CD
1
E
c:
o
T3
H
CD
•a
'E
*S
•
•o
CD
•*=
O
I
LU
co S
§1
cc *^
cc £
si
sS
DC f?
CO
LU
OC
-------
K019
K020
K021
K022
K023
K024
K025 ,
K026.
K027.
Heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene dichlo-
ride in ethylene dichloride production..
Heavy ends from the distillation of vinyl chloride in
vinyl chloride monomer production.
Aqueous spent antimony catalyst waste from
fluoromethanes production.
Distillation bottom tars from the production of phe-
nol/acetone from cumene.
Distillation light ends from the production of phthalic
anhydride from naphthalene.
Distillation bottoms from the production of phthalic
anhydride from naphthalene.
Distillation bottoms from the production of
nitrobenzene by the nitration of benzene.
Stripping still tails from the production of methyl
ethyl pyridines.
Centrifuge and distillation residues from toluene
diisocyanate production.
1,1-Dichloroethane „..
1 ,2-Dichloroethane ..... .
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene .,
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
bis(2-Chloroethyl}ether
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Fluorene
Hexachloroethane . .
Naphthalene ....
Phenanthrene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ...
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Antimony
Toluene
Acetophenone
Diphenylamine (difficult to distin-
guish from diphenylnitrosamine).
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to
distinguish from diphenylamine).
Phenol
Chromium (Total)
Nickel ,
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
NA
NA
NA
75-34-3
107-06-2
118-74-1
87-68-3
67 72-1
76-01-7
71-55-6
111-44-4
108-90-7
68-66-3
106-46-7
1 07-06-2
86-73-7
67-72 1
91-20-3
85-01-8
95_94_3
127-18-4
120-82-1
71-55-6
107-06-2
79_34_g
127 18-4
56-23-5
67-66-3
7440-36-0
108-88-3
96-86-2
122-39-4
86-30-6
1 08-95-2
7440-47-3
7440-02-0
100-21-0
85-44-9
100-21-0
85-44-9
NA
NA
NA
0.059
0.21
0.055
0.055
0055
NA
0054
0.033
0.057
0046
0090
021
0059
0055
0059
0059
0055
0056
0 055
0054
021
0057
0 056
0057
0046
1 9
0080
0010
0.92
0.92
0039
277
398
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
LLEXT fb SSTRP
fb CARBN; or
CMBST
CMBST
CARBN- or
CMBST
6.0
60
10
56
30
60
60
60
60
60
NA
60
NA
^n
^ R
56
MA
R n
1Q
R n
60
60
R n
60
60
2 1 mg/l TCLP
10
97
13
13
62
0 86 mg/l TCLP
5 0 mg/l TCLP
28
28
28
28
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
Tl
»
CD
sl
$
°R
en
?
n
t— i
05
H»
^
0
CO
^
s
Q
P-
»
•
•&
1-J
CD
l-i
CD
O3
/ Rules and Regulations
Ul
O5
CO
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
k(WR
Kn9Q
K030
wi*}i
K032
K033 .
K034
Waste description, and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Spent catalyst from the hydrochlorinator reactor in
the production of 1 ,1 ,1 -trichloroethane.
Waste from the product steam stripper in the pro-
duction of 1,1, 1 -trichloroethane.
Column bodies or heavy ends from the combined
production of • trichloroethyiene and
perchloroethylene.
By-product salts generated in the production of
MSMA and cacodylic acid.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of chlordane.
Wastewater and scrub water from the chlorination
of cyclopentadiene in the production of chlordane.
Filter solids from the filtration of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the production of
chlordane.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
1 ,1-Dichloroethane
trans-1 2-DichloroethyIene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane ;....
•| -\ 1 2-Tetrachloroethane ......
112 2-Tetrachloroethane . .......
Tetrachloroethylene
1 1 1 -Trichloroethane
•) 1 2-Trichloroethane
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Chloroform ....
1 2-Dichloroethane
1 1-Dichloroethylene
1 1 1 -Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropylene
Pentachlorobenzene :..
Pentachloroethane
124 5-Tetrachlorobenzene . .....
Tetrachloroethylene . ..
1 2 4-Trichlorobenzene
Arsenic
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ....
Chlordane (alpha and gamma iso-
mers).
Heptachlor
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorocylopentadiene
CAS2 No.
75-34-3
156-60-5
87-68-3
67-72-1
76-01-7
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18^1
71-55-6
79-00-5
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
67-66-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
71-55-6
75-01-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
87-68-3
67-72-1
1888-71-7
608-93-5
76-01-7
95-94-3
127-18-4
120-82-1
7440-38-2
77-47-4
57-74-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
• 77-47-4
77-47-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.059
0.054
0.055
0.055
NA
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.69
2.77
0.69
3.98
0.046
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.27
0.088
0.090
0.055
0.055
NA
NA
NA
0.055
0.056
0.055
1.4
0.057
0.0033
0.00.12
0.016
0.057
0.057
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
6.0
30
5.6
30
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
NA
0.86 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
NA
NA
5.6
30
30
10
6.0
14
6.0
19
5.0 mg/l TCLP
2.4
0.26
0.066
0.066
2.4
2.4
01
O9
tN5
a
I
I/I
I
O3
O)
CO
g.
00
CO
CO
C35
I
CD
CO
cf
ft
o'
CO
-------
K035 .....
K036,
K037.
K038.
K039.
K040.
K041 .
K042 .
K043.
Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the
production of creosote.
Still bottoms from toluene reclamation distillation in
the production of disulfoton.
Wastewater treatment sludges from the production
of disulfoton.
Wastewater from the washing and stripping of
phorate production.
Filter cake from the filtration of
diethylphosphorodithioc acid in the production of
phorate.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of phorate.
Wastewater treatment sludge from the production
of toxaphene.
Heavy ends or distillation residues from the distilla-
tion of tetrachlorobenzene in the production of
2,4,5-T.
2,6-Dichlorophenol waste from the production of
2,4-D.
Acenaphthene •« ....
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene „
Chrysene
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from m-cresol).
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Disulfoton
Disulfoton
Toluene .'.
Phorate
NA
Phorate
Toxaphene ...;
o-Dichlorobenzene ... .".
p-Dichlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene ."... ..
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenoi
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol '.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethylene
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
HxCDFs (All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
PeCDFs (All
Pentachlorodibenzofurans).
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
218-01-9
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
298-04-4
298-04-4
108-88-3
298-02-2
NA
298-02-2
8001-35-2
95-50-1
106-46-7
608-93-5
95-94-3
120-82-1
120-83-2
187-65-0
95-95-4
88-06-2
58-90-2
87-86-5
127-18-4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0059
0061
n fl^Q
0 11
0.77
0.77
NA
n nfis
NA
NA
n ORQ
0059
0 039
n (is?
n my
n my
0080
0021
PARRM nr
CMBST
n noi
n nnos
0088
0090
0055
0055
0 055
0044
0044
0 18
0035
0030
0 f)RQ
0 056
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000035
0.000063
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
8.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
5.6
5.6
6.2
8.2
6.2
6.2
10
4.6
CMBST
4.6
2.6
6.0
6.0
10
14
19
14
14
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.0
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
EL
8?
S3.
a
CD
i-l
a>
O5
CO
I
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
K044
(
K045
K046
K047
K048
*.;:'•> ' •• " ." "
K049 ...
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufac-
turing and processing of explosives.
Spent carbon from the treatment of wastewater
containing explosives.
Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufac-
turing, formulation and loading of lead-based initi-
ating compounds.
Pink/red water from TNT operations
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petro-
leum refining industry.
: - ,...-. ' _., . • .- - ' ' - . H '.
Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining
industry.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
TCDFs . (All
Tetrachlorodibenzof u rans) .
NA
NA
Lead ...........................:...........-.......
NA ...„........:.
Benzene ..........;.......... .....t
Benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ............
Chrysene .
Di-n-butyl phthalate .........
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
"Toluene .'
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions). :
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Lead t
Nickel
Anthracene ;.
Benzene ...
•Behzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate . ..
Carbon disulfide
Chrysene ....
2 4-Dimethylphenol .. .....
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene ;..".
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
CAS2 No.
NA
. NA
NA
7439-92-1 :
' NA v
.'71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
218-01-9
84-74-2
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-33
1330-20^-7
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
120-12-7
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
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
1330-20-7
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.000063
DEACT
DEACT
0.69
DEACT
0.14
0.061
0.28
0.059
"0.057
0.057
0.059
0.059
'• 0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
2.77
: 1.2
0.69
NA
0.059 <
0.14
0.061
0.28
3.8
0.059
0.036
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
0.001
DEACT
DEACT
0.37 mg/l TCLP
DEACT
10
3.4
28
3.4
28
10
NA '
5.6
5.6
• : 6.2
8.2
10
30
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP
3'.4
10
3.4
28
NA
3.4
NA
10
5.6
5.6
6.2
. 8.2
10
30
01
03
8
(D
r
BL
I?
S3.
CJ)
Z'
p
O5
CO
!•
a,
OD"'
CO
(0
O)
t—I
CD
Cfl
-g
•8
B
o'
en
-------
K050 ....
K051
K052
K060
Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the
petroleum refining industry.
API separator sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.
Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry.
Ammonia still lime sludge from coking operations ...
Cyanides (Total)7
Chromium (Total) .
Lead
Nickel
Benzo(a)pyrene ...
Phenol
Cyanides (Total)7
Chromium (Total) .
Lead
Nickel
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
Cyanides (Total)7
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from m-cresol).
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene :
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Lead
Nickel
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene -..,
Phenol
57-12-5
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
50-32-8
108-95-2
57-12-5
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
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
1330-20-7
57-12-5
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
71-43-2
50-32-8
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
105-67-9
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
108-88-3
1330-20-7
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
71-43-2
50-32-8
91-20-3
108-95-2
1.2
2.77
0.69
NA
0.061
0.039
1.2
2.77
0.69
NA
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.14
0.061
0.28
0.059
0.057
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.08
0.32
1.2
2.77
0.69
NA
0.14
0.061
0.11
0.77
0.77
0.036
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.08
0.32
2.77
1.2
0.69
NA
' 0.14
0.061
0.059
0.039
590
0.86 mgH TCLP
NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP
3.4
6.2
590
0.86 mg/l TCLP
NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP
NA
3.4
3.4
10
3.4
28
3.4
28
10
NA
5.6
5.6
6.2
8.2
10
30
590
0.86 mg/l TCLP
NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP
10
3.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
NA
10
5.6
5.6
6.2
10
30
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP
10
3.4
5.6
6.2
CD
P.
8
I
s
19.
CA
H
g
O3
„
^
•
0)
00
~~"
^
0
0
P.
CO
"
>*•
S.
'—
03
"
CO
CD
O5
JO
cT
CO
CO
3
P.
Jfl
CD
h— '
o
CO
IJ
U1
O)
to
w
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
K061
K062
KnfiQ
K071
K073
K083
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Emission control dust/sludge from the primary pro-
duction of steel in electric furnaces.
Spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing op-
erations of facilities within the iron and steel in-
dustry (SIC Codes 331 and 332).
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelling.— Calcium Sulfate (Low Lead) Sub-
category.
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelling— Non-Calcium Sulfate (High Lead) Sub-
category.
K071 (Brine purification muds from the mercury cell
process in chlorine production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used) nonwastewaters
that are residues from RMERC.
K071 (Brine purification muds from the mercury cell
process in chlorine production, where separately
prepurified brine is not used) nonwastewaters
that are not residues from RMERC. ; .
All K071 wastewaters
Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from the purification
step of the diaphragm cell process using graphite
anodes in chlorine production.
Distillation bottoms from aniline production
: Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Cyanides (Total) 7
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead .- > ...
Mercury .
Nickel . :.
Selenium .-.
Silver
Thallium ...
Zinc
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
NA
Mercury .'.
Mercury . ..
Mercury
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 1 1 -Trichloroethane . .,...
Aniline
Benzene
Cvclohexanone
CAS2 No.
57-12-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-66-6
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
NA
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
56-23-5
67-66-3
67-72-1 .
127-18-4
71-55-6
62-53-3
71-43-2
108-94-1
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
1.2
NA
NA
;.NA
NA
0.69
2.77
0.69
NA
3.98
NA
NA
NA
'NA
277
0.69
3.98
0.69
0.69
NA
NA
•NA
0.15
0.057
0.046
0.055
0.056
0.054
0.81
0.14
0.36
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
590
2.1 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
7.6 mg/l TCLP
0.014 mg/l TCLP
0.1 9 mg/l TCLP .
0.86 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
0.025 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.1 6 mg/l TCLP
0.30 mg/l TCLP
0.078 mg/l TCLP
5.3 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.1 9 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
RLEAD
0.02 mg/l TCLP
0.025 mg/l TCLP
.NA
6.0
'?< ; ,
6.0
30
6.0
6.0
14
10
NA
-------
K084.
K085.
K086
K087
Wastewater treatment sludges generated during
the production of veterinary Pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.
Distillation or fractionation column bottoms from the
production of chlorobenzenes.
Solvent wastes and sludges, caustic washes and
sludges, or water washes and sludges from
cleaning tubs and equipment used in the formu-
lation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and
stabilizers containing chromium and lead.
Decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations ....
Djphenylamine (difficult to distin-
guish from diphenylnitrosamine).
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to
distinguish from dlphenylamine).
Nitrobenzene
Phenol „
Nickel
Arsenic
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Diehlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene ...:
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB iso-
mers, or all Aroclors).
Pentachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-TrichIorobenzene
Acetone
Acetophenone
bis(2-Ethylhexyl phthalate
n-Butyl alcohol
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Cyclohexanone
o-Dichlorobenzene
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
Menthanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
,m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Lead
Acenaphthylene
Benzene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
122-39-4
86-30-6
98-95-3
108-95-2
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
71-43-2
108-90-7
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
118-74-1
1336-36-3
608-93-5
95-94-3
120-82-1
67-64-1
96-86-2
117-81-7
71-36-3
85-68-7
108-94-1
95-50-1
84-66-2
131-11-3
-84-74-2
117-84-0
141-78-6
100-41-4
67-56-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
75-09-2
91-20-3
98-95-3
108-88-3
71-55-6
79-01-6
1330-20-7
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1
208-96-8
71-43-2
218-01-9
206-44-0
193-39-5
0.92
0.92
0.068
0.039
3.98
1.4
0.14
0.057
0.036
0.088
0.090
0.055
0.10
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.28
0.010
0.28
5.6
0.017
0.36
0.088
0.20
0.047
0.057
0.017
0.34
0.057
5.6
0.28
0.14
0.089
0.059
0.068
0.080
0.054
0.054
0.32
2.77
1.2
0.69
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.068
0.0055
13
13
14
6.2
5.0 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
10
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
10
: " ". 10
10
14
19
160
9.7
28
2.6
28
NA
6.0
28
28
28
28
33
10
NA
36
33
30
5.6
14
10
6.0
6.0
30
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
0.37 mg/l TCLP
3.4
10
3.4
3.4
3.4
£
P.
CD
.S.
CD
t,
CD
n
oj
O5
.J-1
,_,
0
O)
CO
.s
i
pi
<
U1
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
K088
rO,V ; ' ;• • ; ' • ' [
K093 ...:. :.........
K094 ,.
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction ...
Distillation light ends from the production of phthalic
anhydride from ortho-xylene.
. Distillation bottoms from the production of phthalic
anhydride from ortho-xylene.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Toluene
Xylehes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
Lead .
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene -
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene ,
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium .
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead .
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium .........
Silver
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
Fluoride
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
CAS2 No.
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-88-3
1330-20-7
7439-92-1
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
193-39-5
85-01-8
129-00-0
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-12-5
57-12-5
16984-48-8
100-21-0
85-44-9
100-21-0
85-44-9
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0:059
0.059
0.080
0.32
0.69
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.061
0.11
O.i1
0.0055
0.059
0.055
0.068
0.0055
0.059
0.067
1.9
1.4
1.2
0.82
0.69
2.77
0.69 :
0.15
3.98
0.82
0.43
1.2
0.86
35
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
5.6
5.6
10
30
0.37 mg/l TCLP
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.8
6.8
1.8
3.4
8.2
3.4
3.4
5.6
8.2
2.1 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
7.6 mg/l TCLP
0.01 4 mg/l TCLP
0.1 9 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
0.025 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.16 mg/l TCLP
0.30 mg/l TCLP
590
30
48 mg/l TCLP
28
28
28
28
ui
N
05
r
EL
o,
05
O)
00
O
•0
t)
3.
I— <
CO
to
CO
O)
01
a
CL
f
§
Co
-------
K095.
K096,
K097.
K098.
K099.
K100.
K101
K102,
Distillation bottoms from the production of 1,1,1-
trictiloroethane.
Heavy ends from the heavy ends column from the
production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Vacuum stripper discharge from the chlordane
chlorinator in the production of chlordane.
Untreated process wastewater from the production
of toxaphene.
Untreated wastewater from the production of 2,4-D
Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emis-
sion control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting.
Distillation tar residues from the distillation of ani-
line-based compounds in the production of veteri-
nary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-ar-
senic compounds.
Residue from the use of activated carbon for decol-
orization in the production of veterinary pharma-
ceuticals from arsenic or organo-arsenic com-
pounds.
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1 ,2-TetrachIoroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetraehloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Chlordane (alpha and gamma iso-
mers).
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Toxaphene
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ....
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
HxCDFs (All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxins).
PeCDFs (All
Pentachlorodibenzofurans).
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
TCDFs (All
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
o-Nitroaniline
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
o-Nitrophenol
Arsenic
Cadmium .. .
Lead ,
Mercury
67-72-1
76-01-7
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
79-00-5
79-01-6
541-73-1
76-01-7
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
120-82-1
79-00-5
79-01-6
57-74-9
76-44-8
1024-57-3
77-47-4
8001-35-2
94-75-7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
88-74-4
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92 1
7439-97-6
88-75-5
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.036
0.055
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.054
0.054
0.0033
0.0012
0.016
0.057
0.0095
0.72
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000035
0.000063
0.000063
0.69
2.77
0.69
0.27
1.4
0.69
0.69
0.15
0.028
1.4
0.69
0.69
0.15
30
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
19
6.0
6.0
0.26
0.066
0.066
2.4
2.6
10
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.19 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
14
5.0 mg/l TCLP
NA
NA
NA
13
5.0 mg/l TCLP
NA
NA
NA
CD
a
o^
a>
2!
p
Oi
CO
O
a.
00
CO
CO
a>
I
CD
ff
O
M
01
O5
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
K103 . .
K104
K105
K106 . .
K107 . ....
K108 . . .......
K109
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
" category1
Process residues from aniline extraction from the
production of aniline.
Combined wastewater . streams generated from
nitrobenzene/aniline production.
'i
Separated aqueous stream from the reactor prod-
uct washing step in the production of
chlorobenzenes.
K1 06 (wastewater treatment sludge from the mer-
cury cell process in chlorine production)
nonwastewaters that contain greater than or
equal to 260 mg/kg total mercury.
K106 (wastewater treatment sludge from the mer-
cury cell process in chlorine production)
nonwastewaters that contain less than 260 mg/kg
total mercury that are residues from RMERC.
Other K1 06 nonwastewaters that contain less than
260 mg/kg total mercury and are not residues
from RMERC.
All K106 wastewaters
Column bottoms from product separation from the
production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
from carboxylic acid hydrazides.
Condensed column overheads from product sepa-
ration and condensed reactor vent gases from
the production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
from carboxylic acid hydrazines.
Spent filter cartridges from product purification from
the production of 1,1-dimethyhydrazine (UDMH)
from carboxylic acid hydrazides.
Regulated hazardous constituent
- Common name
Aniline
Benzene
2 4-Dinitrophenol
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Aniline
Benzene ... ....
2,4-Dinitrophenol ....
Nitrobenzene „ .........
Phenol
Cyanides (Total)7
Benzene "... , .'..
Chlorobenzene ,
2-Chlorophenol .......
o-Dichlorobenzene .'.
p-bichlorobenzene .. *
Phenol
2 4 5-Trichlorophenol
2 4 6-Trichlorophenol . .. . ..
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury . ' .. .
Mercury
NA
NA
NA
CAS2 No.
62-53-3
71-43-2
51-28-5
98-95-3
108-95-2
62-53-3
71-43-2
51-28-5
98-95-3
108-95-2
57-12-5
71^t3-2
108-90-7
95-57-8
. 95-50-1
106-46-7
108-95-2
95-95-4
88-06-2
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
NA
NA
NA
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.81
0.14
0.12
0.068
0.039
0.81
0.14
0.12
0.068 .'
0.039
1.2
0.14
0.057
0.044
0.088
0.090
0.039 .
0.18
0.035
NA
NA
NA
0.15
CMBST; or
CHOXD fb
CARBN; or
BIODG fb CARBN
CMBST; or
CHOXD fb
CARBN; or
BIODG fb CARBN
CMBST; or
CHOXD fb
CARBN; or
BIODG fb CARBN
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
14
10
160
•1.4
6.2
14
10
'160
14
6.2
590
10:
/ 6.0
5.7
,6.0
e:o
6.2
7.4
7.4
RMERC
0.20 mg/l TCLP
0.025 mg/l TCLP
NA
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15629
il
fe
m
o
I
o
=§,
q
10
CO
m
w
m
q i
CO
*- CD *-
CO
m
o o
O
m
o
o
co m
pa jf° CM 10 pa z O z«>
WXcQjQCO UJCOXcQ^cQCQ
Si:%
'c
?
CD <
CM Z
o
S
JD
f
) LU
O UJ
o
S.
-------
15630 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
^S
§•§0
TJ- •>!• co
COCOCD
cq
CO
••* CM •* o
CO 00 CO ^ CO CO CD
CO
CD
_c
§1
$8 8 5
O CD CD *^
00 CD °
—
incojl
§0
ro
c§
CO
<
o
?
i
f m "2
T3
o>
-3
co g
S^
a co
< (O
x S
= P
o fc
LL <
CO Z
P
< z
Q =•
I
S5
cc
B O
E E
o o
E E
S I
ide
£ £
E '
if".
~°a
E S S
fg||
2 E S E
vu
S
•Jr C U |_ l-
§£§£ a
s s ° *: s
OLU CM m
05 O
S g o
is i
2 c S
.
•s g^ - §;„,-=-
^•caS" g'^2' ra o c S-
CB ~sfS?-£ 1M 'X'.E N. (D. N
•N S S ts s S -TO i
' !'-
CQ
.
O O
CM
£g
i v
g N
^ CD
1
z(a)
0
CO
r
O
S.
I
•o - £ > =
1 ^^8i|
« «l£1-s
£ 8 " J~s fe
o ° = o p §
1 Illls,
c
$ | 3. o ,,5
iijii
o>
-J
li
-s
f
pill
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15631
cq
CD
o •* t
•*- co co
•* CO
CO CD
CO
CO
•* CM
CO CO
cococo'cb'iri
cq
CD
•* CM •* Tj;
CO CO CO CO
•* cq
CO CO
cq
CO*
•*
q q q o q
d d ca ci CD '
en 10
to LO
Q o
I -
2
o
CM
ryj£:O:r'<-'S-j;u3cvlm
iocpYh-c\i'*iocpr^ioiox?
t~-
o
CM
2
I
CM
Pi
CO JL CO
<\;«2
o c o
1-g ~.
.§ g
, CD
fO Q. C
£ =3-8
c V 2
2 E 2 E
CD C 2
C CO o
P OJ= =
IB
ico
'^"*3 >.5tO*^T03'*- ^.v-l
H "t c a. s^'B 2; ^ '5 ja m -c CM
2-c.~ to" jo 2> o 2" &>*5 c Sr£
o ^
•§ ^
OQ j=m
-aags^gg
O *4^ £~
M to m
O '^= c
N to aj
S TO Jd
C
s
Q J
fri
— , O) o
*-. "a. — :
JT CD 0> CO
D) O J= O
is *^ *^ o
§•- o §
s^sl
3 .ffi.g'S
o o. to
c *- E "5
c ^. ^ 3
!!"° c 1.
•2 ^'5 i,
if So
|iii
o o
£0.
I*
CO co
.2 8
CD 'o
8|
2 §
Ii
Ctt fc-
•c Q> _ :
1*1
ill
.fc C TJ
O CD
S'4= O
-. "5 =
= feT3
lln
DC
=
_c
*s
s
15
8
I
CO
CD
3
H
ji
CD
0
CO
E
G)
^D
3
O
C
O
1
«
T3 M
II
CO O
O -Q
i1
So
li
11
CO —
EC
I
5
I
5
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
K149
K150 .
K151 . . ...
K156 .
p
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Distillation bottoms from the production of alpha-
(or methyl-) chlorinated toluenes, ring-chlorinated
toluenes, benzoyl chlorides, and compounds with
. mixtures of these functional groups. (This waste
does not include still bottoms from the distilla-
tions of benzyl chloride.).
Organic residuals, excluding spent carbon adsorb-
ent, from the spent chlorine gas and hydrochloric
acid recovery processes associated with the pro-
duction of alpha- (or methyl-) chlorinated
' toluenes, ring'-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl
chlorides, and compounds with mixtures of these
functional groups.
Wastewater treatment sludges, excluding neutral-
ization and biological sludges, generated during
the treatment of wastewaters from the production
of alpha- (or methyl-) chlorinated toluenes, ring-
chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides, and com-
pounds with mixtures of these functional groups.
Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms,
light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and
deoantates) from the production of carbamates
and carbamoyl oximes.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform .-.
Chloromethane
p-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
124 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
p-Dichlorobenzene
112 2-Tetrachlorotehane
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hexachlorobenzene •.
Pentachlorobenzene ....
1 ,2,4,5-TetrachlorObenzene
Tetrachloroethylene ,
Acetone
Acetonitrile ....;
Acetophenone
Aniline
Benomyl ...
Benzene
Garbaryl
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform . . . . i
o-Dichlorobenzene
Hexane
Methomyl . ..
Methyl isobutyl ketone i ,
Naphthalene .
