EPA* JT
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Pan 268
Land Disposal Restrictions:
Potential Treatment Standards for
Newly Identified and Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris
AGENCY:
(EPA)
Environmental Protection Agency
I
(V
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) and request for comment
and data.
SUMMARY: The Agency today is requesting
data and comments on possible BOAT and
treatment capacity for many wastes that have been
identified and listed as hazardous since the
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) in November. 1984. These
include newly listed wastes generated from the
production of ethylene dibromide (EDB).
ethytenebisdithiocarbamic acid (EBDQ, methyl
bromide, dinitrotpluene, toluenediamine.
unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (LJDMH), ortho-
toluidine (U328). para-toluidine (U353). and 2-
. ethpxyethanol (U359). The Agency, in addition, is
soliciting data and comment on potential
approaches for developing treatment standards for
two newly listed wastes from petroleum refining
(i.e.. F037 and P038), and for contaminated debris.
The Agency also is soliciting comment on possible
modifications to existing land disposal restriction
(LDR) provisions that may simplify the
implementation of the BOAT treatment standards:
potential universal treatment standards for various
categories of wastes; conversion of treatment
standards for various F and K wastes from
standards based on scrubber waters to those based
on conventional wastewater treatment;
modifications to the treatment standards for F001-
F005 solvent wastes; modifications of treatment
standards for lab packs; and potential
concentration-based treatment standards based on
recovery of chromium from various hazardous
wastes. .
The Agency specifically is soliciting comment
and data on the following as they pertain to the
wastes identified si today's notice: state-of-the-art
treatment and recyclinf technologies; waste
characterization; waste minimization (as demon-
strated both hem and abroad); factors affecting
treatment performance that should be considered
by the Agency during sampling/analysis efforts:
on-site and off-site treatment capacity
requirements; and information on the costs for
setup and operation of any current and alternative
treatment technologies for these wastes.
DATES: The comment period on waste
minimization and the issues presented in section
III.A. through 0. of today's notice ends July 29.
1991. Comments on all other aspects of today's
notice must be submitted on or before July 1.
1991.'
ADDRESSES: The public must send an original
and two copies of their comments to EPA RCRA
Docket (O5-305), U.S. Environr.ienUii Protection
Agency, Roo.1. M2427. 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C. '20460. Place the Docket
Number F-91-CDF-FFFFF on your comment.
The EPA RCRA Docket is located at the atove
address, and is open from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm
Monday through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The public must make an appointment
to review docket materials by calling (202) 475-
9327. The public may copy a maximum of 100, \
pages from any regulatory document at no cost
Additional copies cost $.20 per page.
EPA is asking"prospective commenters to
voluntarily submit one additional copy of their
comments on labeled personal computer diskettes
in ASCII (TEXT) format or a word processing
format that can be converted to ASCII (TEXT).
It is essential to specify on the disk label the word
processing software and version/edition as well as
the commenter's name. This will allow EPA to
convert the comments into one of the word
processing formats utilized by the Agency. Please
use mailing envelopes designed to physically
protect the submitted diskettes. EPA emphasizes
that submission of comments on diskettes is not
mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or
disadvantage to any commenter. Rather. EPA is
experimenting with this procedure as an attempt to
expedite our internal review and response to
comments. For further information on the
submission of diskettes, contact the Waste
Treatment Branch at the phone number listed
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline
at (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 920-9810
locally. For technical information on BOAT,
contact the Waste Treatment Branch. Office of
Solid Waste (OS-322-W). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street. S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 308-8434. For
technical information on capacity analyses, contact
the Capacity Branch, Office of Solid waste (OS-
321-W).(703) 308-S440.
o>
S
en
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Background
A. Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
B. Development and Identification of BOAT
II. Requests for General Comments and Data
A. Request for Comment and Data on Pollution Prevention for Newly Identified Wastes
B. General Approach to the Development of BOAT for Newly Identified Wastes
C. General Approach to ihe Analysis of Capacity for Newly Identified Wastes
D. Newly Identified Mixed Radioactive Hazardous Wastes
[II. Potential Modifications to Existing BDAT
A. Potential for Establishing Universal BDAT Standards
B. Conversion of Wastewater Standards Based on Scrubber Waters
C. Potential Revisions to the F001-F005 Spent Solvent Treatment Standards
D. Potential Modifications to Existing Treatment Standards for Lab Packs
E. Recovery as BDAT for Concentrated Metal-bearing Wastes
IV. Potential BDAT for Contaminated Debris
A. Relationship of Today's Notice to EPA's "Contaminated Media Cluster"
B. Applicability of Existing Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards and Superfund 6A and 6B
Guides
C. Development of Potential Regulatory Definitions for Debris
D. Potential Regulatory Structure for Treatment Standards
E. Development of BDAT for Contaminated Debris
F. Analysis of Capacity Data for Debris
V. Potential BDAT for Specific F. K. and U Listed Wastes Promulgated After 1984
A. Additional Organic U Wastes
B. Recent Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037 and F038)
C. Wastes from the Production of UnsymmetricaJ Dimethylhydrazine (K107. K108. K109, and K110)
D. Waste from the Production of Dinitrotoluene and Toluenediamine (Kill and KI12)
E. Wastes from the Production of Ethytene Dibromide (K1I7. K118, and K136)
F. Wastes from the Production of Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (K123, K124. K125, and K126)
G. Wastes from the Production of Methyl Bromide (K131 and KI32)
I. Background
A. Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA), enacted on November 8, 1984, specify
dates when particular groups of hazardous wastes
are prohibited from land disposal unless ". . . it
has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be
no migration of htardous constituents from the
disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the
wastes remain Ni^rnt* (RCRA Section
3004(d)(l). (eXIX (1X5): 42 U.S.C. 6924(dXD.
The amendments also require the Agency to
set "... levels or methods or 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(mXD. 42 U.S.C. 6924(mXD).
Wastes that meet the treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited and may be
land disposed.
The land disposal restrictions (LDRs) are
effective when promulgated unless the
Administrator grants a national capacity variance
from the otherwise applicable date and establishes
a different date (not to exceed two yean beyond
the statutory deadline) based on "... the earliest
date on which adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity which protects
human health and the environment will be
available" (RCRA Section 3004(hX2), 42 U.S.C.
6924(hX2)). The Administrator may also grant a
case-by-case extension of the effective date for up
to one year, renewable once for up to one
additional year, when an applicant successfully
makes certain demonstrations (RCRA Section
3004(hX3). 42 U.S.C. 6924(hX3)). A case-by
-------
In response to these requirements, EPA
promulgated five regulations: Solvents and
Dioxins, November 7. 1986 (51 FR 40572);
California List, July 8. 1987 (52 FR 25760); First
Third. August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138): Second
Thud. June 23. 1989 (54 FR 26594); "and Third
Third. June. 1. 1990 (55 FR 22520). These
rulemakings set treatment standards for all
hazardous wastes that were identified and listed in
40 CFR 261.21. .22. .23. .24. .31. .32. and .33
prior to November. 1984. Land disposal of these
wastes in underground injection wells was
regulated in separate rules for Solvents and
Dioxins. California List, and First Third wastes
(see 53 FR 28188. 53 FR 30908. and 54 FR
25416, respectively).
RCRA further requires the Agency to make
land disposal prohibition determinations for
hazardous wastes that are newly identified or listed
in 40 CFR 261 after November 8. 1984. within
six months of the dale of identification or listing
(RCRA section 3004(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)).
The statute does not. however, provide for an
automatic prohibition (referred to as a "hard
hammer") of land disposal of such wastes if EPA
fails to meet this deadline.
The Third Third rule, promulgated on May 8.
1990. set treatment standards for ~ive newly
identified wastes. Today's notice suggests possible
treatment standards for approximately twenty more
newly listed hazardous wastes, and for
contaminated debris, and requests comments and
data. (Other newly identified and listed hazardous
wastes along with a discussion of potential
standards for contaminated soil will be addressed
in a forthcoming ANPRM in the Federal Register.)
B. Development and Identification of BDAT
A general overview of the Agency's approach
in performing analysis of BDAT for hazardous
wastes can be found in section OIAl. of the
preamble to the final rule for Third Third wastes
(55 FR 22535, June 1. 1990). The framework for
the development of the entire Land Disposal
Restrictions program was promulgated in the
Solvents and Dioxins rule (51 FR 40572
(November 7. 1986)).
The foUawiM slew outline the general
procedures that EPA foOows in the development
of waste code-specific treatment standards:
1) Characterize and divide the wastes to be
regulated into treatabUity groups (by waste code)
based on similarities in physical and chemical
properties of the wastes and constituents.
2) Screen all applicable technologies to identify
potential BDAT for each oeatability group.
3) Screen the treatment data from "demonstrated"
"available" technologies with regard to the design
and operation of the equipment, the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the
performance and operating data, and the accuracy
and precision of the analytical tests used to assess
treatment performance.
4) Statistically evaluate the individual
performance data for each of the various treatment
technologies (where data from more than one
technology are available) to determine the "best"
Where data exist for only one technology, the
Agency uses best engineering judgment to assess
whether that technology represents the best
applicable technology for that particular waste and
whether the data indicate that the treatment system
was well-designed and well-operated.
5) Determine which constituents to regulate such
that the technologies will be well-operated, thus
assuring consistent achievement of best treatment.
6) Develop the waste code-specific treatment
standards accounting for all QA/QC measures.
Treatment standards are expressed either as
maximum constituent-specific concentrations ; \
allowed in the waste (or in an extract of the
treated waste), as a specific technology (or group
of technologies), or as a combination of these.
Although the statute provides discretion to
establish treatment standards as either levels or
methods of treatment. EPA would rather set
concentration-based treatment standards whenever
possible, because they provide the regulated
community with flexibility in choosing treatment
technologies, and encourage the investigation and
development of new and alternative technologies.
(This does not. however, supersede the
prohibitions on dilution to achieve the
concentration-based treatment standard. See. for
example, 55 FR 22656.) In addition, establishing
concentration-based standards provides a means of
ensuring that treatment technologies are
consistently operated at conditions that will result
in the best demonstrated performance.
In section QLA.1. of the Third Third final rule
(55 FR 22535-22542 (June I. 1990)). EPA
discussed several additional issues that are
important in determining compliance with the
treatment standards, including: the applicability of
treatment standards to treatment residues identified
as "derived-from" wastes and to waste mixtures:
impermissible switching of wastewater and
nonwastewater standards (with specific discussions
of issues associated with characteristic wastes);
placing facility-specific monitoring and compliance
requirements in waste analysts plans; and the
relationship of concentration-based standards to
n limits
detection
(PQLs).
and practical quantitation limits
-------
II, Requests for General Comments and Data
In previous notices, the Agency promulgated
listings for certain wastes as hazardous under 40
CFR 261. Although data on waste characteristics
and current management practices have been
gathered as part of the administrative record fen-
each listing rule, the Agency has not completed its
evaluation of the usefulness of these data for
developing specific BOAT treatment standards or
assessing the capacity to treat (or recycle) these
newly listed wastes. As a result, EPA is soliciting
comments on the completeness of the existing
listing data (as found in the administrative record
for the notices for the proposed and final listing
actions for each waste) and is requesting additional
data and information with respect to treatment and
capacity.
In order to expedite EPA's review of all
comments and data submitted in response to this
notice, EPA is requesting that the comments and
data be voluntarily identified by the section
headings and subheadings (or numbers) of today's
notice. For example, comments on the "potential
modifications to existing treatment standards for
lab packs" could be identified by that title or by
"III.D.", its subheading number. EPA recognizes
'that many comments may actually apply to several
headings or subheadings (e.g.. a comment on tab
packs of debris could be identified as a comment
for either IH.D., lab packs, or IV., debris). In this
case, the commenter should select the
identification that they deem most appropriate, or
simply identify the comment as a "general
comment". While EPA does screen all comments
for applicability to all areas discussed in today's
notice, this identification procedure is expected to
significantly expedite EPA's review process,
particularly when coupled with the voluntary
submission of comments on computer diskettes (as
requested in the ADDRESSES section of today's
notice).