Phenol i
Pvridine
CAS2 No,
108-90-7
67-66-3
74-87-3
106-46-7
118-74-1
608-93-5
95-94-3
108-88-3
56-23-5
67-66-3
74-87-3
106-46-7
118-74-1
608-93-5
95-94-3
79-34-5
127-18-4
120-82-1
71-43-2
56-23-5
67-66-3
118-74-1
608-93-5
95-94-3
127-18-4
108-88-3
67-64-1
75-05-8
96-86-2
62-53-3
17804-35-2
71-43-2
63-25-21
10605-21 7
1563-66-2
55285-14-8
108-90-7
67-66-3
95-50-1
110-54-3
16752-77-5
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
91_20-3
108-95-2
110-86-1
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.057
0.046
0.19
0.090
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.080
0.057
0.046
0.19
0.090
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.14
0.057
0.046
0.055
0.055
0,055
0.056
0.080
0.28
5.6
0.010
0.81
0.056
0.14
0.006
0.056
0.006
0.028
0.057
0.046
0.088
0.611
0.028
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.059
0.039
0.014
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
6.0
6.0
30
6.0
10
10
14
10
6.0
6.0
30
6.0
10
10
14
6.0
6.0
19
10
6.0
6.0
10
10
14
6.0
10
160
1.8
9.7
14
1.4
10
0.14
1.4
0.14
1.4
6.0
6.0
6.0
10
0.14
30
36
33
5.6
6.2
16
en
0
co
to
I
e.
&
p
a>
CO
13
a
OS
CO
CO
0>
CD
CO
(X
t
-------
K157..
K158..
K159..
K160..
K161.
P001
Wastewaters (Including scrubber waters, condenser
waters, washwaters, and separation waters) from
the production of carbamates and carbamoyl
oximes.
Bag house dusts and filter/separation solids from
the production of carbamates and carbamoyl
oximes.
Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate
wastes.
Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids,
and spent catalysts) from the production of
thiocarbamates and solids from the treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
Purification solids (including filtration, evaporation,
and centrifugation solids), baghouse dust and
floor sweepings from the production of
dithiocarbamate acids and their salts.
Warfarin, & salts, when present at concentrations
greater than 0.3%.
Toluene
TriethyJamine „.
Xylenes (total)
Acetone
Carbon tetrachlortde
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Methanol
Methomyl
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
o-Phenylenediamine
Pyridine
Triethylamine
Benomyl
Benzene
Carbenzadim
Carbofuran
Carbosulfan
Chloroform
Hexane
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Xylenes (total)
Benzene
Butylate
.EPTC (Eptam)
Molinate
Pebulate
Thiocarbamate, N.O.S
Vernolate
Butylate
EPTC (Eptam)
Molinate
Pebulate
Thiocarbamate, N.O.S
Toluene
Vernolate
Xylenes (total)
Antimony
Carbon disulfide
Dithiocarbamates, total
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Xylenes (total)
Warfarin
108-88-3
121-44-8
1330-20-7
67-64-1
56-23-5
67-66-3
74-87-3
67-56-1
16752-77-5
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
95-54-5
110-86-1
121-44-8
17804-35-2
71-43-2
10605-21-7
1563-66-2
55285-14-8
67-66-3
110-54-3
67 56 1
75-09-2
108-95-2
1330-20-7
71-43-2
2008-41-5
759-94-4
2212-67-1
1114-71-2
NA
1929-77 7
2008-41-5
759-94-4
2212-67-1
1114-71-2
NA
108-88-3
1929-77-7
1330-20-7
7440-36-0
75-15-0
NA
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
1330-20-7
81-81-2
0.080
0.081
0.32
0.28
0.057
0.046
0.19
5.6
0.028
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.056
0.014
0.081
0.056
0.14
0.056
0.006
0.028
0.046
0.611
5.6
0.089
0.039
0.32
0.14
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.080
0.003
0.32
1.9
3.8
0.028
0.69
3.98
0.82
0.32
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
10
1.5
30
160
6.0
6.0
30
0.75 mg/l TCLP
0.14
30
36
33
5.6
16
1.5
1.4
10
1.4
0.14
1.4
6.0
10
0.75 mg/l TCLP
30
6.2
30
10
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
10
1.4
30
2.1 mg/l TCLP
4.8 mg/l TCLP
28
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
016 mg/l TCLP
30
CMBST
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
w
Waste code
P002 . .
POOS
P004
POOS . . .
POQ6
P007
P008
P009
P010
P011
P012
P013 . .
P014 ..
P015
P016
P017 .
P018 .
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
1 -Acetyl-2-thiourea
Acrolein
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aluminum phosphide
5-Aminomethyl e-isoxazoloe
4-Aminopyridine ..
Ammonium picrate . .
Arsenic acid
Arsenic pentoxide :
Arsenic trioxide
Barium cyanide
Thiophenol (Benzene thiol)
Beryllium dust
Dichloromethyl ether (Bis(chloromethyl)ether)
Bromoacetone
Brucine
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
1 -Acetyl-2-thiourea
Acrolein
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aluminum phosphide
5-Aminomethyl e-isoxazoloe
4-Aminopyridine
Ammonium picrate
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable)7
Thiophenol (Benzene thiol)
Beryllium .....
Dichloromethyl ether
Bromoacetone
Brucine
CAS2 No.
591-08-2
107-02-8
309-00-2
107-18-6
20859-73-8
2763-96-4
504-24-5
131-74-8
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
108-98-5
7440-41 7
542-88-1
598-31-2
357-57-3
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
0.29
0.021
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN. or
CBMST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN; BIODG;
or CMBST
1.4
1.4
1.4
NA
1.2
0.86
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
RMETL, or
RTHRM
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CBMST
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
CMBST
CMBST
0.066
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
50 mg/l TCLP
50 mg/l TCLP
50 mg/l TCLP
7.6 mg/l TCLP
590
30
CMBST
RMETL; or
RTHRM
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
e.
?
<
c^
05
Z
I
CL
00
CO
CO
O!
•
ft.
I
c
sr
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15635
O
o
0
fe
m
i
to
m
o
X X
p o
CO UJCO I
t]
I CO
m
X _ X _ O
o ° o °
X X
o o
i
o
o
to
E
s
W
m
o o
CO
CO
o
CO CO
CD ffl
5 5
o o
CO
m
o
ofi o.
tjOttgo-tjOttg
5.00 5.1
.00
>x
il ii ii ii i
to to to to S
7 1
q> 5 ^
^) Cf> O?
'rfSS1D
m &
O -S.
o
'o.
Q
a.
g
O
.a? .50
" ^3
^ TO i*- CO
£^ C ^^ C
fists
CO CO to (0 in
CD CO CD CD S,
1111 8
nj co co co co
>»>*>* >^ >»
O O O O O
O
S
c
'2
^
O
g1
,
S 2 S195 €
CO CD CO CO o O CD
< Q < Q O Q
O.
LLJ
al
CL ~ CO
•I i 1
b b K
:
?
ta
6
s
1
s
V ""
CM O
1
* 1
a
O
a
J
cu
n
tt
t
C;
1
1
s
o
£
CO
S
1
c
CD
1
o
0
g
•"£
•« .-s
c
a
c
1
c
9
CO
, 1
o
L J=
O
1
0
03
•S
1
c
c
O
1
u
CO
CO
CO
Cyanides (soluble i
Cvanoaen
1
> c
o
c
CO
, >
O
0
1
f
1
TJ
s
•
s
> €
1
. 9
CM
CO
1
ct
>
1
1
if
_c
c
s
g
1
'S
b
j
«
Q
I
£
E a
o a
1 1
a. c
I 1
i. 1
6 1
i" ?
•^ ">
O jc
I *3
O 03
o" Q
1
'D
a
a
u.
Q
^
jz
O
§
JZ
a
c:
o
_z
. |
V.
Q
.
Dimethoate
Thiofanox
I I
a
o
Q.
•sr CD
ss
D. n_
S
Q.
oo
§
CM CO CO CO CO
O O O O O
Q- CL Q. Q. CL
Sfi ts £8 2J ° *~ w m •*
co co co co ^ ^r ^ ^r ^r
C3 C3 ^3 O Cj ^3 O f"> o
0.0.0.0.0. Q. Q. Q. Q.
s
0-
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
P046
P047 ,
P048 ...
P049 .
P050
P051
P054
P056
P057 . ...
P058
P059
P060 . . .
P062
P063
P064
P065 .
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
4 6-Dinitro-o-cresol salts ,
2 4-Dinitrophenol
Dithiobiuret , ,.,..:
Endosulfan
Endrin
Aziridine
Fluorine
Fluoroacetarnide
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
Heptachlor
Isodrin .
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
Hydrogen cyanide
Isocyanic acid ethyl ester
Mercury fulminate nonwastewaters, regardless of
their total mercury content, that are not inciner-
. ator residues or are not residues from RMERC.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethyl-
amine.
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
NA .....
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dithiobiuret
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II ;
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin ,
Endrin aldehyde
Aziridine
Fluorine (measured in waste-
waters only).
Fluoroacetamide
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodrin
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
Cyandies (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....
Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester
Mercury
CAS2 No.
122-09-8
543-52-1
NA
51-28-5
541-53-7
939-98-8
33213-6-5
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
151-56-4
16964-48-8
640-19-7
62-74-8
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
757-58-4
57-12-5
57-12-5
624-83-9
7439-97-6
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.28
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.12
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
35
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.0012
0:01 6
0.021
CARBN; or
CMBST
1.2
0.86
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
NA
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
CMBST
160
CMBST
160
CMBST
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
CMBST
ADGAS fb
NEUTR
CMBST
CMBST
0.066
0.066
0.066
CMBST
590
30
CMBST
IMERC
s
CP
CD
I
I
4
O)
oo
I
a
i—*
03
CO
CO
O)
ft
o'
ca
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15637
RMERC
Q_
.20 mg/l TCLI
o
0-
1
to
CO
o
o
_, co co
*< CD CQ
5 2
O O
Q
LU
IS
o
co co
CQ CD
o o
Ei
i- P
T3
C E
w =: ™ »AI
lilt
" '
.1.1
10 CO
T- O
CM
•C1
1
1
CD
,C
•|
«
•c
. 1
c
c
1
a
z
o
1
•5
\
i
i
o
^
a
1
di
j
>
.0
T
C
V
0]
.c
=5
S
E
g 2
1 |
c" J 01
•»*> o "C
>. p 'x
! 1 !
f
I
v- -5 J3 55 gj 2
•2 § c 'S S -2
sra^|| || |
llo^li i
sSg&S-o «
i
1
ca S_-g
<2
|
i
S
0)
ii
1
T3
•e
S
Si
S.9.S
= T3 S
CD
cz
£E
•I JS
CD .
E'
V) O)
II
I
CO
O
r-
(O
o
a.
12
o
Q.
to r- oo T-
h- i^. r- oo
o o o o
D. Q.Q. Q.
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
P088
P089 . . .
P092
i
P093
P094 . .
P095
P096
P097 . . .
P098 . . . .
P099
P0101 . ....
P0102 . ;.
P0103
P0104
®
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Endothall
Parathion
Phenyl mercuric acetate nonwastewaters, regard-
less of their total mercury content, that are not in-
cinerator residues or are not residues from
RMERC.
Phenyl mercuric acetate nonwastewaters that are
either incinerator residues or are residues from
RMERC; and still contain greater than or equal to
260 mg/kg total mercury.
Phenyl mercuric acetate nonwastewaters that are
residues from RMERC and contain less than 160
mg/kg total mercury.
Phenyl mercuric acetate nonwastewaters that are
incinerator residues and contain less then 260
mg/kg total mercury.
All phenyl mercuric acetate wastewaters
Phenythiouea . ..
Phorate
Phosgene
Phosphine . . . .
Famphur
Potassium cyanide
Potassium silver cyanide
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
Propargyl alcohol
Selenourea
Silver cyanide
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Endothall
Parathion
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury .
Mercury
Phenythiouea
Phorate ....„
Phosgene
Phosphine
Famphur
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Silver ....
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
Propargyl alcohol
Selenium
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Silver
CAS2 No.
145-73-3
56-38-2
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
7439-97-6
103-85-5
298-02-2
75-44-5
7803-51-2
52-85-7
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
107-12-0
107 19-7
7782-49-2
57 12 5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.014
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.15
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.021
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
0.017
1.2
.086
1.2
0.86
.043
0.24
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.82
1.2
0.86 "
0.43
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
CMBST
4.6
IMERC; or
RMERC
RMERC
0.20 mg/l TCLP
0.025 mg/l TCLP
NA
CMBST
4.6
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
15
590
30
590
30
0.30 mg/l TCLP
360
CMBST
0.1 6 mg/l TCLP
590
30
0.30 mq/l TCLP
-------
P01 05 „
P0106 „
P01 08
P109
P110..
P1 1 1
P112
P113
P114
P1 1 5
P1 1 6
P118
P119 ;
P120
P121
P122
P123
P127
P128
P185
P187
P188
P189
P190
P191
P192
P193
P194
P195
P196
P197
P198
P199
P200
P201
P202
Sodium azide
Sodium cyanide „
Strychnine and salts
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Tetraethyl lead .
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
Tetranitromethane
Thallic oxide
Thallium selenite
Thallium (I) sulfate ,
Thiosemicarbazide
Trichloromethanethiol
Ammonium vanadate
Vandium pentoxide
Zinc cyanide
Zinc phosphide Zn3P2 when present at concentra-
tions greater than 1 0%.
Toxaphene
Carbofuran
Mexacarbate
Tirpate
Bendiocarb
Physostigimine salicylate
Carbosulfan
Metolcarb
Dimetilan
Isolan .
Thiophanate-methyl
Oxamyl
Thiodicarb
Oithiocarbamates (total)
Formparanate
Formetanate hydrochloride ....
Methiocarb
Propoxur
Promecarb
Hercules AC-5727
Sodium azide . . ........... .
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable)7
Strychnine and salts
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Lead
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
Tetranitromethane
Thallium (measured in waste-
waters only).