A. Request for Comment and Data on Pollution
Prevention for Newly Identified Wastes
EPA has made substantial progress over the
years in improving environmental quality through
its media-specific pollution control programs.
Standard industrial pactice for pollution control
has concentrated Mfdy on "end-of-pipe" treatment
or land disposal of Hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes. HSWA eaabHthrd. however, a national
policy of reducmf or eliminating wastes as
expeditiously as possible (RCRA Section I003(b)).
EPA also realizes that programs emphasizing
management of pollutants after they have been
generated have limitations. EPA believes that
reducing or eliminating discharges and/or
emissions to the environment through the
implementation of cost-effective source reduction
and environmentally sound recycling practices can
produce additional environmental benefits. Nfany
businesses are already incorporating pollution
prevention programs into their strategic planning.
Such programs may decrease the volume and/or
toxiciry of wastes by altering production to
incorporate source reduction or recycling.
Under Sections 3002(b) and 3005(h) of
HSWA. hazardous waste generators are required to
certify that they have a program in place to reduce
the volume or quantity and toxiciry of hazardous
waste to the degree determined by the generator to
be economically practicable. EPA encourages
generators to pursue source reduction and
environmentally sound recycling wherever possible
to reduce the need for the costs of subsequent
treatment, storage, and disposal. Waste
minimization planning programs have been
suggested by EPA and mandated by some States.
To aid the reguiaied community, EPA has
produced documents such as Draft Guidance to
Hazardous Waste Generators on the Elementsof a
waste Minimizaaftn Program: Notice and Request'
for Comment (54
The
Commen
EPA M
(June 12. 1989)) and
A Manual for Waste Minimization
Opporturutv Assessments (EPA 600/2-88/023. April
1988). Several States "also have enacted waste \ \
minimisation legislation (e.g., Massachusetts
Toxics x Reduction Act of 1989: Oregon Toxics
Use Reduction and Hazardous Waste Reduction
Act, House Bill 3515. July 2. 1989). Additional
States have legislation pending that will mandate
some type of pollution prevention program and/or
facility planning, and many others offer technical
assistance to companies that seek alternatives to
treatment, storage, and disposal of waste.
Successful reduction in waste generation often
does not require complex and/or expensive process
changes. There are many relatively simple and
easily implemented engineering solutions that will
achieve this goal Evaluation of adherence to
existing process control measures, along with
slight modifications of these measures, can often
result in significant volume reduction. These
evaluations also may point out the need for more
complex engineering evaluations (e.g.. mixing
effectiveness, process temperatures and pressures.
and reagent grade selection). Simple physical
audits of current waste generation and in-plant
management practices for the wastes can also yield
positive results. These audits often turn up
simple, easily implemented practices that do not
involve complicated engineering analyses. They
may point out, for example, me need for the
repair and/or replacement of leaking pipes, valves.
and simple equipment. In addition, they may
identify the need to modify inspection and/or
maintenance schedules.
-------
Waste minimization opportunities for the
manufacturing processes generating the- wastes
identified in today's notice may result in
significant reductions in waste generation and.
thus, considerable cost savings for industry. The
Agency is interested in comments and data on
such opportunities, including both successful and
• unsuccessful attempts to reduce waste generation.
volume, or toxicity. It is also possible that, owing
to previous implementation of waste minimization
procedures, some facilities or specific processes
nave little potential for decreases in waste
generation rates or toxicity.
For the wastes identified in today's notice, the
Agency is particularly interested in such specific
information as: data on the quantities of wastes
that have been or could be reduced; a way to
calculate achievable percentage reductions
(accounting for changes in production rates):
potential reduction in toxicity of the wastes; the
results of waste audits: and potential cost savings
that can be (or have been) achieved.
EPA is currently investigating new approaches
that would incorporate waste minimization
techniques into the BOAT process. BOAT
standards could potentially be developed that
.somehow use source reduction and recycling
technologies as the methods for controlling
hazardous constituents in the waste. One approach
could involve the use of alternative mass-balance
limitations for some constituents as they remain in
the treatment residuals after application of best
available source reduction and/or recycling
techniques. For example, the concentration of
heavy metals and total cyanides in electroplating
wastewater treatment sludges (e.g., F006 wastes)
have been demonstrated to be reducible through
the use of various source reduction and recycling
techniques implemented in the manufacturing
process prior to treatment. Thus, implementation
of waste minimization practices prior to generation
and subsequent stabilization of the wastewater
treatment sludges would significantly reduce not
only the tool mass of f**""*"^ constituents, but
also the total volume of wastes destined for land
disposal units. Such a result would accord well
wiui the mandate of section 3004(m) to
promulgate standards that reduce waste toxicity or
mobility in a war ibM 'minimizes" threats to
human health m Ite environment. (Data
currently available indicate that stabilization can
often result in ft f%^«^"«* increase in total waste
volume when coapfymf with current BDAT
treatment standards.) In addition, there may be
situations where specifying the use of a treatment
or recovery technology might provide more
effective protection than relying on concentration-
based or mass-based treatment standards.
All of this is not to say that the Agency will
require waste minimization as BOAT, especially
by identifying a specific technology that must be
used. While the Agency believes that waste
minimization is important, we also believe that
there should be flexibility in the program in order
to encourage innovation so as to find new and
better methods to control hazardous wastes. Thus.
the Agency welcomes comments on whether, and
if so. how waste minimization could be factored
into the development of BDAT.
B. General Approach to the Development of
BDAT for Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
While the Agency has established a waste
management hierarchy that favors source reduction.
recycling, and recovery over conventional
treatment, it is inevitable that some wastes will be
generated. (See EPA's Pollution Prevention
Strategy, January. 1991.) Thus, standards based
on treatment using BDAT will need to be
developed for these.wastes. The. Agency
recognizes that there may be some special
situations where the generation of a particular
waste can be totajly eliminated, but this is unlikely
for most wastes.
The Agency intends to develop BDAT
treatment standards for newly identified and listed',
wastes based on the transfer of performance daa^
from the treatment of wastes with similar chemical
and physical characteristics or similar
concentrations of hazardous constituents. It also is
likely that the treatment standards for these wastes
will be established for both wastewater and
nonwastewater forms and on a constituent-specific
basis. These constituents are not necessarily
limited to those identified as present in the wastes
in today's notice.
The technologies forming the basis of the
treatment standards, in general, are determined by
whether the wastes contain organics and/or metals.
For wastes containing primarily organics, the
Agency has found that incineration and other
thermal destruction techniques can destroy most
organics to concentrations at or near the limit of
detection as measured in the ash residues. Many
people are concerned about environmental impacts
of incinerating hazardous wastes, however, and
prefer that alternative treatment technologies be
used for wastes that must be treated. White the
Agency believes that incineration and other
thermal destruction technologies achieve a level of
relatively complete destruction of organics, EPA
typically establishes concentration-based standards
based on these data rather than requiring the
wastes to be incinerated. Thus, any alternative
technologies that can achieve these levels may be
used, unless otherwise restricted, u feet, where
alternative destruction or removal technologies
cannot achieve these levels, but achieve reasonably
comparable results, the Agency may promulgate
adjusted treatment standards achievable by both
-------
incineration and these technologies (e.g.. the
promulgated treatment standards for petroleum
refinery wastes (K048-K052) are achievable by
critical fluid extraction, thermal desorption. or
incineration).
Since metals are never destroyed, any wastes
containing metals must be directly reused.
extracted for recovery, chemically stabilized, or
generated such that the metals are in a chemical
state where the metals are substantially immobile
or otherwise rendered less toxic. Wastes
containing both organics and metals are usually
first subject to some destruction technology, and
since metals typically concentrate in the ash and/or
scrubber water sludges, these additional residues
may have to be chemically stabilized.
Wherever feasible, the Agency is considering
transferring BDAT treatment standards for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms of the newly
identified and listed wastes from the list of
treatment standards in F039, the listing for multi-
source leachate, promulgated in the Third Third
final rule (see 40 CFR 268.41 and 43 for
standards applicable to F039 wastes). These
treatment standards were developed not only for
. F039 but also for the corresponding U and P
wastes and for many of the F and X wastes. The
standards were based on the use of several
treatment technologies performed on a wide
variety of waste matrices, thus ensuring that the
treatment standards are achievable for a wide
variety of wastes. The standards for the
nonwastewater forms of F039 are known to be
achievable by thermal destruction techniques, such
as incineration, or burning in boilers or industrial
furnaces, while those for the F039 wastewaters are
achievable by multiple wastewater treatment
technologies. If a newly identified or listed waste
or a new waste contains chemicals that are not
currently regulated in F039 wastes, EPA will
develop treatment standards for these constituents
and may then propose to add them to the
treatment standards for F039. (The Final BDAT
Background Document for U and P Wastes/Muld-
source Leachate is availablei from rffla (National
Technical Information Service); 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. (703) 487-
4600. The NITS numbers for the mree-volume
set are PB90-234337, PB90-234345. and PB90-
234352.)
A similar staatioa may apply to lab packs
intended for land disposal In toe Third Third
final rule. EPA promulgated regulations allowing
generators to dispose of small quantities of U and
P wastes (commercial chemical products) in either
"organometallic" or "Appendix IV" lab packs, or
in "organic" or "Appendix V" lab packs.
depending on the particular material being
disposed. If a waste that is newly identified or
listed is not already included in either Appendix
IV or V, EPA anticipates proposing to add the
new waste code to the appropriate appendix.
In order to determine whether existing
treatment standards such as those established for
F039 can be transferred, the Agency is soliciting
the following data and information on these newly
identified and listed wastes: technical descriptions
of the treatment systems that are currently used
for these wastes: descriptions of alternative
technologies that might be currently available or
anticipated as applicable: performance data for the
treatment of these wastes (in particular, constituent
concentrations in both treated and untreated
wastes, as well as information on the equipment
design and optimum operating conditions);
information on known or perceived difficulties in
analyzing treatment residues or specific
constituents: quality assurance/control information
for all data submissions; and information on the
costs for setup and operation of any current and
alternative treatment technologies for these wastes.
C. General Approach to the Analysts of Capacity
for Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
1. Data Availability
\v
In determining whether to make land disposal
prohibitions for a given waste immediately
effective. EPA must evaluate the availability of
capacity to treat that waste. The Agency performs
capacity analyses to determine the amount of
alternative treatment or recovery capacity available
to accommodate the volumes of waste that will be
affected by the land disposal prohibition. If
adequate capacity exists, the waste is restricted
from further land disposal. If adequate capacity
does not exist, EPA may grant a national capacity
variance for the waste for up to two years, or
until adequate alternative treatment capacity
becomes available, whichever is sooner. To
perform the necessary capacity analyses, the
Agency needs reliable data on current waste
generation, waste management practices, available
alternative treatment capacity, and planned
treatment capacity.
For previous land disposal restriction rales, the
Agency performed capacity analyses using data
from national surveys, including the 1981 Mail
Survey, the 1986 National Screening Survey, the
1987 National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment. Storage. Disposal, and Recycling
Facilities (the TSDR Survey), and the 1987
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
(the Generator Survey). The Agency conducted
the TSDR Survey to obtain comprehensive data on
the nation's capacity for managing hazardous
waste and on me volumes of hazardous waste
being land disposed. The Generator Survey
includes data on waste generation, waste
characterization, and hazardous waste treatment
-------
capacity in units exempt from RCRA permitting:
Data from the TSDR and Generator Surveys were
used in capacity analyses for the First Third,
Second Third and Third Third LOR rules.
Although the TSDR and Generator Surveys
were conducted in 1987. data from these surveys
reflect 1986 waste generation and waste
management practices. These surveys cannot be
used to determine the volumes of newly listed and
identified waste requiring treatment, since the
majority of these wastes were not listed as
hazardous until after 1986 and. therefore, were not
included in the surveys. In addition, these surveys
may not contain adequate information on currently
available capacity to treat newly listed and
identified wastes because the data reflect 1986
capacity and do not include facility expansions or
closures that have occurred since then. Although
adjustments have been-made-to these data to
account for changes in waste management through
199&. thit was not done on a consistent basis
across ail waste management practices. For these
reasons, the Agency requests data on currently
available treatment capacity to determine whether
adequate capacity exists to treat newly listed and
identified wastes.
EPA has compiled data from available sources
including proposed and final listing rules,
regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), background
information documents (BIDs), the National
Survey of Solid Waste from Mineral Processing
Facilities, and the Petroleum Refining Data Base.
Even with these sources, however, gaps in the
capacity-related data for newly listed and identified
wastes remain. Much of the data are several
years old and may not reflect current waste
generation and management practices. In
particular, data from Ac proposed and final listing
rules are often incomplete, and. in some cases, no
data on waste generation or management are
included, since these rules focus on the
characteristics that render a waste hazardous,
rather than on waste generation and management
The RIAs and BIDs frequently use estimated data
based on assumptions rather than on data collected
directly from generators. The National Survey of
Solid waste from Mineral Processing Facilities
does contain data for some of the mineral
processing wastes; however, not all mineral
processing wastes were included in the survey.
The Petroleum Refining Data Base reflects 1983
data and decs not include all petroleum refineries.
For these reasons, EPA requests additional data on
the waste generation and management of newly
listed and identified wastes to perform capacity
analyses for these wastes.
2. Waste Management Practices
To perform capacity analyses, the Agency
needs to determine the volumes of hazardous
waste that will require treatment prior to land
disposal. The volumes of waste requiring
treatment depend, in turn, on the waste
management practices employed by the hazardous
waste generators. Hazardous waste that is
currently treated to LDR standards on-site does not
require additional commercial treatment capacity.
Hazardous waste generators may also manage their
waste using practices exempt from RCRA
regulations. For example, hazardous wastes
discharged to POTWs or navigable waters without
any intervening land disposal are not subject to the
LDR treatment standards (i.e.. they are restricted
and not prohibited, and therefore subject only to
recordkeeping requirements. See, e.g., 55 FR
22662.) Some generators may manage their waste
entirely in RCRA-exempt tanks and thus likewise
may not be affected by the treatment standards:
others may recycle their waste immediately after
generation and not land dispose it.
Other waste management practices can also
affect capacity analyses. Generators may co-
manage nazardous'waste with nonhazardous waste
or may dewater hazardous waste, thus changing
the volume of waste requiring treatment. Newly
listed and identified wastes mixed with regulated
hazardous waste may currently undergo treatment\ \
and. thus, have been accounted for in the capacity
analyses for past rukmakings. Additionally, the
hazardous waste treatment technologies may
generate additional wastes in the form of residuals
that also will be subject to the LDRs.
As stated above, some generators already treat
their hazardous waste on-site. Other generators
may decide to construct on-site treatment capacity.
if it is economically feasible. Since capacity
analyses determine the availability of commercial
treatment, wastes that are treated on-site are not
included in the estimate of the volumes requiring
commercial alternative treatment capacity.
Nevertheless, the Agency must still obtain
information on the volumes of waste that are or
will be treated on-site. However, to (he extent
that residuals from the treatment of hazardous
waste are generated, the Agency also needs to
account for these residuals in its capacity analysis.
EPA requests information on the volumes of waste
that are or will be treated on-site or at captive
facilities, the residuals generated from treatment.
as well as any planned changes in on-site capacity.
Much of the data on waste management
practices for newly listed and identified wastes
were collected prior to the listing of those wastes.
The added costs of managing a regulated
hazardous waste may have induced generators to
minimize or recycle their waste or otherwise alter
their management practices. Any change in
management practices will affect the volumes of
waste requiring commercial treatment capacity.
-------
As can be seen from the above discussion, to
perform capacity analyses, EPA requests .
information on current and future waste
management practices for newly listed and
identified wastes, including the volumes of waste
that are recycled, mixed with or co-managed with
other waste, discharged under Clean Water Act
provisions, injected underground via a regulated
unit, and the volumes and types of residuals that
are generated by the various management practices
applicable to newly listed and identified wastes
(e.g.. treatment residuals).
3. Availability of Treatment
The availability of adequate commercial
treatment capacity for wastes not otherwise treated
determines whether or not a waste is granted a
national capacity variance. The commercial
hazardous waste management industry is extremely
dynamic. National commercial treatment capacity
changes as new facilities come on-line, as new
units and new technologies are added at existing
facilities, and as facilities expand existing units.
The available capacity at commercial facilities also
changes as facilities change their commercial
status (e.g.. changing from a fully commercial to a
limited commercial or captive facility). In
addition, the amount of utilized treatment capacity
changes as variances granted for previous LDR
rules expire and as economic and regulatory
conditions change the baseline demand for various
treatment technologies. To determine the
availability of capacity for treating newly listed
and identified wastes, the Agency needs to
consider currently available capacity, as well as
the timing of any future changes in available
capacity.
Commercial combustion capacity for sludges
and solids is an important and extremely dynamic
component of the nation's hazardous waste
management system. Previous LDR roles have
substantially increased demand for this technology.
Historically, there has been a shortage of capacity
for this treatment; however, the increased demand
for sludge/solid combustion has encouraged this
sector to expand, EPA requests current data on
the availability of sludge/solid combustion capacity
as well as any planned expansions at combustion
facilities in order to determine whether adequate
capacity will be milabfe for those newly listed
and identified WHIM that may require sludge/solid
combustion.
Waste characteristics such as pH level, BTUs,
antonic character, and physical form may also
limit the availability of certain treatment
technologies. For these reasons, the Agency
requests data and comments on waste
characteristics that might limit or preclude the use
of any treatment technologies.
EPA requests data from facilities capable of
treating hazardous wastes on their current
treatment capacity and information on any plans
they may have in the future to expand or reduce
existing capacity. The Agency also is requesting
comments from companies that may be
considering developing new hazardous waste
treatment capacity. Specifically. EPA requests
information on the determining factors involved in
making decisions to build new treatment capacity.
4. EPA's Current Plans Concerning Capacity
In cases where important information for
conducting capacity analysis for newly listed and
identified wastes is not currently available, EPA
may conduct additional data collection efforts to
obtain the necessary data. The Agency could
target the facilities 'generating large volumes of
newly listed or identified wastes to obtain
additional capacity-related data. The Agency may
also collect additional information from the
hazardous waste management industry on currently
available treatment capacity.
The Agency is using this notice to present
available data on newly listed and identified
wastes. Whenever possible, the sources of the >\
data are indicated. In this notice, EPA also
presents key issues and preliminary assessments of
capacity for newly listed and identified wastes. In
addition, this notice presents a wide variety of
potential approaches and assumptions the Agency
could evaluate to develop capacity assessments tor
newly listed and identified wastes. EPA is
requesting specific data and comments on currently
available data and the possible approaches to
capacity analyses from generators of newly listed
and identified wastes. The data submitted to the
Agency will be used in the LDR capacity analyses
for newly listed and identified wastes and to
corroborate case-by-case variance determinations.
as well as for other types of analyses (e.g..
economic and cost impact analyses, regulatory
impact analyses, market studies).
As noted, capacity information is important for
many decisions and policies. To ensure the
quality of this information, EPA must collect and
validate the relevant data, and otherwise develop
the pertinent data base, prior to analysis. This
often is an iterative process which can be lengthy.
EPA stresses that all knowledgeable parties should
provide us with their data, comments and concerns
as early as possible for the wastes and issues
by this notice.
-------
D. Newly Identified Mixed Radioactive
Hazardous Wastes
Radioactive mixed wastes (RMW) axe unique
hazardous wastes because of dual regulation by the
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) for the radioactive
components and by RCRA for the hazardous waste
components. The hazardous waste components of
RMW must meet all applicable treatment standards
for each waste code prior to its disposal, unless
the wastes are managed in land disposal units that
have been granted a no-migration petition.
Treating RMW presents, however, a major
difficulty: achieving the treatment standards for
hazardous wastes while at the same time ensuring
that the AEA safety and handling requirements for
radioactive materials are met In some instances,
this may be resolved by establishing specific
treatment standards for specific types of RMW. as
tii'. Agc.,i,y did in the Third Thiid rule (see 40
CI-K 268.42. T?bl? 3), cr by establishing site-
variances for the waste.
RMv*,' consists of hazardous waste mixed with
high-level radioactive wastes, transuranic (TRU)
wastes, or low-level radioactive wastes. High-
level radioactive wastes are spent fuel from
commercial nuclear reactors or wastes from the
production of atomic weapons. TRU wastes
. contain elements with atomic numbers greater than
92 (the atomic number for uranium) and pose
greater radioactive hazards than the low-level
wastes because they contain long-lived alpha -
radiation emitters. Low-level radioactive wastes
include radioactive wastes that are not classified as
high-level or TRU wastes.
AJ1 treatment standards that have been
promulgated to date for RMW were in the Third
Third final rule. Except for four specific types of
RMW that have unique BOAT treatment standards.
all promulgated treatment standards for RCRA
listed and characteristic wastes also apply to the
corresponding RMW. The Agency specifically is
requesting comment on difficulties the regulated
community has encountered with the treatment
standards for RMW. EPA particularly is
interested in resolving these issues on a more
generic basis rather than relying solely on the use
of the variance process.
While the Afonqr does not specifically expect
that many of toe s*wly listed F and K wastes
listed in today's rate an generated as RMW, the
Agency does andctpun that many radioactive
wastes will now qualify as hazardous wastes (Le.,
RMW) due to the recent toxitity characteristic
(TC) rule. In addition, the development of new
treatment standards for contaminated debris are
expected to be applicable to some RMW. The
Agency, therefore, is requestuigcomment and data
about specific RMW that are TC wastes and are
considered debris. (Since the TC wastes and
contaminated soil will be covered in a forthcoming
ANPRM. the 30-day comment period provided in
this notice only applies to debris and those
specific F. K, and U wastes listed in today's
notice.) In addition. EPA requests information and
suggestions on special decontamination procedures
that have been developed (or may be required)
specifically for the removal of the radioactive
components of contaminated debris. (These may
affect the selection of appropriate management
practices for these wastes.) EPA. therefore, is
requesting that readers carefully review today's
notice in its entirety for its potential applicability
to RMW with respect to generation, treatment, and
capacity for all wastes discussed in today's notice.
III. Potential Modifications to Existing BDAT
Section 2002(b) of RCRA authorizes the
Administrator to'revise, not less frequently than
every three years, each regulation promulgated
under HSWA. Section 3004
-------
appropriately comingkd prior to treatment. The
development of universal sets of standards would
not be intended to modify current restrictions on
the comingling of incompatible wastes.
impermissible switching of treatability groups, or
impermissible dilution and the Agency is not
reopening these issues during consideration of
whether to pursue universal treatment standards.
EPA solicits comment on the advantages and
disadvantages to the establishment of universal
treatment standards for organics. Among the
potential advantages are that they would provide
the regulated community with concentration goals
on a constituent-by-constituent basis for which the
facility can develop alternative treatment
technologies and to direct waste minimization
investigations. Universal standards would also
provide EPA with a mechanism to streamline the
development of BOAT treatment standards for
future listing of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261. New listings could be assumed to be
treatable to the levels found in the universal set of
standards. Facilities could then rebut these
assumptions during the rulemaking for the listing
of the wastes. This could also provide a
mechanism for the Agency to comply with the
statutory mandate to develop BOAT within six
months of the final listing.
The majority of the existing waste-code
specific nonwastewater standards for organics have
been established based on data from some form of
thermal destruction, typically incineration. This is
primarily due to the ability of these thermal
devices to destroy organics to levels at or near the
detection limit (as measured in the ash). In fact.
incineration has been determined to be BOAT for
most of the wastes containing organics. The
majority of the existing treatment standards for
organic constituents in wastewaters have been
based on a variety of conventional wastewater
treatment technologies. (See also section FILB. of
today's notice for a discussion of concentration-
based standards for wastewaters and scrubber
waters.)