Selenium
Thallium (measured in waste-
waters only).
Thiosemicarbazide
Trichloromethanethiol
Vanadium (measured in waste-
waters only).
Vanadium (measured in waste-
waters only).
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Zinc Phosphide
Toxaphene
Carbofuran
Mexacarbate
Tirpate
Bendiocarb
Physostigmine salicylate
Carbosulfan
Metolcarb
Dimetilan
Isolan
Thiophanate-methyl
Oxamyl
Thiodicarb
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Formparanate
Formetanate hydrochloride
Methiocarb
Propoxur
Promecarb
Hercules AC-5727
26628-22-8
57-12-5
57-12-5
57_24-9
3689-24-5
7439-92 1
107-49-3
509-14-8
7440-28-0
7782-49-2
7440-28-0
79_-]g_g
75-70-7
7440-62 2
7440-62 2
57 12 5
57-12-5
1314-84-7
8001-35-2
1563-66-2
315-18-4
26419-73-8
22781 23-3
57-64-7
55285-14-8
1129-41-5
644-64-4
119-38-0
23564-05-8
23135-22-0
59669-26-0
NA
17702 57 7
23422-53-9
2032-65-7
114 26-1
2631-37-0
64-00-6
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN; BIODG;
or CMBST
12
0.86
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
CARBN' or
CMBST
069
CARBN- or
CMBST
CHOXD- CHRED-
CARBN; BIODG;
or CMBST
1 4
082
1 4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
43
43
1 2
086
CHOXD- CHRED-
or CMBST
00095
0006
0056
0056
0056
0 056
0028
0056
0 056
0056
0056
0 056
0019
0028
0056
0 056
0056
0056
0056
0.056
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
590
30
CMBST
CMBST
0 37 mg/l TCLP
CMBST
CHOXD' CHRED-
or CMBST
RTHRM' or
STABL
016 mg/l TCLP
RTHRM' or
STABL
CMBST
CMBST
STABL
STABL
590
30
CHOXD' CHRED-
or CMBST
2 6
0 14
1 4
028
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
028
1 4
28
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1.4
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
, Waste code
P203
P204
P205
U001 :.
U002
U003 .
U004
U005 . . ..
U006
U007
U008
U009 ..
U010
U011
U012
U014 ....
U015
U016
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Aldicarb sulfone .
Physostigmine
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone .-.
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acetyl chloride
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Mitorhycin C
Amitrole . ..
Aniline ....
Auramine I
Azaserine
Benz(c)aoridine
Regulated hazardous constituent
,'. . • Common name
Aldicarb sulfone
Physostigmine
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Acetaldehyde :
Acetone .'.
Acetonitrile
Acetonitrile; alternate6 standard
for nonwastewaters only.
Acetophenone
2-Acetylarriinofluorene
Acetyl Chloride :
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Mitomycin C
Amitrole '.
Aniline
Auramine
Azaserine
Benz(c)acridine
!"•'.' . ' - ' '
CAS2 No.
1646-88^
57-47-6
NA
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
75-05-8
98-86-2
53-96-3
75-36-5
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
50-07 7
61-82-5
62-53-3
492-80-8
115-02-6
225-51^4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0'.056
0.056
0.028
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.28
'5.6
. NA ,
0.010
0.059
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; .or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.24
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.81
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
0.28
1.4
28
CMBST
160
CMBST
.1.8C ,
9.7
140
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
84
CMBST
CMBST
14
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15641
Q
LU
CC H
go
o
oo in in '^
'
o
I
o
I
o
CO
d
"!M
«|rl
5 °
co co m
O
s^siliil^
O ° O LU O OC S d O o O
§.00
if
CM
CD
S
t en
c
CO
(0
Q.
£tIf1S
CO CO CQ
1
2
o
1. S-i 9-5 !
N N c ^ <
CO rDz> ID
8
£ E
o O
o" -
V .S -
CM>00
I
;
1 1
> <0 CD
j fl
1 CD 0
1 CO Q
i
Benzenesulfonyl chloride .
Rfin7idinfi
a
1
I
•j
a
CO
a
£
if
a
CC
CO
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methar
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ....
Chlornanha7ine
"CD"
§
" " £ o3
jc
£ "CO E "Q
•£ « o_
1 III
8 f«|c
S -S E | -cj
1 |||l
c\i ed^sl
_cn ]w" CD CQ CO
*Q *Q 2 ^" C
a
1
i
'?
Tc
C
S
0
O
f
1 f
tli
1 § i
o S ™
€ ^ a
co -c x:
OHO
a
1
c
£
C
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
1 IfUfi
1 ICI47
1 IfWfl
U049
1 IfTin
i in^ii
i ins?
I IfWT
U055
. ;f:j
U056
nnR7
U058
Waste description arid treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Chloromethyi methyl ether
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-o-toluidine hydrochloride
Chrysene
Creosote . .
Cresols (Cresylic acid)
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene • •• •••
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone .. .. '. —•
Cyclophosphamide
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Chloromethyi methyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-o-toluidine hydrochloride
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-
, m-, and p-xylene concentra-
tions).
Lead .
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish
from m-cresol).
Cresol-mixed isomers (Cresylic
acid) (sum of o-, m-, and p-cre-
sol concentrations).
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexanone; alternate6 stand-
ard for nonwastewaters only.
Cyclophosphamide
CAS2 No.
107-30-2
91-58-7
95-57-8
3165-93-3
218-01-9
91-20-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
129-00-0
108-88-3
1330-20-7
7439-92-1
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
1319-77-3
4170-30-3
98-82-8
110-82-7
108-94-1
108-94-1
50-18-0
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.055
0.044
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
" CMBST
0.059
0.059
0.089
0.059
0.067
0.080
0.32
0.69
0.11
0.77
0.77
0.88.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.36
NA
CARBN; or
CMBST
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
CMBST
5.6
5.7
CMBST
3.4
5.6
7.4
5.6
8.2
10
30
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.6
5.6
5.6
11.2 ,
CMBST .
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
0.75 mg/l TCLP
CMBST
01
e>
&
e.
P
<
o,
0)
CO
s
§'
tJ
n
05
CO
CO
05
CD
01
ft,
<§
0)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15643
m
§
in co q q p
*~ CM CD CO CD
O
O
1
O
CO
m
o
CO CO CO CO CO •
en
o
ofio.oiSo.OjSo a
^ g § n § o g § m O g g m O ^
I
2
.c
a
,!
i
oS^So'goS ^ 4 faiollcu-s-ggg-ci^
'CD s:j2• " ^SESlSo -2 o ° ««-S-gE 0.0.0.0-= g
:f 1 li£iS-sJ S 9 1§II9S§§|S9*
••§• ggllt°^°-§ 9 ^- ElIIc^giii9ci9
1 ^I|||S|I^ :- i legglliigg^^^
jo cMSQs5Q9Qc>) ,!> E oJ-^^-S-tSJ-^XiTuS.;:
tiociotia QQ T--UJ QQ6Ecb.co- '§ S Q ,-- ;:- v-- S S cJ CM' ^ '5 S ^~
§
2
1
j;
^
a
/« >—
! _ •• % S
¥
1
0
E
o 2
ro S
2"c\i
g-r£
o ^iT
(D
£ CD ra
CD £
m n> •— C J= CD CD CD C m
S ni 9? at "O CD •« rt\ m C C /n ?= CD S
g ESa,«esc-N -g c£gss-5po5>,3
g VE I^S^Si -9 oPJ^i^'§SS§'o''§'
•^: c*g ^Q-jD-S^S g ^ooooooooo o.
-!E Scfl|5-|o|J J *
OOOO^OOOO
JT.C.C-C: 5:jr_cr.c-.f-
UJ
5
M =9c5 E^E-gsS .S f3S!§!2S-5.SSSS 4
a
Q
a
ra
b
aa
S
4
~
^9999 £-9 099 co
Q T-" T-1' T-~ T-" 2 CM" CM" T-" T-" T-"
CM
CO
O
CD r
CD
I C33 O i- CM CO
--1 r~- s. i^ N
' O O O O
~ o r> 3
:gi
oooooo
T-
CO CO CO
ooo
S
o
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
i ihftfi
iinft?
1 IHRA
i inftQ
i inQn
i inQi
i inQ9
I KKM
U094
i inQR
U096 .
I IDQ7
I IflQfl
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
' " category1
N N'-Diethylhydrazine
O,0-Diethyl S-methyldithiophosphate
Diethyl phthalate
Diethyl stilbestrol
Dihydrosafrole . .. •
3 3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene .".
7,12-Dimethylibenz(a)anthracene
3 3'-Dimethylbenzidine ...
alpha, alpha-Dimethyl benzyl hydroperoxide
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1 1-Dimethylhydrazine ••"
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
N.N'-Diethylhydrazine
O,0-Diethyl S-
methyldithiophosphate.
Diethyl phthalate
Diethyl stilbestrol ..-.
Dihydrosafrole .;.
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethylamine ,
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ..
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
alpha, : alpha-Dimethyl benzyl
hydroperoxide.
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1, 1-Dimethylhydrazine
CAS2 No.
1615-80-1
3288-58-2
84-66-2
56-53-1
94-58-6
119-90-4
124-40-3
60-11-7
57-97-6
119-93-7
80-15^9
79^14-,7
57-14-7
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
BIODG;or
CMBST
CARBN; CMBST
0.20 .
'(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST':'
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.13
(WETOX or .
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;.
CARBN;
BIODG;or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
BIODG;or
CMBST
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5, unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology, code
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
CMBST
28
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
01
05
I
I
a
(D
-------
U099
U101 .„
U102
U103
U105
U106
U108
U1 09
U110
U111
U112
U113
U114
U115
U1 16
U117
U1 1 8
U119
U120
U121
1 ,2-Dim6thyIhydrazin8
2,4-DimethyIphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate .
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,4-Dioxane
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Dipropylamine
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Ethyl acetate ...
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid salts and esters ......
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Fluoranthene
Trichlnrnmnnnfli inrnmpthnno
1,4-Dioxane; alternate6 standard
for nonwastewaters only.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine; alternate6
standard for wastewaters only.
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid
Ethylene oxide; alternate6 stand-
ard for wastewaters only.
Ethyl ether
540-73-8
105-67-9
131-11-3
\£.\— 14- *:
606-20-2
123-91-1
122-66-7
122-66-7
142-84-7
621-64-7
140-88-5
111-54-6
75-21-8
75-21-8 .
96-45-7
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
206-44-0
75-69-4
CHOXD; CURED;
CARBN;
BIODG; or
CMBST
0.036
0.047
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
BIODG; or
CMBST
0.32
0.55
(WETOX or
CHOXD} fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
NA
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
BIODG; or
CMBST
0.087
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.40
0.34
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.12
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.12
0.14
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.068
0.020
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
CHOXD, CHRED;
or CMBST
14
28
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
140
28
CMBST
170
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
NA
CMBST
14
33
CMBST
CMBST
CHOXD; or
CMBST ;:
NA
CMBST
.
160
160
CMBST
3.4
30
"1
CD
fa-
ts
n
su-
re3
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
01
OV
Waste code
•- i .
1 11 97
I 1170
f . ' "
:X:K- ' • '
1 11*54
I I1Q7
I t1*5ft
U142
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Formaldehyde •
ii
Formic acid ..
Furan — •••
Furfural .
Glycidylaldehyde ••
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene •
Lindane « "—
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine • •••••
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen Sulfide
Cacodylic acid . •
lndeno(1 2 3-c,d)pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol •••
Isosafrole
Kepone ;
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Formaldehyde :
i '
Formic acid
Furan
Furfural ;
Glycidylaldehyde .-....:...
Hexaohlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC . •'•
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane .....;•.
Hexachlorophene ..: ...
Hydrazine
Fluoride (measured in
wastewaters only).
Hydrogen Sulfide
Arsenic .....
lndeno(1 ,2,3*c,d)pyrene
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Isosafrole
Kepone
; CAS 2 No.
50-rOO-O
64-18-6
110-00-9
98-01-1
765-34-4
118-74-1
87-68-3
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
302-01-2
16964-48-8
7783-06-4
7440-38-2
193-39-5
74-88-4
78-83-1
120-58-1
143-50-8
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
, CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb '
CARBN; or,
CMBST '
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.055
0.055 .
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
0.057
. 0.055 .
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
DIODG; or
CMBST
.35
CHOXD;:CHRED;
or CMBST
1.4
0.0055 "
0.19
5.6
0.081 -
0.0011
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
10
5.6 .
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
2.4
30 -..'.:
CMBST
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
. ADGAS fb
NEUTR; or
NEUTR
CHOXD; CHRED;
or CMBST
5.0 mg/l TCLP
3.4
65
170
2.6
; 0.13
s,
to
o
I-J_
'00:
CO
CO
o>
r-f
5'
3 '
CO
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15647
0.0.0.
-1 _l _J
co co co
odd
fe I
m c
•s. :
o c
WIVIDO 1
CMBST
RMERC II
0.20 mg/l TCLP 1
5l
£ 5 fe
10 < 0
8
d
CMBST 1
0.75 mg/l TCLP 1
1-
o
Q
|l»
SCQ
IO O CO '-' ;>
XDC
COO
O
fees fees
o«5t_o=aoh_
e-oo aoo
ci
co co
5 S
i^- ^
y?
r* Is*
l\
s:;?
N. r**
ci
2
CO
idl
o
g)
i
1
L
i
a
1
1
|
>
I
c
I
' £
£
£
'£
^)
'c
« 1
C
r-
O
r~
- |1
|l
^5 5
«> S
a
ti
c
< o
a
§
1
o
1
"ST
.c
1
o
Eics
•- S
•a £
li
CD
O
CD
Q.
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
\
Waste code
i nfii
IHfi^
I Mfifi
I 1 1 R7
I 11 7O
I 117^
I 1 1 7 A
I 11 7R
I M7R
U181 • :...
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
N-Methyl N'-nitro N-nitrosoguanidine
Methylthiouracil
Naphthalene
1 4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthlyamine • •
2-Naphthlyamine •'
Nitrobenzene .. .*. ;;.. ......
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine •
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea ••••
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitrosopiperidine
5-Nitrd-o-toluidine • »•••
Regulated hazardous constituent ,
Common name
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
N-Methyl N'-nitro N-
nitrosoguanidine.
Methylthiouracil
Naphthalene '.
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthlyamine ....
2-Naphthlyamine
Nitrobenzene >
p-Nitrophenol .'.
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethaholamine '. ...
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-ioluidine ...
CAS2 No.
108-10-1
80-62-6
70-25-7
56-04-2
91-20-3
130-15-4
.134-32-7
-91-59-8
98-95-3
100-02-7
79^t6-9
924-16-3
1116^54-7
55-18-5
759-73-9
684-93-5
615-53-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
99-55-8
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.14
0.14
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN;or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.059
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.52
0.068
0.12
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
.0:40
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST"
0.40
{WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.013
- 0.013 •
,0.32.
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
33
160
CMBST
CMBST
5.6
CMBST
.CMBST
CMBST
14
• 29
CMBST
17
CMBST
28
CMBST
' CMBST
CMBST
35
35
•28
at
05
*•
09
a-
n
i-t
-------
U182
U183
U184
U185
U186
U187
U188
U189
U190
U191
U192
U193
U194
U196
U197
U200
U201
U202
U203
U204
U205
ParaJdehyde ...
Pentachlorobenzene ....
Pentachloroethane ....
Pentachloronitrobenzene
1 ,3-Pentadiene
Phenacetin
Phenol
Phosphorus sulfide
Phthalic anhydride (measured as Phthalic acid or
Terephthalic acid).
2-Picoline
Pronamide
1 ,3-Propane sultone
n-Propylamine
Pyridine
p-Benzoquinone .
Reserpine
Resorcinol
Saccharin and salts ..
Safrole
Selenium dioxide
Selenium sulfide
Pentachloroethane; alternate 6
standards for both wastewaters
and nonwastewaters.
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid or Terephthalic
acid).
Phthalic anhydride
123-63-7
608-93-5
76-01-7
76-01-7
82-68-8
504-60-9
62-44-2
108-95-2
1314-80-3
100-21-0
85-44-9
109-06-8
23950-58-5
1120-71-4
107-10-8
110-86-1
106-51-4
50-55-5
108-46-3
81—07—2
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7782-49-2
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.055
(WETOX or
CHOXD} fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.055
0.055
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.081
0.039
CHOXD, CHRED,
or CMBST
0.055
0.055
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.093
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.014
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.081
0.82
0.82
CMBST
10
CMBST
6.0
4.8
CMBST
16
6.2
CHOXD, CHRED,
or CMBST
28
28
CMBST
1.5
CMBST
CMBST
16
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
22
0.16 mg/l TCLP
0.16mg/ITCLP
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15649
-------
: TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
. —
U206
U207 , ,
U208
U209 ,
U210
U21 1
U213
U218 •
U21a
U220
U221 •
U22o
U225
U226
IIOOT
U228
U234
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Streptozotocin
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane •
Tetrachloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrahydrofuran ••
Thallium (I) acetate ••
Thallium (I) carbonate •
Thallium (I) chloride • •
Thallium (I) nitrate .'.
Thioacetamide
Thiourea . • •••••
Toluene
Toluenediamine
o-Toluidine hydrochloride •;
Toluene diisocyanate
Bromoform (Tribromomethane)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene ••
1 ,3,5-Trinitrobenzene :
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Streptozotocin
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ;1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Carbon -tetrachloride ...
Tetrahydrofuran
Thallium (measured in
wastewaters only).
Thallium (measured in
wastewaters only).
Thallium (measured in
wastewaters only).
Thallium (measured in
wastewaters only).
Thioacetamide
Thiourea
Toluene
Toluenediamine
o-Toluidine hydrochloride
Toluene diisocyanate
Bromoform (Tribromomethane) ...
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 ,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
CAS2 No.
18883-66-4
95-94-3
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18^1
56-23-5
109-99-9
7440-28-0
7440-28-0
7440-28-0
7440-28-0
62-55-5
62-56-6
108-83-3
25376-45-8
636-21-5
26471-62-5
75-25-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
99-35-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; 'or tech-
nology code4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN;or
CMBST
0.055
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.057
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
•• CMBST
1.4
'1.4
1.4-
1.4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.080
CARBN; or
CMBST
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
CARBN; or
CMBST
0.63 .
0.054
0.054
0.054
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
CMBST
: .' .. '. .-_
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
CMBST
14
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
CMBST
RTHRM; or
STABL
RTHRM; or
STABL
RTHRM; or
STABL
RTHRM; or
STABL
CMBST
CMBST
10
CMBST
CMBST
CMBST
15
6.0
6.0
6.0
CMBST
15650 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday,
>
u
I— J
'CO
H»
CO
CO
0)
I
CD"
CO
e
ex
»
CD
<8
'ft
5'
P
cn
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15651
1— I
1 1 S
o fi o o £ *•
T- g^zkgaz&j
S.OO §.00
r- _
cij S g
i I 2
§
"*?•
£2*
j?
§"
g.
5S Q
O UJ
i_ . , bfc^ oci-
fn fc 1— UJ CO 1— T CO h- 1— 1—
S g o S og 5|?s3 o§*^.-*^g 5 ' a •
o i "8 g?d8 g«':':dT:S g " 8
O ° O o ^
I X
0 0
X Q Z
o£ •- v-!g'-1-l3i-O'-o^LL1 i- m
S^^'mS 'N os"2"mxQ^"wgm'oXQ±-w|SEg TO S §« o f^J5 55 go?S°cn o ^
: "o c S
Q> ZJ S S
S •2' o c
1 £ S
° coo »
R 0">. o §
" w x -^ -S.
S T3 ^> T1 <^ ^ CX
8 1 £ ffi,, 5 2
i 1 I ~ ii ct- §•
eElI 1 1 isTQ^ IE
i*l 1 ! f-=is II
-
!
1
!
S
CD
m
[
§
I
I
|
3
5
•o
3"
13
f
<
Q
3
5
I I
§ s § m
c=
s
CO
CO
=5-
B" 'c3
'o *0
ro
o ~
^ o
>, x*
X rt
g |
ft =
2 o ^
D V Q.
fj
E (u
S fe f >,«- •
§" II £ elgV
i s| o gs|JS-<
^•^5 .E mBcOcoH
O 53 M mcoOcQc
O
c
flj
0 CD +=
— C CD
2 1 X1
3 ' 3 0
5 p £
3 i. S
a
>
E
p ,_
§ £
1 S
c =
8 8
§•*-*
+-• c
CO CD
S 1
CD Q.
D. 5
C ^
f f |
of to N t_
— w - o
CO CD CD ^o
w — -o ^
^ °o8Ci f°
JT ^ Q.1^
o
r~
CO
m m -^
1 1 i i i I ?i ii Hil | I
S F i z
|
:
fe
CM
CO
cc
5 •? «r«r •¥£ >-^;S!1-'.EHJco =
-------
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste code
U360
U361 •
U362
U363
U364 .. -
U365 ..
U366
U367. - •-•••••
U368
U369 •
U370 ••••
U371 -
U372 .
U373
U374 . -.
U375 .". •••
U376
U377
U378 •
U379
U380 -
U381 :
U382
U383
U384 •
U385
U386
U387 :
U388 :
U389
U390 •
U391
U392 ,»•
U393
U394
U395
U396
U397
U398 •
Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub-
category1
Carbamates, N.O.S
Carbamoyl Oximes, N.O.S
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Antimony
Bendiocarb phenol
Molinate • —
nithinrarhamatp<5 (totah
Carbofuran phenol ,
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Antimony • • ••••
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Hexazinone intermediate
Carbendazim
Propham
U9069 •
Troysan Polyphase
Selenium '..„.....'.....'. •
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total) ..
Dithiocarbamates (total) ....
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total) .....'.....
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total) •••••••
Vernolate
Cycloate
Prosulfocarb
Esprocarb •—
Triallate •'•.•
Eptam •.•••'
Pebulate
Butylate •
Dithiocarbamates (total)
A2213 • ; •
Reactacrease 4-DEG .'
Ferbam .• • —
Dithiocarbamates (total) • •—
Lead ;;•••; .-
Dithioca'rbamates (total) .: ...;•:!•;'.•::..... '.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Common name
Carbamates, N.O.S .".
Carbamoyl Oximes, N.O.S
Thiocarbamates, N.O.S
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Antimony
Lead •
Nickel
Selenium
Bendiocarb phenol
Molinate
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Carbofuran phenol .-.
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Antimony
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Antimony .-.
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Hexazinone intermediate
Carbendazim
Propham
U9069
Troysan Polyphase
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Selenium ".
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total) ......
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total) ...........
Vernolate.... :.....................:..
Cycloate
Prosulfocarb
Esprocarb
Triallate ...: .'.
Eptam
Pebulate
Butylate .
Dithiocarbamates (total)
A2213
Reactacrease 4-DEG
Ferbam
. Dithiocarbamates (total)
Lead
Dithiocarbamates (total)
CAS2 No.
NA
NA
NA
NA
7440-36-0
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
22961-82-6
2212-67-1
NA
1563-38-8
NA
7440-36-0
NA
7440-36-0
NA
65086-85-3
10605-21-7
122-42-9
112006-94-
7
55406-53-6
, NA
7782-49-2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1929-77-7
1134-23-2
52888-80-9
85785-20-2
759-94-4
1114-71-2
2008-41-5
NA •
30558-43-1
5952-26-1
14484-64-1
NA
7439-92-1
• NA
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.056
0.056
0.003
0.028
1.9
0.69
3.98
0:82
0.056
0.003
0.028
0.056
0.028
1.9
0.028
1.9
0.028
0.056
0.056
0.056
,0.056'
0.056 .
0.028
0.82
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.003
0.003
0.003 '
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.028
0.003
0.056
'0.056
0.028
0.69
0.028
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
ing/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
1.4
0.28
1.4.
28
2.1 mg/l TCLP
0.37 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.16 mg/l TCLP
1.4
1.4
28
1.4
28
2.1 mg/l TCLP
28
2.1 mg/l TCLP
28
1.4
1.4,
1.4
1.4
1.4
28 ' . .
0.1 6 mg/l TCLP
28
28 . •
28 :
28
28
28
28
28
1-.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4' .
1.4
1.4
1.4
28
1.4
1.4
1.4
28
0.37 mg/l TCLP
'28 '
ui
09
UI
CO
I
I.
a
CD
• O5
oi
CO
o
V '
Ck
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
15653
-------
15654 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 /Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules arid Regulations
17. In §268.42 Table 1. is amended by §268.42 Treatment standards expressed
revising the entry "CMBST" to read as as specified technologies.
t -n : *****
follows:
TABLE 1 .—TECHNOLOGY CODES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS
Technology code
Description of technology-based standards
CMBST:
* T
High temperature organic destruction technologies, such as combustion in incinerators, boilers, or industrial furnaces op-
erated in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O,
or 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, and in other units operated in accordance with applicable technical operating require-
ments; and certain non-combustive technologies, such as the Catalytic Extraction Process.
18. Section 268.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.
(a) Where the treatment standard is expressed as a concentration in a waste or waste extract and a waste cannot
be treated to the specified level, or where the treatment technology is not appropriate to the waste, the generator
or treatment facility may petition the Administrator for a variance from the treatment standard. The petitioner must
demonstrate that because the physical or chemical properties of the waste differs significantly from wastes analyzed
in developing the treatment standard, the waste cannot be treated to specified levels or by the specified methods.
The petitioner may also demonstrate that it is treating underlying hazardous constituents in characteristically hazardous
wastewaters by sending the waste to a properly designed and operated BAT/PSES system, which may not be achieving
the treatment standards found in § 268.48.
* * * * * •
19. In § 268.48 the table in paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
§268.48 Universal treatment standards.
(a)
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
[Note: NA means not applicable.]
Regulated constituent/common name
1. Organic constituents:
A221 3
Benzofaiovrene •• • : •
CAS1 number
30558-43-1
83-32-9
208-96-8
67-64-1
75-05-8
96-86-2
53-96-3
107-02-8
79-06-1
107-13-1
- 1646-88-4
309-00-2
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
140-57-8
101-27-9
22781-23-3
22961-82-6
17804-35-2
56-55-3
98-87-3
71-43-2
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
Wastewater
standard
Concentration
in mg/l2
0.003
0.059
0.059
0.28
5.6
0.010
0.059
0.29
19
0.24
0.056
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.059
0.36
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.059
0.055
0.14
0.11
0.11
03055
0'061
Nohwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg 3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
1.4
3.4
3.4
160
38
9.7
140
NA
23
84
0.28
0.066
NA
14
3.4
NA
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
3.4
6.0
10
6.8
6.8
1.8 ' . - .