In determining whether to pursue universal
treatment standards, the Agency would consider
whether to transfer the numerical levels for these
universal organic standards from those established
for wastewater mA acawastewater forms of F039
multi-source leackaflB. These standards were
established based 0* Ibe premise that they might
be used for untvenal standards. They include
over 200 constituent-specific standards which
account for all of the organics that can be
analyzed consistently in treatment residuals and
that are regulated in all of the other waste codes.
(See also the discussions in subsequent sections of
today's notice concerning potential adjustments to
F001-FOOS solvents standards.)
2. Potential Establishment of Technology-Based
Standards as Alternatives for Many Wastes
Containing Hazardous Organics
EPA is contemplating whether to propose a
modified technology-specific treatment standard of
incineration (currently coded as INCIN in 40 CFR
268.42. Table 1) as an alternative treatment
standard for most organic-bearing nonwastewaters
currently required to comply with the constituent-
specific treatment standards listed under 40 CFR
268.43. EPA is considering whether to modify
the INCIN standard to require that the incineration
unit be operated in compliance with the updated
technical operating requirements that were recently
promulgated in the FinalRule for Burning of
Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and industrial
Furnaces. (55 FR 7134). February Zi. 1991. EPA
is particularly interested in the possibility of
adding to INCIN requirements tor monitoring
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons along with
metals. These requirements would only apply to
those units where INCIN would b: applied as an
alternative standard,
As another alternative standard. EPA could
propose a modified technology-specific treatment
standard of fuel substitution currently coded as ,.
FSUBS in 40 CFR 268.42. Table 1) as a method^
of treatment. This would be limited to those
organic wastes for which the constituents of
concern contain only carbon, oxygen, and
hydrogen in their elemental structure. This is
based primarily on the lack of air pollution control
devices on fuel substitution units that would
remove air emissions expected from the
combustion of organic constituents with other
elements present (such as bromine, fluorine,
phosphorus, sulfur, nitrogen and/or metals). The
potential establishment of limitations on the
concentrations of these other elements is, however,
being considered as part of the modifications to
the alternative FSUBS standard.
None of the standards mentioned above would
be intended to replace the existing concentration-
based standards. They would only act as -
alternatives. That is. if the facility complied with
the modified INCIN or FSUBS standards, the
current concentration-based standards (as measured
in the ash) would no longer be applicable for
these wastes. The concentration-based standards,
however, would still apply to residuals treated by
methods other than incineration or fuel
substitution.
EPA, however, is soliciting comment on
whether both of these possible alternative
standards should include a requirement for the
analysis of a significantly reduced number of
constituent-specific treatment standards, that could
serve as surrogates for confirming proper operation
of the incineration or fuel substitution unit.
10
-------
The existing concentration-based standards
were developed as a means of ensuring that the
incineration or fuel substitution unit was operated
properly for the constituents of concern in each
waste on a waste code-basis. The concentrarion-
based standards were also established because they
provide a greater amount of flexibility in use of
alternative technologies compared to technology-
specific standards. The existing technology-
specific standards of INCIN and FSUBS were
intended to accomplish this same goal, but were
only established for waste codes where
concentration-based standards were not possible.
Comments received during the development of
the LDR regulations suggest that some of the
BOAT concentration-based standards may be too
low to be verified by existing analytical equipment
(as indicated by cetain commercial facilities).
EPA addressed these issues in th* Third Third
final rule and is not reopening these issues for
comment. EPA. howevjr. is currently
investigating whethei these perceptions are causing
wastes to go untreated (i.e., commercial facilities
refusing to accept certain wastes for treatment
because they cannot detect the residuals at or
below the treatment standard). If so. the Agency
may propose revisions to the existing BOAT
• treatment standards on a waste code-basis in order
to ensure that these wastes are treated. In general.
waste generation and management data on the
majority of these wastes appear to indicate that
this is not the situation.
These modified technology-based standards
could potentially lead to a generic procedure for
delisting of ash residues from incineration or fuel
substitution units. This generic delisting procedure
for ash from hazardous waste incineration must,
however, address concerns about the potential
presence, in the ash. of teachable toxic metals and
toxic organic products formed during the
incineration of halogenated organks. One
approach to addressing these concerns that could.
at the same time, simplify recordkeeping,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement, is for the
Agency to develop new waste codes for ash. based
on the analysis of hazardous constituents in ash
prior to stabilization, or possibly based on the type
of waste incinerated (e.g.. halogenated or
nonhalogenated).
3. Concentration-Based Standards for Types of
Metal Wastes
The Agency also is considering options for
establishing one or more universal sets of TCLP
metals standards based on general types of metal*
bearing wastes (e.g., metal hydroxide sludges,
metal sulfide sludges, slags, ash. and brine
salts/sludges) rather than on a waste code basis.
The basic physical-chemical composition of the
waste (as given by the above examples) is a key
factor in determining the level of achievability of
treatment. This could potentially allow the
establishment of standards (with some potentially
below the characteristic levels) that are based on
what treatment can consistently achieve for that
waste subcategory. All other metal-bearing wastes
that would not fit into these metal subcategories
would have to be treated to the corresponding
existing standards on a waste code-specific basis.
As an example, one set of metal standards
could be established for the stabilization of
wastewater treatment sludges that consisted of
primarily metal hydroxides prior to stabilization •-
even though facilities could have identified these
sludges as combinations of D004 through DOll.
F006, or derived-front F. K. U, or P wastes.
Since one metal may be regulated at different
levels depending on the waste code, and since not
all metals are regulated for each waste code, a
universal set of applicable metal standards could
ease the difficulty of sorting out the appropriate
treatment standards.
*
At the same time, there may be certain metals
(such as arsenic, mercury, and/or chromium) or
waste types (such as brine sludges, glassified
slags, refractory bricks, or scrap metal materials)\\
that cannot achieve the levels of treatment
achievable in metal hydroxide sludges and.
therefore, may need higher treatment standards.
This was one of the main reasons EPA could not
establish treatment standards for D004 through
D011 wastes below the corresponding
characteristic levels (i.e.. while data indicated that
the majority of metal-bearing wastes apparently
could be treated to below the characteristic metal
levels, there was always at least one waste type
per metal that couldn't reach the lower levels that
the other data seemed to suggest were achievable).
The Agency, thus, is soliciting treatment data and
comment on specific subcategories of metal-
bearing wastes and treatment standards that could
be developed for these subcategories.
Establishment of some sets of treatment
standards could potentially lead to the
establishment of a simplified generic delisting
procedure for certain types of metal-bearing
wastes, such as incinerator ash, residues from high
temperature metals recovery, and possibly certain
stabilized waste types. These standards would
probably place certain restrictions on types (or
levels) of metals and/or waste types that could be
co-treated These standards may also require
analysis for all metals and would have to require
analysis for otter constituents that might
reasonably be expected per metal type. In doing
so, the likelihood of sham treatment through
improper co-mingling of waste types or
constituents could be reduced. See also the
discussion of generic delisting fix nonwastewater
11
-------
residuals from HTMR processes in section III.E.3.
of today's notice.
4. Potential Regulatory Mechanisms (9 Encourage
Development of Alternative Technologies
The Agency is soliciting information and daa
on the achievability of the existing incineration-
based treatment standards utilizing other
technologies. In particular, the Agency is
interested in biological treatment data for wastes
on a waste code-basis.
It is important to emphasize that a universal
set of BOAT treatment standards for organics
could encourage (but not force) the development
of alternative technologies, in that the goals of
treatment would be very clear. A further
mechanism could be established to encourage
alternative technology development by allowing
compliance with the concentration-based standards
using destructive technologies (chemical.
biological, or thermal) that can achieve non-detect
levels reasonably close to these "universal"
standards. The Agency is soliciting comment and
data that could be used to establish a BOAT
regulatory procedure that would thus encourage the
development of alternative treatment technologies.
B. Conversion of Wastewater Standards Based on
Scrubber Water
On November 22, 1989 (54 FR 48372). EPA
proposed as pan of the Third Third rule
concentration-based treatment standards for
numerous listed wastes based on the performance
of incineration. For the wastewaters, the treatment
standards were based on the concentration of the
constituents of concern in incineration scrubber
waters. In the final rule (55 FR 22520). however.
EPA altered its approach to setting these standards
and promulgated BOAT treatment standards for
wasKwaters based on actual wastewater treatment
data for the constituents of concern. This change
was adopted for a number of reasons.
First it was stated in the final rule for the
Second Third wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated
in the final rule for Third Third wastes (55 FR
22577) that when the Agency had appropriate
wastewater treatment data from well-designed and
well-operated wejfcwater treatment units, it
preferred to use toes data rather than scrubber
water data to develop wastewater treatment
standards. This is because incineration is not a
normal treatment method for wastewaters. In
addition, alternative standards were proposed in the
Third Third notice for multi-source leachate (F039)
wastewaters based on a transfer of performance
data from various sources, including*: the Office
of Water's Industrial Technology Division (TTD)
and National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) data (specifically from the
Organic Chemicals. Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) database): the Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory (HWERL)
database (HWERL is the former name of EPA's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory); the
Office of Solid Waste's BOAT data (from
previous land disposal restriction rules); and
additional wastewater treatment data from articles
on wet air oxidation (WAO) and powdered
activated carbon treatment (PACT).
Second, commenters on the proposed Third
Third rule had urged the Agency to develop
treatment standards for wastewater forms based on
residues from wastewater treatment technologies
rather than incineration scrubber waters.
Commenters on previous rules had also stated that
they fell EPA had performance data from
technologies treating wastewaters containing the
same or sirr,::ar constituents that EPA could use to
develop BOAT treatment standards. Commenters
emphasized that these performance data
represented the treatment of organic-containing
wastewaters better" than incineration scrubber
waters alone. Finally, commenters on the
proposed rules for the First Third Second Third.
and Third Third wastes almost unanimously
supported the option of promulgating wastewater \\
treatment standards based on the performance of
specific wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber water constituent levels.
The Agency reviewed all of the
aforementioned data during the Third Third
comment period to determine whether it could be
considered BOAT. In reviewing these data, the
Agency considered influent concentrations of the
treated constituent, whether the treated stream was
representative of that U, Pi F. or K wastewater.
and how achievable 'he detection limit was in
similar or other mz ~:es based on other data
received. Upon co- elusion of these analyses, the
Agency revised the proposed wastewater standards
for most of the Third third F. K, U and P wastes
based on the data received prior to proposal:
constituent-specific concentration-based standards
as found in P039 wastewaters. Detailed
information on the development of the wastewater
treatment standards can be found in the
amendment to the background document titled
"Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) Background Document for U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates (F039)."
Volume A: Wastewater Forms of Organic U and
P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates (F039) for
Which There Are Concentration-Based Treaunent
Standards.* (This document can be found in the
RCRA docket for the Third Third final rule.)
As part of the First Third and Second Third
rules, EPA promulgated treatment standards for
wastewater forms of 24 K and U wastes (i.e..
K015. K016, K018, K019. K020. K023. KQ24,
12
-------
K028. K030. K043, K048. KQ49. K050. K051.
K052. K087. K093, K094. U028. U069. U088.
U102. U107 and U190). These wastewater
treatment standard! were based on data from
incineration scrubber waters. The Agency is
presently analyzing these data to determine
whether EPA should modify the concentration-
based treatment standards for these wastewaters.
The wastes affected by this change come primarily
from three general treatability groups: chlorinated
organics. petroleum wastes, and phthalate wastes.
The Agency is today providing an opportunity to
comment on this possible change, and to submit
data.
C. Potential Revisions to the F001-F005 Spent
Solvent Treatment Standards
The Agency is investigating the benefits of
revisions to the treatment standard: fa orraiirc
constituents in both the nonwastewar^ ant-
wastewater forms of FOOl-FOOS wastes. The
Agency is soliciting comments on possible ways to
change the standards as well as any treatment data
that may be available to assist in further
refinement of the treatment standards. The
.existing standards, currently listed in 40 CFR
268.41. include concentrations for 25 solvent
constituents.