3.4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15655
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
[Note: NA means not applicable.]
Regulated constituent/common name
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
Brornodichlofomethane
Bromomethane/Methyl bromide
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
n-Butyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butylate
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol/Dinoseb
Carbaryi
Carbenzadfm
Carbofuran
Carbofuran phenol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbosulfan
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
2-ChIoro-1 ,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
bis(2-Ch!oroisopropyl)ether
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chloromethane/Methyl chloride
2-Chloronaphtha!ene
2-ChIorophenol
3-Chloropropylene
Chrysene
o-Cresol
m-Cresoi (difficult to distinguish from p-creso!)
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol)
n>Cumenyl methylcarbamate
Cycloate
Cyclohexanone
o,p*-DDD
p,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDE
O.p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene
1,2-Dibromo-3-ch!oropropane
1 *2-Dibromoethane/Ethyiene dibromide
Dibromomethane
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dfchlorobenzene
Dlchlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dtchloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1(1-Dich!oroethylene
trans-1 ,2-DichIoroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4-D
1,2-Dichloropropane
CAS 1 numbe
Q1Q_ft,l_R
Q H Q_ftR_Q
5ft_ftQ Q
7**— y?— A
7^0 on
mi—^'^—'i
71_O.C'3
ft ft— ftR_7
•ffififlR— 91 7
•iceocc o
1 RR'V.ooo
7*v-1R_fi
e;fi_9Q c:
CCOQC.-J A_0
C7 7 A Q
1 nfi—47— &
1 nft— o.n_7
K-\f\- iCL_C
1 OR_QQ— ft
1 9 A—. 4A—1
m— Q1 1
1 1 ~\—AA.—A
1 in_7f\_ft
OQCOO 00 Q
CQ cn_7
7A—K7 O.
Q1 Rft 7
QK_c;7_Q
1 08—39—4
106-44 5
fi4_nn— R
1 1 ^A 9*5 9
7QQ_no_c
R°__7n_o
1QO_RC^_>1
Qfi— 1 9 ft
1f1fi Q1^— A
74__Qc_q
c/j-j 70 -i
QC_Cn_H
7£w-71_R
1fl7— OR O
7C_QC_,1
1 Rfi Rfi_^
1 OH—ftQ 9
ft7_ccn
QA 7R— 7
78-87-5
Wastewater
standard
Concentration
in mg/l 2
U.UUU14
U.U^o
U.OOo
n fiRR
0.046
0.059
0.11
n 77
n 77
0.023
0.02o
U.Ool
0.0039
0.090
0.044
n.ss
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg 3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
O.Ooo
0.066
0.066
15
^.b
23
1.4
0.14
.14
4.0 mg/l TCLP
16
NA
15
6.0
NA
6.0
30
3.4
5.6
1.4
0.75 mg/l TCLP
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
NA
6.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
4
4
R
-------
15656 Federal Register / Vol..61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and. Regulations
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
[Note: NA means not applicable.]
• Regulated constituent/common name
• ;. . * " - ~
Diethyl phthalate
EPTC
Ethyl ether •
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Indeno (1 2 3-c d) pyrene
Kepone •
Methvl ethvl ketone ; •.•.....-. '.'. •
CAS1 number
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
5952-26-1
60-11-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
644-64-4
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-52.1
51-28-5
121-14-2.
606-20-2
117-84-0
621-64-7
123-91-1
122-39-4
86-30-6
122-66-7
298-04-3
137-30-4
959-98-8
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
7421-93-4
759-94-4
141-78-6
100-41-4
107-12-0
60-29-7
97-63-2
75-21-8
117-81-7
52-85-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
23422-53-9
17702-57-7
76^4-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
1888-71-7
NA
193-39-5
74-88-4
55406-53-6
78-83-1
120-58-1
143-50-0
126-98-7
67-56-1
91-80-5
2032-65-7
16752-77-5
72-43-5
,. 78-93-3
Wastewater
standard
Concentration
in mg/l 2
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.20
0.056
0.13
0.036
0.047
0.056
' 0.057
0.32
0.28
0.12
0.32
0.55
0.017
0.40
12.0
0.92
0.92
0.087
0.017
0.028
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.003
0.34
0.057
0.24
0.12
0.14
.0.12
0.28
0.017
0.068
0.059
0.056
0.056
0.0012
0.016
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.055
0.035
0.000063
0.000063
0.0055
0.19
0.056
5.6
0.021
0.056
0.081
0.001 1
0.24
5.6
0.081
0-056
0.028
"... ',0.25
0.28
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg 3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
18
18
0.13
28
1.4
NA
14
28
1.4
28
2.3
160
160
140
28
28
14
170
13
13
NA
6.2
28
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.4
33
10
360
160
160
NA
28
15
3.4
3.4
1.4
1.4
0.066
0.066
10
5.6
2.4
30
30
0.001
0.001
3.4
65
1.4
170
0.066
1.4
2.6
0.1.3
84
0.75 mg/l TCLP
1.5
,1.4
0.14
0.18
36 •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15657
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
[Note: NA means not applicable.]
Regulated constituent/common name
Methyl Isobutyi ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methansulfonate
Methyl parathion
3-Methylch!o!anthrene
4,4-MethyIene bis(2-chloroaniline
Methylene chloride
Metofcarb ,
Mexacarbate
Molinate
Naphthalene
2-Naphthylamine
o-Nilroaniline
p-Nitroanillne
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidtne
o-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine .t
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolfdine
Oxamyl
Parathion
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Aroclors)
Pebulate
Pentachlorobenzene
PeCDDs (Ail Pentachiorodibenzo-p-dioxins)
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans)
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
o-Phenylenediamine
Phorate
Phthalic acid
Phthalic anhydride
Physostigmine
Physostigmine salicylate
Promecarb
Pronamide
Propham
Propoxur
Prosulfocarb
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Silvex/2,4,5-TP
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)
TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans)
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Thlodicarb
Thiophanate-methyl
Tirpate
Toluene
Toxaphene
CAS1 number
1 0ft— 1 ft— 1
on RO R
fifi— 97— 3
PQA— no— n
CC_4Q C
mi 14—4
7*^_nQ o
119Q— 41 ^
^1*v-1ft— 4
O919_G7 H
Q1 9Ci— ^
Q1 ^Q_«
inn— ni— ft
QR—QCU-Q
QQ_^*\_A
Rft_7*^_^
1 fin_n9 7
^'x—lft—'^
GO 7R_Q
Q94 1fi— <*
1 nf^Q(v-Qcv-R
c;Q_ftQ o
mO— 7*v-4
qon_cc_o
c;R__
-------
15658 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 68 /- Monday, April 8, 1996 / -Rules and Regulations
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
[Note: NA means not applicable.]
Regulated constituent/common name
CAS1 number
Wastewater
standard
Concentration
inmg/l2
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg 3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
Trjal|ate ., :. 2303-17-5 0.003
Tribromometriane/Bromoform 75~?5~? HL
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 - 0.055
1,1,1-Trichlorethane • 71-55-6 0.054
1,1,2-Trichlorethane • - 79-00-5 0.054
Trichloroethylene :. - 79-01-6 0.054
Trichloromonofluoromethane 75-69-4 0.020
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol •••• 95-95-4 • • O.is
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol •• - 88-06-2 0.035
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4,5-T 9S-.76-5 0.72
1,2,3-Trichloropropane •• •- 96-18-4 0.85
1,1,2-Trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane - 76-13-1 0.057
Triethylamine 101-14-8 0.081
tW-Dibromopropy.) phosphate -J^:::—:. . ?££$ a003
Vinvlchloride" - -- - 75-01-4 0.27
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-,m-, and p-xylene concentrations) 1330-20-7 0.32
, Inorganic Constituents: „ „ .. „
Antimony - ••••• l^f* \*
Arsenic „ • 7440-38-2 .4
Barium • 7440-39-3 1.2
Beryllium - 7440-41-7 0.82
Cadmium •• 7440-43-9 .. 0.69
Chromium (Total) • 7440-47-^5 2.77
Cyanides (Total)4 • 57-12r5 1.2
Cyanides (Amenable)4 • 57-12-5 0.86
Fluorides 16984-18-8 35
l^ad ............'. • •• 7439-92-1 , , 0.69
Mercury—Nonwastewater from Retort 7439-97-6 NA
Mercury-All Others 7439-97-6 0.15
Nickei 7440-02-0 . 3.98
Selenium ' • • 7782-49-2 > 0.82
IS? l[[[":::"":::"":: , 7440-22-* 0.43
Sulfide - , 18496-25-8 14
Thallium , : - v~ . . 744-0 1.4
1.4
15
19
6.0 '
6.0
6.0
30
7.4
7.4
7.9
30
30
1.5 '
0.10
1.4
6.0
30
2.1 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
7.6 mg/l TCLP
0.014 mg/l TCLP
0.19 mg/l TCLP
0.86 mg/l TCLP
590
30
NA
0.37 mg/l TCLP
0.20 mg/l TCLP
0.25 mg/l TCLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
0.16 mg/l TCLP
0.30 mg/l TCLP
NA
0.78 mg/l TCLP
0.23 mg/l TCLP
5.3 mg/l TCLP
1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical
with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. • ;
2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l and are based^on analysis of composite samples.
3 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration
were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart
O or 40 CFR part 265 subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical require-
ments. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for
"^Botti^nidesTTotal! and Cyanides^Anfenab^for'nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or 9012, found in "Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", EPA Publication SW-846, as incorporated by-reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sam-
ple size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one hour and 15 minutes. - • . . -oeoo/'l
5-These constituents are not "underlying hazardous constituents" in characteristic wastes, according to the definition at §268.2(i).
20. Appendix XI is added to part 268 to read as follows:
APPENDIX XI TO PART 268—METAL BEARING WASTES PROHIBITED FROM DILUTION IN A COMBUSTION UNIT ACCORDING
TO 40 CFR 268.3(C)1 :
Waste code
Waste description
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
Toxicity Characteristic for Arsenic.
Toxicity Characteristic for Barium.
Toxicity Characteristic for Cadmium.
Toxicity Characteristic for Chromium.
Toxicity Characteristic for Lead.
Toxicity Characteristic for Mercury.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15659
APPENDIX XI TO PART 268—METAL BEARING WASTES PROHIBITED FROM DILUTION IN A COMBUSTION UNIT ACCORDING
TO 40 CFR 268.3(c)1—Continued
Waste code
Waste description
F006 Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric
acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4)
aluminum or zinc-plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating
on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.
F007 Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations.
F0u8 Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
F009 Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the proc-
ess.
F01° Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal treating operations where cyanides are used in the process.
F01' Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations.
F012 Quenching waste water treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the
process.
F019 Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum car washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.
K002 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome yellow and orange pigments.
K003 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of molybdate orange pigments.
K004 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of zinc yellow pigments.
K005 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome green pigments.
K008 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome oxide green pigments (anhydrous and hydrated)
K007 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of iron blue pigments.
KOOS Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green pigments.
jj061 Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces.
K069 Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
K071 Brine purification muds from the mercury cell processes in chlorine production, where separately prepurified brine
is not used.
J$]°° Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
K1Q6 Sludges from the mercury cell processes for making chlorine.
P010 Arsenic acid H3AsO4
P011 Arsenic oxide As2O5
P012 Arsenic trioxide
P013 Barium cyanide
P015 Beryllium
P029 Copper cyanide Cu(CN)
P074 Nickel cyanide Ni(CN)2
P087 Osmium tetroxide
P099 Potassium silver cyanide
P104 Silver cyanide
P113 Thaliic oxide
P114 Thallium (I) selenite
P115 Thallium (I) sulfate
P119 Ammonium vanadate
P120 Vanadium oxide V2O5
P121 Zinc cyanide.
U032 Calcium chromate.
U145 Lead phosphate.
U151 Mercury.
U204 Selenious acid.
U205 Selenium disulfide.
U216 Thallium (I) chloride.
U217 | Thallium (I) nitrate.
1A combustion unit is defined as any thermal technology subject to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; Part 265, subpart O; and/or 266, subpart H.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
21. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a) and 6926.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final Authorization
22. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication
in the Federal Register, and by adding the following entries to Table 2 in chronological order by effective date in
the Federal Register to read as follows:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
*,****
0) * * *
-------
15660 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 .—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference , Effective date
April 8, 1996
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase 111—Decharacterized 61 FR [Insert page numbers]. July 8, 1996.
Wastewaters, Carbamate Wastes, and Spent Aluminum
Potliners in §268.39.. . • •, -
TABLE 2—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implementing provision
RCRA citation '-.'•" Federal Register reference
July 8,1996 Prohibition on land disposal of carbamate 3004(m). ....... April 8, 1996, 61 FR [Insert page numbers].
wastes.. • .
•* . •- . . ••-* -...*--••••'* * .
October 8 1996 Prohibition on land disposal of K088 wastes! . 3004(m) April 8, 1998, 61 FR [Insert page numbers].
Aprils, 1996 ' 3004(m) ........ April 8, 1996, 61 FR [Insert page numbers].
PART 403—GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF
POLLUTION
23. The authority citation for part 403
continues to read, as follows:
Authority: Sec. 54(c)(2) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, (Pub. L. 95-217) sections
204(b)(l)(C), 208(b)(2KC)(iii), 301[b)(l)(A)(ii),
301(bX2XA)(ii), 301(b)(2)(C), 301(h)[5),
301(i)(2), 304(e), 304(g), 307, 308, 309,
402(b), 405 and 501(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500) as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-
4). :
24. In § 403.5, paragraphs (c) heading,
(c)(l) and (d) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 403.5 National pretreatment standards:
Prohibited discharges.