1. Nonwastewater Standards Based on Total
versus TCLP Analysis
The Agency is looking at the issue of
conversion of nonwastewater treatment standards
for organic constituents in F001-F005 spent
solvents from the existing TCLP standards to
standards based on analysis of total concentrations.
The existing treatment standards for nonwastewater
forms of F039 (multi-source leachaie) would be
potential candidates for transfer. Any new POOI-
F005 standards, however, would not modify the
standards for the four solvents that were added to
the solvents listings since 1984: benzene, 2-
ethoxyethanol. and 2-nitropropane to POOS, and
1.12-trichloroetnane to F002. Treatment standards
for these solvent constituents were promulgated in
the Third Third rule and, for the most part, are
already based oa analysis for total concentrations
rather than TCLP.
The Agency also is considering establishing
the treatment standards based on toe analysts of
total constituent concentrations as an option for
compliance wid> the existing P001-F003 leachaie
standards. Thus, in the course of treating mixtures
of other hazardous wastes and FOOl-FOOS solvents,
the facility could be considered to be in
compliance with the TCLP treatment standards for
FOOl-FOOS by demonstrating compliance with the
F001-F005 total numbers. This would be
consistent with the concept of universal standards
as discussed previously in section nLA. of today's
notice; and could reduce unnecessary and extra
laboratory analysis (i.e.. using both TCLP leachate
analysis and total analysis for the same
constituents).
2. Consistency with Universal Wastewater
Standards
In order to be consistent with the concept of
universal wastewater treatment standards discussed
earlier in section III.A. and B.. EPA would also
consider whether to convert the existing standards
for wastewater forms of FOOl-FOOS to those
established for F039 wastewaters. This would
result in increases in the concentrations for
approximately half of the FOOl-FOOS constituent-
specific standards. The majority of these
compounds are low-ioxicity, water-soluble
compounds for which detection limits have been
purportedly difficult to achieve at the existing
standards (e.g.. ethyl ether, ethyl benzene, acetone.
and n-butanol). Some of the increases are
relatively tnsignifKant (e.g.. ethyl benzene may
increase from SO ppb to 57 ppb). For
approximately halt of the FOOl-FOOS constituents,
the standards would be lowered. These •-.
compounds are typically the more toxic of the 25
solvent constituents and tend to be hatogenated.
3. Revisions to the Standards for Cresols
In the Solvents and Dioxins rule, the Agency
promulgated BOAT treatment standards for
"cresols* (a regulated constituent in the FOOl-FOOS
treatment standards), but did not distinguish
between the various isomers present in cresols.
Hence, the Agency determined the concentration-
based treatment standard for cresol wastewaters to
be 2.82 mg/1 based on the performance of
activated carbon adsorption treatment of cresols.
For nonwastewaiers. the Agency had no data on
TCLP extracts of residues from the incineration of
cresols (cresytic acid) to use in the, derivation of
the BOAT treatment standard. EPA used, in part,
comparable chemical structure as the basis for
transferring treatment data to cresols (cresyUc acid)
in the spent solvents. The data on which the
treatment standard was based was from the
incineration of methyl ethyl ketone. The treatment
standard of 0.75 mg/1 for nonwastewaiers is based
on the transferred data.
The Agency also is investigating whether there
is merit in a change to the current treatment
standards for the constituent "cresols" in FOOl-
FOOS wastes. In the Hunt Thud rule. EPA
promulgated treatment standards for U052 wastes.
U052 is listed as •cresols (cresyUc acid).'
CresyUc acid is die name given to a mixture of
three isomeric cresols (ie., ortho-otsol. meta-
cresol and para-cresol) in which meta-cresoi
predominates. Analytical methods are usually
reported for o-ciesol (CAS No. 95-48-7) and a
13
-------
" combination of m-and p-cresols because m-cresol
and p-cresol cannot be distinguished by the
analytical methods; Thus, the Agency
promulgated concentration-based standards for
U052 based on an analysis for ocresol and the
mixture of m-cresol and p-cresol. The Agency.
therefore, is considering whether to transfer the
wastewater and nonwastewater treatment standards
from U052 wastes to F001-F005 wastes.
4. Modification to the Regulatory Placement of
F001-FD05 Standards
The Agency also is considering the issue of
placement of the F001-F005 treatment standards as
they appear in the regulatory tables. The Agency
has identified an error in the current placement
that often provides confusion in locating the
standards. Currently, the standards for F001-F005
nonwaste waters and waste waters are both found in
Table CCWE - Constituent Concentrations in
Waste Extract (40 CFR 268.41). The wastewater
standards should be in 40 CFR 268.43. Table
CCW - Constituent Concentrations in Wastes.
because they are based on total analysis and not a
TCLP analysis. Furthermore, if the Agency alters
the nonwastewater treatment standards from a
TCLP standard to a standard based on total waste
analysis, the standards will also be in 40 CFR
268.43. Table CCW • Constituent Concentrations
in Wastes.
D. Potential Modifications to Existing Treatment
Standards for Lab Packs
Potential changes to 40 CFR 268.42 for lab
packs are also being examined. In the January 31.
1991 technical amendment to the Third Third final
rule (55 FR 3864). the Agency corrected many
typographical errors in Appendix IV and Appendix
V of 4u CFR 268. EPA also noted some
inconsistencies in the conceptual placement of
these wastes into the appendices. Today's notice
provides information on potential modifications in
order to simplify the use of the appendices.
1. Potential Limits on Orgaixxmetallic Lab Packs
Appendix rv of 40 CFR 268 identifies waste
codes that may be diced in an organometallic lab
pack, while Appenda V identifies waste codes
that may be placed at an organic lab pack. These
two categories of lab picks were established to
distinguish those wattei needing chemical
stabilization after incineration from those needing
only incineration. The current regulation not only
requires incineration, but also requires in 40 CFR
268.42(c)(4) that the residues from either type of
lab pack must no longer be characteristic for the
majority of toxic metals (i.e.. they must comply
with the treatment standards for D004-D008,
D010. and D011) prior to land disposal. Since it
is necessary to address the potential presence of
metals in the incinerator ash for both appendices.
there is little practical difference in application of
the standards for the two appendices. EPA is
soliciting ideas on regulatory modifications that
could simplify the application of these appendices.
Appendix IV allows seven of the eight
characteristic metal wastes and F006 wastes
(wastewater treatment sludge from certain
electroplating operations) to be placed in
organometallic lab packs. These wastes may or
may not contain organics. Although the Agency
intended that these wastes be organometallic, there
is no regulatory definition of what constitutes an
organometallic. The Agency therefore is
investigating whether a regulatory definition of
organometallics is necessary, or whether other
rec atory requirements should be developed fo
Pro nt potential misuse of the existing Appe-dix
V jb pack requirements.
The Agency also is considering requirements
that would limit the quantity of organics and
metals that lab packs may contain, or. as another
option, combining Appendix IV and V into one
appendix and requiring incineration with
subsequent stabilization of the residual incinerator^. \
ash ID meet the characteristic metals treatment
standards.
The Agency also is investigating a limit on
total arsenic placed in organometallic lab packs.
After incineration of a lab pack containing arsenic.
some of this metal may either remain in the
incinerator ash or become trapped in the ash in a
toxic inorganic form. Although volatile arsenic
can be controlled by appropriate air pollution
control devices, there is concern regarding the
effectiveness of conventional pozzolanic
stabilization processes for ash that contains
significant amounts of arsenic.
2. Lab Packs from Treatability Studies
In addition to the above issues, the Agency is
aware of two other areas (discussed in this and the
next subsection) where the development of
alternative treatment standards for other types of
lab packs could simplify implementation of the
land disposal restrictions.
One situation arises for certain lab packs
containing residues from hazardous waste
treatability studies. These studies take samples of
treated and untreated hazardous wastes for analysts
of hazardous constituents in order to determine the
effectiveness of treatment. There are likely to be
residues from the analysis of the wastes (both
treated and untreated) that do not represent
optimum treatment (i.e» they may fail the
treatment standards by only slight amounts, and
perhaps for only one constituent), and from
14
-------
samples thai were spiked for recovery studies that
may be above the promulgated treatment standard.
These samples are usually relatively small.
Before the land disposal restrictions, they were
disposed of in lab packs. Current regulations
require these samples to be treated to below the
treatment standards. This typically means that
these samples must be segregated, possibly ground.
and most likely mixed with larger batches.of
untreated wastes. Since there is such a small
quantity, there is some logic inn mixing these with
other wastes in lab packs that are going to be
incinerated and/or stabilized. However, as with
other lab packs, difficulties arise in verifying
concentration-based treatment standards .because of
the difficulties in obtaining representative samples
of the wastes in the treated lab parks.
The Agency is soliciting comment on
provisions that might be established for these
wastes. One approach for metal-bearing wastes
from treatability studies, for example, could be to
establish stabilization as a method of treatment
with limitations on one or more of the following:
a minimum amount of stabilization reagents, a
. maximum 'amount of interfering compounds such
as organics. or limitations based on the amount or
type (i.e.. treatability group) of metals or waste
codes present. The Agency is interested in
comment on this and any other feasible
approaches.
3. Lab Packs from Hospitals and Laboratories
V
In a similar situation, many analytical
laboratories and hospitals generate lab packs
containing heterogeneous mixtures of debris-like
materials, such as broken glass, gloves, syringes.
protective gear, empty analytical vials, wipe
samples, and broken thermometers. These
materials usually are contaminated with small
amounts of many wastes and/or chemicals. Since
some of these may be wastes or chemicals that
otherwise would be prohibited from placement in
lab packs, some laboratories may not be able to
take advantage of the alternative treatment
standards for Appendices IV and V. While the
treatment standard* being developed for
contaminated debris may resolve this issue, the
Agency also '» sofidting comments on regulatory
modifications that could be developed.
4. Potential Automatic System for Incorporating
Newly Identified and Listed Wastes into
Alternative Treatment Standards for Lab 'Packs
The Agency also is considering ways to
establish an automatic system for incorporation of
newly identified and listed wastes into Appendices
IV and V (or a composite version of these).
Thus, if the newly identified or listed waste
contains organics and metals, then it could be
automatically included in Appendix IV. If. on the
other hand, the waste contains only organics. it
could be included automatically in Appendix V.
The present plan calls for making these decisions
during the regulatory determination for listing the
wastes.
E. Recovery as BOAT for Concentrated Metal-
bearing Wastes
The Agency is soliciting general information
on types or subcategories of metal-bearing wastes
that are currently amenable to various metals
recovery technologies. Preliminary discussions
with several commercial recovery vendors appear
to indicate that a wide variety of metal-bearing
wastes can be technically and economically
recovered with existing technologies. These
processes typically involve various combinations of
pyre-. hydro-and/or electro-metallurgical principles.
The Agency is currently investigating
mechanisms that could be used to encourage the
use of these processes as alternatives to
stabilization and land disposal. One potential
mechanism is for the Agency to revise the existing
concentration-based metal standards based on \ \
stabilization to new concentration-based standards
based on the analysis of recovery residues, such as
those from high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR). The following section of today's notice
illustrates how this might work for certain K06I
wastes.
I. Potential Revisions to K061 Nonwastewaters in
the Low Zinc Subcategory that Contain High
Chromium/Nickel
K061 wastes are defined in 40 CFR 261.32 as
emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces. While
many of the K061 wastes generated from the
primary production of steel are generally tow in
chromium. K061 wastes that specifically arc
generated from the primary production of stainless
and specialty steel typically are rich in chromium
and low in zinc (Le.. they are in the K061 tow
zinc subcategory). This type of K061 waste is
one of the easiest materials from which to recover
chromium and nickel by HTMR.