* * * * *
(c) Development of specific limits by ,
POTW. (1) Each POTW developing a
POTW Pretreatment Program pursuant
to § 403.8 shall develop and enforce
specific limits to implement the
prohibitions listed in paragraphs (a)(l)
and (b) of this section. Each POTW with
an approved pretreatment program shall
continue to develop these limits as
necessary and effectively enforce such
limits. In addition, the POTW may
establish such limits as necessary to
address the land disposal restrictions at
40 CFR 268.40.
(d) Local limits. Where specific
prohibitions or limits on pollutants or'
pollutant parameters are developed by a
POTW in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section, including those
standards established to address land
disposal restrictions at 40 CFR 268.40,
such limits shall be deemed
Pretreatment Standards for the purposes
of section 307(d) of the Act.
*****
[FR Doc. 96-7597 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
40 CFR Parts 148, 268 and 403
[EPA # 530-Z-96-002; FRL-5452-7]
RIN2050-AD38
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—
Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Cafbamate Wastes, and Spent
Potliners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Partial withdrawal and
amendment of final rule.
SUMMARY: Elsewhere in this Federal
Register, EPA is promulgating a final
rule which, among other things, revises
treatment standards for hazardous
wastewaters that exhibit the
characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity. The revised
. treatment standards were promulgated
to implement the mandate of the
opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) v.
EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (B.C. Cir. 1992) cert.
denied 507 U.S. 1057 (1993). On March
26, 1996, President Clinton signed into
law the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act of 1996 which, among
other things, provides that the wastes in
question are no longer prohibited from
land disposal so long as they are not
hazardous wastes at the point they are
land disposed. By operation of the
statute, this provision is made effective
immediately and therefore essentially
overrules this portion of the CWM
opinion. EPA accordingly is
incorporating the statutory provision
into the regulations by amending and/or
withdrawing the portions of the
regulations that are superseded by the
new legislation. The amendment/
•withdrawal of these standards does not
affect any other part of the final rule;
and the effective dates of the other
actions in the final rule likewise will
not change. Furthermore, EPA is
amending parts of the LDR Phase II final
rule, published on September 19,1994
(59 FR 47982) which are also overruled
by the legislation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION-CONTACT: For
general information contact the RCRA
Hotline at 800-424-9346 (toll-free) or
703-412-9810 locally. For specific
information on the LDR Phase III rule
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15661
and this document, contact Peggy Vyas
in the Office of Solid Waste, phone 703-
308-8594.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Today's Action
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, a
final rule is published which revises
treatment standards for decharacterized
wastevvaters that are managed in surface
impoundments regulated under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) or in CWA-
equivalent systems, and in Class I
nonhazardous waste injection wells
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). Among other actions, the
final rule would have (1) revised 40 CFR
148.1(b) and (d), 148.3,148.4,148.20(a),
268.3, 268.40(e), 268.44(a), and 403.5(d);
and (2) amended 268.1(e), 268.9(d), and
403.5(c); as well as (3) added 148.18,
268.2 (k) and (1), 268.9 (e), (f), and (g),
and 268.39. EPA also promulgated
certain regulations as part of the LDR
Phase II rule prohibiting injection of
certain decharacterized wastes (see 40
CFR 148.17(c) and 268.1(c)(3) at 59 FR
48041 and 48043 (September 19,1994)).
EPA promulgated these provisions to
implement the holding and reasoning of
the D.C. Circuit's opinion in CWMv.
EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert.
denied 507 U.S. 1057 (1993). EPA
interpreted this opinion to require
hazardous constituents in characteristic
wastes to be treated so that the
constituents were removed, destroyed or
immobilized before the wastes were
permanently land disposed, in order to
minimize threats posed by land disposal
of the wastes. This requirement
extended to wastewaters managed in the
types of centralized wastewater
management systems mentioned above.
In doing so, EPA noted in the LDR
Phase III final rule, published elsewhere
in this Federal Register, that it would
not have set treatment standards for
hazardous constituents in these
characteristic wastewaters at this time
but for the court's opinion, and noted
the pendency of legislation which could
overrule the court's opinion and so
require amendments to the final rule.
Congress has now passed that
legislation, the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act of 1996, and President
Clinton signed it into law on March 26,
1996 (Public Law 104-119,100 Stat.
830). A main purpose of the legislation
is to put back in place the approach for
centrally-managed, decharacterized
wastewater which EPA adopted in the
LDR "Third Third" rule promulgated on
June 1,1990 (55 FR 22520). The new
legislation states, in essence, that
hazardous wastes which are hazardous
only because they are identified as
exhibiting a characteristic are not
prohibited from land disposal if they are
managed in either a treatment system
whose ultimate discharge is regulated
under the CWA (including both direct
and indirect dischargers), a CWA-
equivalent treatment system, or a Class
I nonhazardous injection well regulated
under the SDWA, provided that the
wastes no longer are hazardous (i.e. no
longer exhibit a characteristic) at the
point land disposal occurs (RCRA
§ 3004(g) (7) and (8)). The characteristic
can be removed by any means,
including dilution or other deactivation
through aggregation of different
wastestreams preceding land disposal
(see H. Rep. No. 454,104th Cong. 2d
Sess. at 9). For wastes managed in CWA
or CWA-equivalent systems, there is a
further caveat that characteristic wastes
for which EPA has promulgated a
method of treatment as the treatment
standard (for example, high TOC
ignitable wastes for which the treatment
standard is recovery of organics
(RORGS) or combustion (CMBST))
remain prohibited unless treated
pursuant to that method (RCRA
§ 3004(g)(7)). Reactive cyanide wastes
(i.e. wastes that may release toxic
emissions when exposed to pH
conditions between 2 and 12 as defined
in 40 CFR 261.23(a)(5)) likewise remain
prohibited from disposal units in CWA
and CWA-equivalent treatment systems
unless first treated to satisfy the
treatment standard (id.).
The purpose of this notice is to
withdraw the portions of the existing
rules which are inconsistent with the
new statute and therefore no longer in
effect, or, in a few limited instances, to
amend language which cannot be
feasibly withdrawn. Thus, treatment
standards for wastes identified as
exhibiting a characteristic and managed
in centralized wastewater management
systems identified above will require
only that the wastes be deactivated (i.e.
rendered non-hazardous) before they are
land disposed. The exception will
continue to be for wastes for which the
treatment standard is a method of
treatment—namely high TOC
ignitables—and for reactive cyanide
wastes, which must be treated to satisfy
the existing treatment standard before
land disposal in a surface impoundment
at CWA and CWA-equivalent treatment
systems.
This action puts back in place the
rules which existed before EPA
promulgated the LDR Phase III
provisions. Thus, for example,
withdrawing the version of 148.l(d)
promulgated in the LDR Phase III rule
has the effect of restoring the previous
version of that provision. EPA believes
that withdrawing the portions of the
rules that have been superseded is the
quickest and simplest way of amending
the rules that conform to the new
legislation. Certain portions of the LDR
Phase III rule have to be amended
(namely §§ 268.3, 268.39 and 268.40)
because withdrawing them would undo
other revisions which are not affected
by the legislation.a
EPA realizes that there may be certain
questions relating to other provisions of
the rules which may benefit from
clarifying revisions in light of the
statutory amendment. (Communications
from various affected parties suggesting
such changes are part of the record for
this notice.) EPA is limiting this notice
to changes that have to be made to
eliminate superceded regulatory
provisions. EPA intends to pursue the
possibility of whether clarifying
amendments are needed in other
proceedings.
EPA does wish, however, that to
clarify that as a result of withdrawing
these provisions, generators with
decharacterized wastewaters that are
being managed in CWA or CWA-
equivalent systems or injected into Class
I nonhazardous injection wells do not
have to identify underlying hazardous
constituents. EPA also wishes to make
clear to States that withdrawing these
provisions removes the obligation for
States to adopt them as part of an
authorized program.
II. Interpretive Issues
A. Definition of CWA-Equivalent
Treatment
The legislation does not define what
a CWA-equivalent treatment system is,
leaving the issue to the Administrator
(RCRA § 3004(g)(7)(A)). EPA's existing
rules at 40 CFR 268.38(a) provide a
definition: "CWA equivalent treatment
means biological treatment for organics,
alkaline chlorination or ferrous sulfate
precipitation for cyanide, precipitation/
sedimentation for metals, reduction of
hexavalent chromium, or other
treatment technology that can be
demonstrated to perform equally or
better than these technologies." EPA
intends to use this definition in
implementing the new statute.
B. Wastes Listed Because They Exhibit
a Characteristic
A number of wastes, such as F003
ignitable solvents, are listed as
hazardous solely because they exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste. The
legislation does not by its terms apply
1 In addition, EPA is withdrawing § 148.18(d)
because this prohibition already exists in § 148.16
(c) and (f).
-------
1.5662 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 /Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
to such wastes (it applies only to wastes
that are identified by characteristic, and
so does not apply to listed wastes).
EPA's current rules addressing the
status of this type of waste under the
LDR program'are tangled. The Agency
initially found that the dilution
prohibition should apply to such
wastes. See 56 PR 3864 and 3871 (Jan.
31,1991). However, in a later notice,
EPA amended the rules so that
wastewaters that are listed solely
because they exhibit a characteristic
would not be subject to the dilution
prohibition. 57 FR 37194 and 37263
(August 18,1992). EPA did so to be
consistent with the Third Third rule's
approach to characteristic wastewaters.
Id. at 37210-37211. This action
occurred before the D.C. Circuit issued
its decision remanding portions of the
Third Third rule dealing with
wastewaters. The Agency never
corrected the regulation (found at 40
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)) to conform to the
opinion.
EPA's initial view is that the existing
regulatory provision not applying the
dilution prohibition to wastewaters
listed because they exhibit a
characteristic is probably inconsistent
with the court's opinion, but that the
principles of the new legislation
(although not its language) could apply
to these wastes. EPA thus has a policy
choice as to whether to amend the
existing rule. Today's notice is not
intended to make policy choices, but
rather to withdraw those rules no longer
in effect. EPA plans to revisit this issue
in a later proceeding. In the interim, the
existing rule which provides that the
dilution prohibition does not apply to
wastewaters listed solely because they
exhibit a characteristic remains in effect.
III. Status of Other LDR Treatment
Standards
EPA is not withdrawing other
treatment standards promulgated in
either the LDR Phase III rule or other
rules implementing portions of the
court's opinion that are unaffected by
the new legislation. Consequently, the
provisions of the May 24,1993, Interim
Final Rule (58 FR 29860), which applied
to disposal not involving the types of
centralized wastewater management
systems covered by the legislation,
remain unaffected. Thus, underlying
hazardous constituents in
decharacterized wastes that are
disposed of in systems other than these
centralized wastewater management
systems must continue to be treated ,
before land disposal. Similarly, EPA . ,
amended the treatment standards for
reactive wastes in the LDR Phase HI
final rule, published elsewhere in this ••
Federal Register, to require that
underlying hazardous constituents be
treated when the wastes are land
disposed (with an exception for certain .
types of emergency detonation
situations). These requirements are
likewise not addressed by the legislation
(unless centralized wastewater
management of the wastes is involved),
and EPA is consequently not
withdrawing these treatment standards.
IV. Rationale for Immediate Effective ,
Date
EPA is taking this action without
prior notice and opportunity to
comment. Because the provisions of the
legislation are effective immediately, the
legislation overrules the D.C. Circuit's
opinion, and thus necessarily overrules
the rules implementing those parts of
the opinion. Consequently, those rules
need to be withdrawn to reflect the new
statute. The situation is similar to what
the Agency faced in 1985 when it
codified portions of the 1984 ,
amendments to RCRA without prior
notice and opportunity to comment. 50
FR 28704 (July 15,1985). The Agency's
action was upheld in United
Technologies v. EPA, 821 F. 2d 714, 720
(D.C. Cir. 1987). See also Metzenbaum v.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), 675 F. 2d 1282, 1291 (D.C. Cir.
1982) (funding orders implementing
statutory waiver were non-discretionary
acts regulated by such waiver and that
notice and comment procedures were
unnecessary and possibly contrary to
public interest "given the expense that
would have been involved in the futile
gesture"); Hqdson Gas Systems v. FERC,
F. 2d'___ (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, ,1996)
(because controlling statute left FERC no
authority to retain a regulation, notice
and comment is not needed to withdraw
it). EPA views today's effort as
comparable to that involved in
codifying the 1984 amendments since
the legislation is focused clearly on one
particular set of regulations and requires
little interpretation by the Agency, and
consequently that the decision to issue
an immediately final withdrawal is
justified. Consequently, EPA believes
that good cause exists to issue this rule
in immediately final form.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 148
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply. •._ ..." ' ..'"...'_-
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 403
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution controls.
Dated: March 29,1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1. The amendments revising 40 CFR
148.1(b) and (d), 148.3,148.4, 148.20(a)
introductory text, 268.3, 268.40(e),
268.44(a), and 403.5(d); as well as the
amendments amending 40 CFR 268.l(e),
268.9(d), and 403.5(c); as well as the
amendments adding 40 CFR 148.18,
268.2(k) and (1), 268.9(e), (f), and (g),
and 268.39 as published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register are
withdrawn.