On April 12. 1991, the Agency published a
notice of a proposed rule for K06t wastes in the
high zinc subcategory (36 FR 13020). In this
notice, the Agency proposed concentration-based
treatment standards based on the analysis of
residues from HTMR processes from which zinc
was being recovered, The Agency has preliminary
data and information on another high temperature
metals recovery (HTMR) process consisting of a
rotary hearth furnace followed by an electnc
furnace that can recover chromium and nickel
from other K06I wastes (i.e., those in the tow
15
-------
zinc subcategory) as well as from a variety of
other hazardous wastes.
These other wastes include: K062 (spent pickle
'liquor). F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from
certain electroplating operations), and characteristic
wastes such as 0002 acid wastes and D007
chromium wastes. These characteristic wastes
typically include wastes identified as pickling
solutions (acids), plating solutions, batteries,
catalysts, chrome-magnesite refractories (i.e..
bricks), spent chromic acid, and other air pollution
control device (APCD) baghouse dusts that are
similar to K061. In order to recover chromium
and nickel from these wastes, the wastes typically
must meet the following specifications: a minimum
of 1.5% (by weight) nickel and chromium, in
combination; a maximum of 0.03% total
phosphorus. 2.0% copper. 2.0% sodium or
potassium chlorides, 5.0% sulfur (10% for lime
neutralized and precipitated solids), and 250 ppm
total cyanide: and a minimum of 20% solids
content with no free liquids.
The Agency is soliciting comment on the
potential for establishing concentration-based
treatment standards based on the analysis of
residues from high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR) units recovering chromium and nickel
At the time of this notice, specific concentration-
based standards based on this process have not
been completely developed, but are expected to be
similar to those proposed for K061 wastes in the
high zinc subcategory except for nickel and
chromium. (See discussion of high chromium/high
zinc K061 wastes in the April 12, 1991 proposed
rule.) The Agency is considering proposing such
standards for K061 wastes in the low zinc
subcategory (see the following discussion on
applicability to these K061 wastes) and solicits
comment on expanding the applicability of these
standards to the K062, F006, and characteristic
wastes meeting the criteria described above.
For reasons outlined in the April 12.1991
proposed rule, the concentration-based treatment
standards for K061 wastes in the high zinc
subcategory were proposed as applicable to 14
metals rather than to only nose currently regulated
in the low zinc sobcajegpcy. The Agency
specifically is wflr8***! information on die
applicability of these proposed standards to K061
wastes in the tow line subcategory. The Agency
also is soliciting comment on whether these levels
also may be applicable to wastes from HTMR of
high chromium/nickel K061 wastes, as well as
other hazardous wastes, such as F006 and K062,
that may be treated- using these technologies
(provided they meet the specifications identified
above).
2. Currently Available Capacity Information for
K061 Wastes
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
estimated the total 1989 generation of K061. from
both stainless and carbon steel production, to be
353.000 tons per year. According to AISI.
stainless steel accounts for 19 percent of total steel
production: therefore, 1989 high chromium K061
Seneration is approximately 67.000 tons per year.
i the Fust Third rule. EPA used data from the
TSDR Survey to estimate the total generation of
K061 to be 345.000 tons per year. The Agency
assumed that 75 percent of the K061 volume is
from carbon steel. Thus, the remaining 25 percent
was assumed to be from stainless steel production.
which yields 86.000 tons of high chrome K061
per year. The Agency recently received an
estimate from an industry source indicating that
1990 stainless steel K061 generation ranged from
83.000 to 86.000 ions. The Agency needs to
confirm the volume of high chromium K061 that
is generated.
Indications are that most high chromium K061
potentially could be recycled to recover chromium;.
The Agency has received information that
chromium recovery can be achieved by HTMR
and hydrometallurgical/electrornetallurgical metals
recovery. One HTMR facility is currently
processing high chromium K061. and is capable of
processing 52.000 tons per year. A
hydrometallurgicaj/electrometallurgical meals
recovery facility, which began operations in 1990,
may be capable of processing 300 tons of stainless
steel K061 per year.
The Agency requests comments on the current
high chromium KOol processing capacity, and on
any physical, chemical, or materials handling
constraints associated with high temperature or
hydromecUlurgicaVelectrometallurgical recovery for
this waste.
3. Potential Generic Delisting Option for BOAT
Nonwastewaters Residues
EPA is considering the idea of a generic
delisting for K061 wastes in die low zinc
subcategory (and possibly for F006 and K062) that
contain recoverable amounts of chromium and/or
nickel. This generic delisting, based on
compliance with treatment standards for 14 metals,
could be proposed as applicable only to
nonwastewater residues generated from HTMR
processes rather than to those from chemical
stabilization. The rationale for limiting this
potential action to HTMR residues is mat the
chemical bonding that occurs under die high
temperature and oxidation/reduction conditions
within the HTMR units is inherently different from
the bonding that forms the basis of cementitious
and pozzolanic stabilization. In addition, .the
16
-------
kinetics of the reaction forming, the bonds in these
HTMR processes are superior to the kinetics for
bond formation in cementitious reactions. (Cement
is not typically considered set for a minimum of
72 hours, and often not considered fully cured
until after 28 days.) Stabilization has also been
documented as a process that is highly matrix-
dependent and prone to chemical interferences.
Most commercial stabilization facilities have to
develop special mixes for each waste type by
selecting additives that will enhance curing time
and/or structural integrity (often measured by
compressive strength).
While the Agency recognizes some advantages
of HTMR recovery of chromium and/or nickel
over stabilization, stabilization does provide
treatment for the metal-bearing wastes that must
be land disposed and cannot be economically
recovered. In fact, should the Agency propose or
promulgate generic delisting and new treatment
standards based on HTMR for K061 wastes in the
low zinc subcategory, site-specific delisting still
would remain a viable option for stabilized K061
wastes. However, due to the inherent differences
between HTMR and stabilization stated above, and
the fact that insufficient data currently exists to
propose a generic delisting for stabilized wastes.
generic delisting levels for HTMR nonwastewater
residues would not appropriately be applicable to
stabilized K061 residues that have not undergone
HTMR. More individualized consideration of
stabilization processes is warranted before residues
from the process are generically delisted.
Generic delisting for these recovery residues
could encourage the use of HTMR as well as
other recovery processes. In addition, the Agency
believes that HTMR and other recovery processes
offer an advantage over stabilization technologies
for some metal-bearing wastes, with respect to
their resource recovery and the large differences in
volumes of treated wastes that require disposal
versus the generation of delisted. nonhazardous
wastes. The Agency is soliciting comment on all
facets of these issues.
IV. Potential BOAT for Contaminated Debris
This section of today's notice presents a
discussion of die dati currently available to the
Agency on "rtf*iriH>r^ debns, the status of
ongoing treatment evaluations, and the approach
and options that the Agency a considering for
establishing revised treatment standards for
contaminated debris. (Today's notice does not
involve contaminated soiL A discussion of data
and the Agency's approach to develop treatment
standards for contaminated soil will be addressed
in a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking.)
Commenters submitting treatment performance
data should include a description of the
contaminated debris, complete chemical and
physical analysis of the wastes and treatment
residuals, and technical descriptions of the
treatment method or management practice
(including optimum operating conditions). Those
planning new tests with the intent of submitting
data to EPA are urged to communicate with EPA
before testing to confirm that the data developed
will meet EPA's QA/QC requirements.
The Agency also is soliciting-information on
the costs associated with treatment of contaminated
debris in order to prepare the regulatory impact
analysis. Of interest are technical reports on any
of the i-catment technologies, with particular
emphasis on treatment efficiencies, end
concentrations reached and their dependence on
untreai d concentrations, and costs for set up and
i. of the treatment technology.
A. Relationship'of Today's Notice to EPA's
"Contaminated Media Cluster''
As this notice goes to press, the Agency has ,
begun a broader consideration of contaminated \ *
media issues that will have some influence on the
issues raised here. In order to improve the overall
quality of its regulatory decision making, the
Agency has begun to look at groups or clusters of
regulations in order to develop more integrated
approaches to various environmental problems.
One of these regulatory clusters, the "contaminated
media cluster", is designed to develop a more
integrated Agency approach for its policies and
regulations dealing with its waste remediation
programs. Over the next several months, the
contaminated media cluster project will gather
information to develop a comprehensive view of
the quantities and types of waste needing
remediation, the types of risks they represent, the
current statutory ana regulatory framework.
elements of an effective cleanupnocess, and the
costs and benefits of cleanup. The culmination of
that work wilt be a regulatory strategy that "will
include a set of objectives and operating principles
for the Agency's remediation programs. The land
disposal restrictions (LDR) regulatory effort and
the resolution of issues on contaminated debris
will be closely coordinated with the regulatory
cluster on contaminated media.
B. Applicability of Existing Land Disposal
Restriction Treatment Standards and Superfund 6A
and 6B Guides
In promulgating LDRs, including treatment
standards for solvents and dioxtns, California list
wastes, and the First. Second, and Third Thud
wastes, the Agency regulated debris contaminated
win these restricted wastes. The land disposal
restrictions in 40 CFR 268 thus generally apply to
17
-------
contaminated debris, including such debris .
generated from corrective actions and closures at
RCRA- regulated land disposal sites, remedial and
removal actions at CERCLA (Superfund) sites, and
private-party cleanups.
Under the Agency's "contained-in" policy.
contaminated media {i.e.. debris, soil, groundwater.
sediments) that contain RCRA wastes must be
managed as if they were hazardous waste until the
media no longer contain the hazardous waste (i.e..
until decontaminated) or until they are delisted.
To date, the Agency has not issued any definitive
guidance as to when, or at what levels.
environmental media contaminated with hazardous
waste no longer contain the hazardous waste.
Until such guidance is issued, the Regions or
authorized States may determine these levels on a
case-specific basis. The Agency also suggests that
when making a determination as to when
contaminated media no longer contains a
hazardous waste that a risk assessment approach
be used that addresses the public health and
environmental impacts of the hazardous
constituents remaining.
The Agency has determined, however, that
contaminated debris generally is more difficult to
treat than RCRA industrial wastes. Special
treatability variance procedures were established
for contaminated debris based on the available
treatment data that existed at the time. These data
were used to develop interim guidance treatment
levels (Superfund LDR Guides #6A and #68. i.e..
OSWER Directives 9347.3-O6FS and 9347.3-
O7FS. respectively) for assessing these treatability
variances. (Copies of the 6A and 6B guides can
be obtained by calling the RCRA Hotline at 1-
800-424-9346.)
C. Development of Potential Regulatory
Definitions for Debris
The Agency has previously developed
definitions for debris that serve as guides in
applying the treatment standards, the Agency
now is considering and requesting comment on
whether regulatory definitions for debris and
contaminated debris are necessary or could provide
a means of simplifying the implementation of
treatment standard*, These definitions could be
placed either in 40 CFR 260.10 for general
application, or in 40 CFR 268.2 for application
only to the land disposal restrictions. The Agency
has developed preliminary regulatory definitions
for debris and contaminated debris that are given
below. (The presentation of these suggested
definitions in today's notice should not be
construed as replacing definitions that appear in
other regulatory form.)
Debris means solid material that: (1) has been
originally manufactured or processed, except for
solids that are listed wastes or can be identified as
being residues from treatment of wastes and/or
wastewaters. or air pollution control devices: or
(2) is plant and animal matter, or (3) is natural
geologic material exceeding a 9.5 mm sieve size
including gravel, cobbles, and boulders (sizes as
classified By the U.S. Soil Conservation Service),
or is a mixture of such materials with soil or solid
waste materials, such as liquids or sludges, and is
inseparable by simple mechanical removal
processes.
Contaminated Debris means debris which contains
RCRA hazardous wastes) listed in 40 CFR Part
261, Subpart D. or debris which otherwise exhibits
one or more characteristics of a hazardous waste
(as a result of contamination) as defined in 40
CFR Pan 261, Subpart C.
When soil is agglomerated on debris or
compacted/contained inside the nooks and crannies
of crumpled debris, it is difficult to separate: this
soil typically is separated during the treatment of
the debris, however, and may require additional .
treatment, depending on the process utilized for V\
the treatment of the debris. Any separated soil
will be subject to treatment standards for soil.
D. Potential Regulatory Structure for Treatment
Standards
Existing treatment standards for most RCRA
hazardous wastes are presented on a waste code-
basis as leachate concentrations in 40 CFR 268.41.
as specified treatment methods in 40 CFR 268.42.
and as total constituent concentrations in 40 CFR
268.43. As a result, any revised treatment
standards for contaminated debris might logically
fail under these regulations. However, the Agency
may consider placing, new treatment standards for
contaminated debris in a new regulatory section or
appendix within 40 CFR Part 268.
The Agency has identified two key questions
concerning any potential regulatory construct The
first is: should contaminated debris be
subcategorized into additional treatability groups?
The second is: should contaminated debns be a
separate waste code? Integral to answering these
questions is the concept that the hazardous waste
is contained on the debris in some manner. The
separation of the hazardous waste from die debris
becomes, therefore, the primary goal of treatment
While complete separation would logically result
in nonhazardous debris, difficulties can arise in
ascertaining complete separation. The regulatory
construction of treatment standards for debris, thus.
may not guarantee a nonhazardous debris, but can
provide compliance with the statutory mandate to
treat all hazardous waste prior to land disposal in
a way that significantly reduces waste toxicity and
18
-------
mobility. The remaining debris would then be
considered treated and could be land disposed.
Residues derived from the separation of the
hazardous waste from the contaminated debris
(except tor separated soil residues) could logically
cany the waste code or codes of the waste
originally contaminating the debris. In an effort to
simplify the treatment standards, however, the
Agency is considering establishing a few new
waste codes specifically for the residues from the
treatment of debris.
A similar situation arose for multi-source
leachate which, theoretically, could be derived
from any combination of waste codes. As a
regulatory solution, the Agency created a new
listing for multi-source leachate identified as F039
and established treatment standards for
approximately 200 constituents for F039.
EPA thus is considering four categories of
standards for both contaminated soil and debris:
1) those for the treated soils; 2) those for the
treated debris; 3) those for the nonwastewater
residues derived from the treatment of
contaminated soil and debris (i.e., residues that are
neither soil or debris); and 4) those for wastewater
residues derived from the treatment of
contaminated soil and debris. (The regulatory
structure being considered for contaminated soils
will be discussed in a forthcoming advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).) The
regulatory structure being considered for the
treated debris will be discussed later in this
section.
Depending upon the separation, process that is
applied to the contaminated debris, non-debris
nonwastewater residues from the separation
process may need further treatment (For
example, solvent extraction of a debris material
will probably result in a solvent residue that
contains the hazardous organics constituents.) The
matrix of these residues should be less complex
than that of contaminated debris, and could be
comprised of any of the BDAT constituents over a
range of concentration*. Since the separated .
materials are acuity derived from the hazardous
waste that origfuty was contaminating the debris.
one option for dewoopuif treatment standards for
these residues wogfci be to simply apply the
existing applicable treatment standard for that
hazardous waste code (if identifiable). One other
option is to establish one set of concentration*
based treatment standards for such residues (as
introduced in the above discussion on the
applicability of F039 standards).
In a similar manner, the wastewaters that
result from the decontamination of debris also may
have to be treated before they can be land
disposed It is intuitively obvious that these
wastewaters are significantly less difficult to treat
than the contaminated debris, and may be treatable
to concentrations similar to the wastewater
treatment standards for F039. Again, a transfer of
the treatment standards for F039 (except this time.
the wastewater standards) for the wastewaters from
treating debris could be appropriate because these
wastewaters could contain any of the regulated
BDAT constituents.
Based on the technical theory behind the
development of the treatment standards for multi-
source leachate (F039) and the U and P chemicals.
one set of wastewater and one set of
nonwastewater standards are also a potential
solution.
E. Development of BDAT fo foiitaminated
Debris ' •
The physic?! ai.c' chjiuical characteristics of
debris itself suggest that treatability groups may
have to be es^hUshed based on technical
limitations ot> t*e degree of decontamination that
can be achieved. For example, permeable debris
that absorbs contamination into its pore spaces \ \
may be more difficult to decontaminate than debris
that is impermeable. Based on a review of 222
hazardous waste sites that reported debris on the
site, the Agency has developed eight preliminary
subcategones of debris that may pose different
problems in treatment: 1) metaUics; 2) brick.
concrete, and rock: 3) wood: 4) paper and cloth;
5) rubber and plastics; 6) glass: 7) equipment and
structures; and 8) asbestos. The Agency also
recognizes that many debris wastes, such as lab
packs, are combinations of these subcategones,
and pose additional complications in establishing
BDAT. (See also a discussion of potential BDAT
for lab packs in Section OLD. above.)
The treatability of debris is also affected by
the physical and chemical characteristics of the
chemical contaminants on the debris, and their
respective concentrations. For example, it may be
reasonable to incinerate a debris material
contaminated with high concentrations of toxic
organics and low concentrations of metals.
Incineration of the same debris material with
somewhat higher concentrations of metals,
however, may be undesirable because of me
anticipated increase in air emissions of metals. A
debris material with low concentration of organics
and high concentrations of teachable metals may
be a good candidate for stabilization (provided it
is reasonably friable in the first place). If,
however, the organics are too high or one of the
metals is arsenic or mercury, conventional
stabilization may not be effective, and specialized
reagents may be needed. The selection of
appropriate technologies, thus, will depend on the
interrelationship of the constituent types, their
19
-------
respective concentrations, and the physical
subcategories of debris.
The Agency is soliciting comment on these
potential debris subcategories with respect to the
following: (he inclusiyeness of these
subcategories: the ability to distinguish and
separate debris into these subcategones: the
quantities of debris encountered in each of the
subcategories: and the types of contamination
encountered.
I. Treatment Technologies for Contaminated
Debris
The single most important issue in establishing
concentration-based treatment standards for
contaminated debris arises from the effectiveness
of obtaining representative samples for analysis.
There is a significant potential for error in
choosing how and where to sample, and although
many debris wastes have been sampled and
analyzed, the procedures for both sampling and
analyzing (including QA/QC procedures)
contaminated debris have not been standardized.
There is a paucity of constituent-specific
treatment data tor contaminated debris. When it is
available, these data show decontamination of
debris, but they generally lack sufficient QA/QC
information. This lack of QA/QC data probably
directly results from complications arising from
difficulties in measuring recovery from debris
materials.
The Agency is investigating three general
categories of treatment for contaminated debris
that fulfill the goal of treating debris: to remove
or destroy the contaminants or otherwise render
the waste less hazardous. The three categories are
extraction, destruction, and immobilization.
Extraction technologies are intended to remove
the hazardous constituents from the surface or
pores of the debris materials and typically rely on
physical properties of the contaminant, such as
solubility and volatility, and the physical properties
of the debris material. Extraction technologies
often include phyrial agitation and removal of
contaminated laym of me debris material. EPA
currently is investfpdof the following extraction
technologies: grit Masting, hydroblasting.
scarification. dnDfag and spafiing. solvent washing.
steam cleaning, vapor-phase solvent extraction.
washing, rinsing, soaking, vacuuming, wiping.
vibratory finishing, and Tow-temperature thermal
desorption. These technologies are then followed
by destructive technologies applied to the extracted
materials or extracting media. The decontaminated
debris could be disposed of in a hazardous waste
(Subtitle O landfill
Destructive technologies rely on chemical,
biological, or thermal oxidation or reduction of the
contaminant to a less hazardous compound or
form. These technologies are commonly applied
directly to debris material and often involve some
degree of extraction. EPA currently is
investigating the following destructive technologies:
acid etching, bleaching, microbial degradation.
photochemical degradation, chemical treatment.
electropolishing, naming, and incineration.
Immobilization technologies rely on the use of
a sealant of some sort that prevents leaching of
the hazardous constituents by entrapment.
Typically, these immobilization technologies
involve macroencapsulation rather than
microencapsulation, implying a reliance on
primarily physical entrapment: however, there is
some evidence thn'some chemical reactions occur
which provide the entrapment (particularly with
pozzolanic stabilization of metal contaminants).
EPA currently is*investigating the following
immobilization technologies: asbestos abatement
techniques, macroencapsulation. chemical sealing
(e.g.. £-20 sealant), and pozzoianic stabilization.
\ \
Immobilization technologies may require
preprocessing of some debris materials by crushing
or grinding. The Agency is investigating the
following with respect to grinding: the existence
and capabilities of machinery for crushing and
grinding; limitations that potentially could be
established for these operations: limitations on feed
composition of the debris materials (te.. by debris
types); and potential for air emissions (including
dust, metals, and volatile organics) and/or controls
that may be required. In addition, the Agency is
investigating the need for limitations on
waste/binder ratios for stabilizing debris.
2. Options for Contaminated Debris Treatment
Standards
Establishing the use of specific technologies as
the treatment standards for contaminated debris
under 40 CFR 268.42 would appear to solve the
major issues in sampling and analysis of treated
debris by eliminating the need for constituent
specific analysis of the treated debris. The
Agency is requesting comment on the following
definitions for treatment standards that the Agency
is considering to establish for contaminated debris:
20
-------
DSTRC (Destruction) means compliance with the
requirements of chemical oxidation (CHOXD),
chemical reduction (CHRED). biodegradation
(BIODG) or incineration (INCIN) identified in 40
CFR 268.42 Table 1; or the use of an equivalent
destruction technology that provides sufficient
agitation, temperature, and exposure time that a
surrogate compound or indicator parameter has
been substantially reduced in concentration (e.g..
Total Organic Carbon can often be used as an
indicator parameter for destruction of many
organic constituents that cannot be directly
analyzed).
EXTRC (Extraction) means the use of an
extraction technology (such as acid washing.
liquid-phase solvent extraction, abrasive blasting,
drilling and spoiling, scarification and grinding,
water washing and spray, etc.) with sufficient
agitation/temperature, partitioning, exposure rime.
and/or appropriate solvent/chemical such that the
majority of RCRA hazardous contaminants have
been significantly reduced in concentration from
the surface or pores of the material.
IMMBL (Immobilization) means the use of an
immobilization technology (such as
• macroencapsuiation, stabilization and solidification.
sealing, etc.) with sufficient curing time, and
appropriate chemicals such that the mobility of a
majority of RCRA hazardous contaminants has
been significantly reduced.
These standards would appear in 40 CFR
268.42 Table 1. As discussed at the introduction
of this section on debris, the actual selection of a
best technology for any given waste would be
highly dependent on the type of debris, type of
contaminant, and the concentrations of the
contaminant in the debris. The regulated
community would then select recommended
technologies from a guidance manual or an
appendix (yet to be developed) based on
contaminant type, debris type, and technology.
The key to the use of the specific technology is
built into the definitions of the three standards of
EXTRC. DSTRC, and IMMBL. The selection of
the most appropriate extraction, destruction or
immobilization technology would be based on a
demonstration of its efficiency through the use of
surrogate analyst or engineering judgment that
takes into account the type of waste and
contaminant at (bey relate to the type of debris.
These treatment standards for contaminated
debris would potentially be applied to the
untreated debns. The residual debris after
treatment could be land disposed and any extracted
media or materials would comply with
concentration standards for the respective waste
code (or a new set of numbers that could be
similar to those for multi-source leachate
nonwastewaters). As with all existing BOAT
treatment standards, all treatment residues would
have to be evaluated for their degree of hazard.
Complete removal or decontamination is not
necessarily guaranteed through the use of any of
these three treatment technologies unless
specifically stated in the regulations. (Standards
for the residues from treatment of the
contaminated debris have been discussed earlier.)
3. Additional Issues withThree Specific Debris
Types
In a preliminary assessment, three treatabiiiry
groups have been identified that may require
special consideration: contaminated asbestos. PCB
contaminated debris, and debris with inherent
content that causes it to exhibit hazardous
characteristics after removal of the contaminating
waste.