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
2. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.
§148.17—[Amended]
3. Section 148.17 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (c).
4. Section 148.18 is added to subpart
B to read as follows:
§ 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—
newly identified wastes.
(a) On July 8,1996, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers K156-K161,
P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
U379, U381-387, U389-U396, U400-
U404, U407, and U4D9-U411 are
prohibited from underground injection.
(b) On January 8,1997, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous waste number K088 is
prohibited from underground injection.
(c) On April 8,1998, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR part 261 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers D018-043,
and Mixed TC/Radioactive wastes, are
prohibited from underground injection.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
5. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read 4s follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924. '. ""'.'."-'"."
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
15663
Subpart A—General
6. Soction 268.1 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (c)(3).
7. Section 268.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
{b) of this section, no generator,
transporter, handler, or owner or
operator of a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility shall in any way dilute
a restricted waste or the residual from
treatment of a restricted waste as a
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with subpart D of
this part, to circumvent the effective
date of a prohibition in subpart C of this
part, to otherwise avoid a prohibition in
subpart C of this part, or to circumvent
a land disposal prohibition imposed by
RCRA section 3004.
(b) Dilution of wastes that are
hazardous only because they exhibit a
characteristic in a treatment system
which treats wastes subsequently
discharged to a water of the United
States pursuant to a permit issued under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), or which treats wastes in a
CWA-equivalent treatment system, or
which treats wastes for the purposes of
pretreatment requirements under
section 307 of the CWA is not
impermissible dilution for purposes of
this section unless a method has been
specified in § 268.40 as the treatment
standard, or unless the waste is a D003
reactive cyanide wastewater or
nonwastewater.
(c) Combustion of the hazardous
waste codes listed in Appendix XI of
this part is prohibited, unless the waste,
at the point of generation, or after any
bona fide treatment such as cyanide
destruction prior to combustion, can be
demonstrated to comply with one or
more of the following criteria (unless
otherwise specifically prohibited from
combustion):
(1) The waste contains hazardous
organic constituents or cyanide at levels
exceeding the constituent-specific
treatment standard found in § 268.48;
(2) The waste consists of organic,
debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,
plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
waste;
(3) The waste, at point of generation,
has reasonable heating value such as
greater than or equal to 5000 BTU per
pound;
(4) The waste is co-generated with
wastes for which combustion is a
required method of treatment;
(5) The waste is subject to Federal
and/or State requirements necessitating
reduction of organics (including
biological agents); or
(6) The waste contains greater than
1% Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
8. Section 268.39 is added to read as
follows:
§ 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions—
spent aluminum potliners; reactive; and
carbamate wastes.
(a) On July 8,1996, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K156-K161;
and in 40 CFR 261.33 as EPA Hazardous
Waste numbers P127, P128, P185, P188-
P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205,
U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372,
U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-
U396, U400-U404, U407, and U409-
U411 are prohibited from land disposal.
In addition, soil and debris
contaminated with these wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(b) On July 8,1996, the wastes
identified in 40 CFR 261.23 as D003 that
are managed in systems other than those
whose discharge is regulated under the
Clean Water Act (CWA), or that inject in
Class I deep wells regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), or
that are zero dischargers that engage in
CWA-equivalent treatment before
ultimate land disposal, are prohibited
from land disposal. This prohibition
does not apply to unexploded ordnance
and other explosive devices which have
been the subject of an emergency
response. (Such D003 wastes are
prohibited unless they meet the
treatment standard of DEACT before
land disposal (see § 268.40)).
(c) On January 8,1997, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste number K088 are
prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated
with these wastes are prohibited from
land disposal.
(d) On April 8,1998, Radioactive
wastes mixed with K088, K156-K161,
P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-
U404, and U407, U409-U411 are also
prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated
with these radioactive mixed wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(e) Between July 8,1996, and April 8,
1998, the wastes included in paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section may
be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(!) The requirements of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), and (d) of this section do not
apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards specified in Subpart
D of this part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate treatment 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 these wastes covered by the
extension.
(g) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this sectioi} exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in § 268.40, the initial
generator must test a 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 this part 268 are
applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
9. Section 268.40 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
*****
(e) For characteristic wastes (D001-
D003, and D018-D043) that are subject
to treatment standards in the following
table "Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes," all underlying
hazardous constituents (as defined in
§ 268.2(i)) must meet Universal
Treatment Standards, found in § 268.48,
"Table UTS," prior to land disposal as
defined in § 268.2(c).
*****
10. In § 268.40, Table § 268.40, as
revised elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, is further amended by
removing note 8 at the end of the table
and by revising the entries for D001,
D002, D003 and D018-D043 to read as
follows:
-------
15664 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste
code
D001 ..
D002 ..
D003 ..
D018 ..
D019 ..
D020 ..
Waste description and treatment/regulatory
subcategory1
Ignitable Characteristic Wastes, except for
the §261.21(a)(1) High TOG Subcategory,
that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA-
equivalent/non-Class I SDWA systems.
Ignitable Characteristic Wastes, except for
the §261.21(a)(1) High TOC Subcategory,
that are managed in CWA/CWA-equivalent/
Class I SDWA systems.
High TOC Ignitable Characteristic Liquids
Subcategory based on 40 CFR
261.21(a)(1) — Greater than or equal to
10% total organic carbon. (Note: This sub-
category consists of nonwastewaters only).
Corrosive Characteristic Wastes that are
managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiva-
lent/non-Class I SDWA systems.
Corrosive Characteristic Wastes that are
managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Reactive Sulfides Subcategory based on
261.23(a)(5).
Unexploded ordnance and other explosive
devices which have been the subject of an
emergency response.
Explosives Subcategory based on 261.23(a)
(6), (7), and (8).
Other Reactives Subcategory based on
261.23(a)(1).
Water Reactive Subcategory based on
261.23(a) (2), (3), and (4). (Note: This sub-
category consists of nonwastewaters only.).
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory based on
261.23(a)(5).
* * *
Wastes that are TC for Benzene based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiv-
alent/non-Class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Benzene based on
"the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Carbon tetrachloride
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-Class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Carbon tetrachloride
based oh the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Chlordane based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiv-
alent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Chlordane based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Common name
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
*
NA
NA ...
NA i
NA
NA
Cyanides (Total) 7 •..
Cyanides (Amenable)7
*
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (alpha and gamma
isomers).
Chlordane (alpha and gamma
isomers).
CAS 2 No.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
57-12-5
57-12-5
71-43-2
71-43-2
56-23-5
56-23-5
57-74-9
57-74-9
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
DEACT
and meet §268.48
standards; or
RORGS; or
CMBST
DEACT
NA
DEACT
and meet §268.48
standards
DEACT
*
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
and meet §268.48
• standards
DEACT
NA
Reserved
0.86
0.14
and meet §268.48
standards
0.14
0.057
and meet §268.48
standards
0.057
0.0033
and meet §268.48
standards
0.0033
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
DEACT
and meet §268.48
standards; or
RORGS; or
CMBST
DEACT
RORGS; or
CMBST
DEACT
and meet §268.48
standards
DEACT
*
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
and meet §268.48
standards
DEACT
DEACT
and meet §268.48
standards
590
30
10
and meet §268.48
standards
10
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
6.0
0.26
and meet §268.48
standards
0.26
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15665
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste
code
D021 ..
D022 ..
D023 ..
D024 ..
D025 ..
D026 ..
D027 ..
D028 ..
Waste description and treatment/regulatory
isubcategory 1
Wastes that are TC for Chiorobenzene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Chiorobenzene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in CWA, CWA equiva-
lent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Chloroform based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiv-
alent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Chloroform based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that are
managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiva-
lent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that are
managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class 1 SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiv-
alent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that are
managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiva-
lent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that are
managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Cresols (Total) based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Cresols (Total) based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in CWA, CWA equiva-
lent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for p-Dichlorobenzene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for p-Dichlorobenzene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
system only.
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Common name
Chiorobenzene
Chiorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloroform
o-Cresol
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from p-cresol).
m-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from m-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from m-cresol).
Cresol-mixed isomers (Cre-
sylic acid) (sum of o-, m-, p-
cresol concentrations).
Cresol-mixed isomers (Cre-
sylic acid) (sum of o-, m-,
and p-cresol concentrations).
p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-
Dichlorobenzene).
p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-
Dichlorobenzene).
1 2-Dichloroethane
CAS2 No.
108-90-7
108-90-7
67-66-3
67-66-3
95-48-7
95-48-7
108-39-4
108-39-4
106-44-5
106-44-5
1319-77-3
1319-77-3
106-46-7
106-46-7
1 07-06-2
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.057
and meet §268.48
standards
0.057
0.046
and meet §268.48
standards
0.046
0.11
and meet §268.48
standards
0.11
0.77
and meet § 268.48
standards
0.77
0.77
and meet §268.48
standards
0.77
0.88
and meet §268.48
standards
0.88
0.090
and meet §268.48
standards
0.090
0.21
and meet § 268.48
standards
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
6.0
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
6.0
5.6
and meet § 268.48
standards
5.6
5.6
and meet §268.48
standards
5.6
5.6
and meet §268.48
standards
5.6
11.2
and meet §268.48
standards
11.2
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
6.0
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
-------
15666 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)'
Waste
code
D029 ..
D030 ..
D031 ..
D032 ..
D033 ..
D034 ..
Waste description and treatment/regulatory
subcategory1
Wastes that are TC for 1 ,2-DichIoroethane
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for 1,1-Dichloroethylene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-Class I SDWA
system only.
Wastes that are TC for 1,1-Dichloroethylene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
system only.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
• equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor based on
the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that
are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiv-
alent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor based on
the TCLP ion SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in CWA, CWA equiva-
lent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobenzene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
system only.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobenzene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobutadiene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachlorobutadiene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachloroethane
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Hexachloroethane
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Common name
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
1 1 -Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor '
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorobutadiene ..„
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorethane
CAS 2 No.
107-06-2
75-35-4
75-35-4
121-14-2
121-14-2
76-44-8
1024-57-^3
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
118-74-1
87-68-3
87-68-3
67-72-1
67-72-1
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code 4
0.21
0.025
and meet §268.48
standards
0.025
0.32
and meet §268.48
standards
0.32
0.0012
and meet §268.48
standards
0.016
and meet §268.48
standards
0.0012
0.016
0.55
and meet §268.48
standards
0.055
0.055
and meet §268.48
standards
0.055
> 0.055
and meet §268.48
standards
0.055
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
6.0
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
6.0
140
and meet §268.48
standards
140
0.066
and meet § 268.48
standards
0.066
and meet § 268.48
standards
0.066
0.066
10
and meet §268.48
standards
10
5.6
and meet §268.48
standards
5.6
30
and meet §268.48
standards
30
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 15667
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste
code
D035 ..
D036 ..
D037 ..
D038 ..
D039 ..
D040..
D041 ..
Waste description and treatment/regulatory
subcategory 1
Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl ketone
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-Class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl ketone
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in CWA, CWA equiva-
lent, Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Pentachlorophenol
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Pentachlorophenol
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Pyridine based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that are
managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equiva-
lent/non-CIass I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Pyridine based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and that are
managed in CWA, CWA equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Tetrachloroethylene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Tetrachloroethylene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Trichloroethylene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Trichloroethylene
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Common name
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
CAS2 No.
78-93-3
78-93-3
98-95-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
87-86-5
110-86-1
110-86-1
127-18-4
127-18-4
79-01-6
79-01-6
95-95-4
95-95-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.28
and meet §268.48
standards
0.28
0.068
and meet §268.48
standards
0.068
0.089
and meet §268.48
standards
0.089
0.014
and meet §268.48
standards
0.014
0.056
and meet §268.48
standards
0.056
0.054
and meet §268.48
standards
0.054
0.18
and meet §268.48
standards
0.18
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
36
and meet §268.48
standards
36
14
and meet §268.48
standards
14
7.4
and meet § 268.48
standards
7.4
16
and meet §268.48
standards
16
6.0
and meet § 268.48
standards
6.0
6.0
and meet §268.48
standards
6.0
7.4
and meet §268.48
standards
7.4
-------
15668 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
(Note: NA means not applicable.)
Waste
code
D042 ..
D043 ..
Waste description and treatment/regulatory
subcategory1
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6-TrichlorophenoI
based on the TCLP in ,SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/
non-CWA equivalent/non-Class I SDWA
systems only.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311 and that are managed in CWA, CWA
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-class I SDWA systems only.
Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride based
on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311 and
that are managed in CWA, CWA equiva-
lent, or Class I SDWA systems.
* * - ' *
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Common name
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride ..
• ' 't'
CAS2 No.
88-06-2
88-06-2
75-01-4
75-01^4
Wastewaters
Concentratidn in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.035,
and meet §268.48
standards
0.035 ,
0.27
and meet §268.48
standards
0.27
*
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in.
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
7.4
and meet §268.48
standards
7.4
6.0
and meet § 268.48
standards
6.0
Notes to table:
1 The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261. Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory
Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards.
2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical
with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number if given for the parent compound only.
3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l and are based on analysis of composite samples.
"All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42
Table 1—Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.
5 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration
were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart
O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with
these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of
grab samples.
* * * * . " * . *
7 Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or 9012, found in "Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", EPA Publication SW-846, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sam-
ple size of 10 grams and distillation time of one hour and 15 minutes.
[FR Doc. 96-8249 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-P
-------
------- |