Asbestos removal and dis ' ?•* regulated
under 40 CFR Part 763. Sub?-.. E, Appendix D,
40 CFR 763.12l*and 40 O-T Ptn 61. Siibpan M.
In the development of the LHK rules, the Agency
is considering adopting this approach - that is.
contaminated asbestos debris will have the
additional requirement that disposal be in a \ *•
Subtitle C facility, provided the waste is otherwise
hazardous under RCRA. The Agency is
requesting comment on this possible approach.
Decontamination of debris contaminated with
PCBs is regulated under 40 CFR 761.60, and
surfaces contaminated by PCB spills are regulated
under 40 CFR 761.125. In the development of
the LDR rules, the Agency is considering this
avenue for applicability to debris contaminated
with PCBs. the Agency is requesting comment
on this approach.
Where debris materials have an inherent
composition that is metallic, it may be difficult to
demonstrate removal of hazardous metal
constituents even after decontamination,
particularly for TCLP analysis. For example.
chrome-plated fixtures contaminated with a ~
hazardous waste containing metals may be free of
surface contamination after the use of an
extraction technology but may leach (by the TCLP
test) some of the chromium inherent to its
composition. Likewise, structural materials painted
with lead-based paint may be treated to remove
the lead-based paint but may then leach other
metals inherent to the material
Other wastes such as refractory bricks,
however, are hazardous primarily because they
leach chromium that is inherent to their structure
and not necessarily because they are contaminated
with other hazardous wastes, (the physical and
chemical properties of certain chromium
compounds, in conjunction with those of the other
inorganics in the brick, form the technical basis of
21
-------
the refractory brick's structural and thermal
properties.) Due to the high concentration of
metals (some brick contain up to 40% chromium).
it may not be possible to treat these materials to
nonhazardous levels without adding a tremendous
amount of stabilization reagents. EPA is soliciting
data on this type of waste that are currently
available on the sequential addition of stabilization
reagents that might indicate an appropriate cut-off
point for addition of reagents such that a
significant reduction in teachability of metals could
be assured. See also section in.E. of today's
notice discussing high temperature thermal
recovery of chromium as a potential option for
establishing treatment standards for metal-bearing
wastes of this type.
The Agency is considering several options for
dealing with contaminated debris that are also
hazardous due to their inherent metallic content.
One alternative is to perform an appropriate
extraction of the constituents and wastes that are
contaminating the debris and then either
macroencapsulate the remaining debris before land
disposal or consider the debris treated for purposes
of the land disposal restrictions. Another
alternative is to require that certain types of
treated debris, e.g., lead pipe or chrome-plated
futures, be recycled as scrap metal. The Agency
is requesting comment on these approaches and on
other approaches that may arise due to other types
of debris materials captured in the hazardous waste
management operations because of their inherent
content
F. Analysis of Capacity Data for Debris
EPA needs to determine the volume of debris
contaminated with newly listed and identified
wastes that currently are land disposed, in order to
assess whether adequate alternative treatment ~
capacity exists to treat these wastes. The Agency
has already set LDR effective dates for debns
contaminated with solvents and dioxih wastes.
California list wastes, and First Third, Second
Third, and Third Third wastes. However, the
Agency will have to collect and evaluate all data
on contaminated debris because EPA's current
information is limited.
A comprehensive data base on the generation
volumes and chsncteristics of contaminated debris,
and the capacity of treatment technologies is
important for the following reasons: u> determine
the volumes of debris contaminated with newly
listed and identified wastes that may require
alternative treatment: to assess the available
capacity of treatment technologies suitable for
debris contaminated with these wastes; and to
identify the total volume of affected contaminated
debris, which may include debris contaminated
with regulated wastes in addition to newly listed
and identified wastes.
Given current definitions, a wide range of
products, materials, and items can constitute
debris. Contaminated debris is generated at
hazardous waste site remedial actions. However.
the universe of contaminated debris is broader than
that of contaminated soil, in that debris is
generated by many industries and through many
types of activities. The generation of
contaminated debris can be classified into three
broad categories: 1) debris from remedial actions
(e.g.. Superfund sites. RCRA corrective actions):
2) routinely-generated debris (e.g.. refractory
bricks, discarded drums and containers); and 3)
sporadically-generated debris (e.g., demolition of
buildings).
Much of the contaminated debris requiring
alternative treatment, as. a result of the LDRs is
likely to be generated at sites other than those
where remedial actions are undertaken. Therefore,
data available on these sites (e.g.. Superfund
RODs. RFIs and RFAs) may be of limited use.
EPA requests data from any souice generating
debris that may meet the definitions of
contaminated debris.
n
Data on the generation and management of
contaminated debris are generally scarce. In
comments to the Third Third proposed rule (54
FR 48372), six comrnenters submitted data on the
generation of contaminated debris from sources
other than remedial actions. Specifically,
Chemical Waste Management submitted a list of
debris wastes it had received and found unsuitable
for stabilization. Other reports listing various
types of debris are available; however, no volume
data are included in these reports other than data
from debris at Superfund sites.
The National Survey of Treatment Storage and
Recycling Facilities (TSDR Survey) and the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
(Generator Survey) contain data on the volumes of
contaminated debris reported at RCRA facilities.
However, these data are generally incomplete^ and
have limited applicability.
The number and types of allowable
management practices specified for contaminated
debris will add complexity to the Agency's
capacity analysis for contaminated debris. The
Agency will be developing a method for
measuring the available capacity for such treatment
technology groups as destruction, extraction, and
immobilization which may be used as general
treatment standards for contaminated debris.
For previous capacity analyses, die Agency has
examined full-scale, commercially available
technologies. For contaminated debris, however.
there are several innovative technologies being
developed that are under Agency review. In
particular, Superfund's ongoing SITE program has
22
-------
developed a number of technologies specifically
designed for the treatment of contaminated debris.
The Agency requests information on the
availability and technical constraints of innovative
technologies that can treat contaminated debris.
The Agency plans to consider contaminated
debris from various sources other than remedial
action sites. The Agency is currently identifying
the various items that may meet the definition of
debris and the industries and processes by which
these items are generated. The volumes affected
and the treatment technologies for these debris will
determine the extent of the need for alternative
treatment for contaminated debris.
Thus, the Agency is requesting data on the
volumes of routinely- generated debris and
sporadically-generated debris.'
While the Agency plans to focus its capacity
analysis of contaminated debris on volumes
generated outside of remedial actions, readily
available data from Superfund RODs were
examined to characterize the volumes of
contaminated debris from Superfund Sites that may
require treatment under the LDRs. The facilities
reviewed included both Fund Lead remedial
actions and Private Party Lead remedial actions.
A significant number or RODs did not distinguish
volumes of contaminated soil from contaminated
debris. In addition, in recommending remedial
technologies. RODs rarely indicated the relative
quantities of contaminated debris that would be
assigned to each technology. These data indicate
that a high percentage of the total contaminated
debris volume reported at Superfund sites is
generated by relatively few facilities. If the
majority of contaminated debris remains within the
area of contamination, the LDRs may not be
triggered.
The total volume of contaminated debris
reported at Superfund sites for which RODs were
signed in 1988 and 1989 is approximately 280,000
tons. This volume is likely to underestimate the
total volume of contaminated debris generated at
these sites. The Agency requests comments on
this analysis. The Agency also requests data on
contaminated debris subject to remediation at
Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action sites
including data, oa die actual volume of
contaminated debris at each site; current and
planned treatment technologies for contaminated
debris; and the starting dale and projected duration
of cleanup actions involving contaminated debris.
V. Potential BDAT for Specific F. K, and U
Listed Wastes Promulgated After 1984
EPA has promulgated a number of hazardous
waste listings under 40 CFR 261.31. .32, and 33
since the enactment of HSWA in 1984. This
section of today's notice describes the treatment
and/or recycling technologies that have been
identified for preliminary consideration as BDAT
for twenty of these listings. The Agency also
identifies potential transfers of existing treatment
standards and provides preliminary capacity
information that currently is available for these
wastes. The Agency emphasizes that these
determinations are preliminary in nature, and that
any data submitted will be carefully examined in
preparing any proposed BDAT.
This section does not describe EPA's activities
for all wastes that have been promulgated since
1984. A forthcoming advance notice of proposed
rulemaking will describe EPA's activities for other
newly identified and newly listed wastes including:
those recently listed under the TC rule (DCiS-
D043); characteristic wastes from mining and
mineral processing; spent potliners from alnminum
manufacturing (K088): and listed wastes from
wood preserving (F032. F034. and F03S). Several
wastes from cokiag operations and chJorotoluene
production that currently are being considered for
proposal as hazardous also may be addressed in
this forthcoming notice.
A. Additional Organic U Wastes V *
This section addresses the investigation of
BDAT and capacity for three specific wastes listed
under 40 CFR 261.33 since November. 1984.
These are identified with alphanumeric waste
codes that start with a "U".
1. Ortho-toluidine and Para-toluidine (U328 and
U353)
Ortho-toluidine and para-toluidine, which when
discarded become U328 and U353. are
manufactured from processes similar to those
manufacturing dinitrotoluene and toluenediamine.
U328 and U353. thus, may be similar to wastes
identified as Kill and Kill The textiles
industry and the dyes and pigments industry
generate o-toluidine and p-toTuidine as
intermediates and reagents for printing textiles and
making colors fast to acids in the dyeing process.
Both compounds also are components in ion
exchange column preparation, used as antioxidants
in rubber manufacturing, and used as lab reagents
in medical glucose analyses.
EPA is considering regulating U328 and U353
wastewaters and nonwastewaten oy setting
methods of treatment as standards. These methods
of treatment appear to be the most appropriate
type of treatment standard for these wastes.
because the organic compounds for which the
wastes are listed are considered to be relatively
unstable in water and difficult » quantify. In
addition, these two organic compounds resemble
other organic compounds, namely 4
-------
(U222) for which similar standards have been
promulgated.
The Agency, therefore, is considering the
possibility of specifying incineration or thermal
destruction as required methods of treatment for
ihe nonwastewater forms of these wastes, and
chemical oxidation followed by either biological
treatment or carbon adsorption for the wastewater
forms of these wastes. (While not a primary
technology for wastewaters. incineration could be
proposed as an alternative method of treatment for
wastewaters.) Because these compounds may be
considered to be relatively unstable in water,
consistent quantification of c-toluidine and p-
toluidine in raw wastes and treated residuals may
preclude the development of a concentration-based
standard for these wastes, i.e.. the alternative to
specifying methods of treatment.
EPA solicits detailed comment abode the
compositions of these U waste streams, including
both organic and possible inorganic components.
the need for a dual set of treatment standards (i.e.
methods of treatment for organic constituents and
concentration-based standards for metals, if
present), performance data demonstrating the
'treatability of these waste streams or similar waste
streams by thermal, biological or other treatment
processes, and analytical complications encountered
or anticipated in quantifying constituents in these
wastes.
2. 2-Ethoxyethanol (U359)
Since 2-ethoxyethanol is used in the printing,
organic chemical manufacturing, and
leather/tanning industries, it is likely that these
industries may be generators of U359 wastes. U
is used by these industries in various removers,
cleansing solutions, and dye baths, as well as a
solvent for inks, duplicating fluids, nitrocellulose,
lacquers and other substances, and also is a
chemical intermediate in 2-ethoxyacetate
manufacturing. EPA anticipates that U359 is
typically co-treated and co-disposed with POOS
solvent wastes that are listed tor 2-ethoxyethanoL
EPA is considering regulating U359 wastes by
f cifying inancratioa or thermal destruction for
U339 nonwastewtten, and chemical oxidation
followed by either biological treatment or carbon
adsorption for U359 wasfewaten. This is
primarily because 2-dfaoxyethanol is relatively
unstable in water and thus particularly difficult to
quantify. In the absence of an SW-846 method
demonstrated to quantify 2-ethoxyethanol in
complex waste matrices, methods of treatment
standards are arguable more appropriate than
concentration-based standards.
Since POOS wastes that are listed for 2*
ethoxyethanol are expected to be similar to U359.
the Agency also is considering establishing the
standards established for F005 wastes to be the
standards for U359. EPA solicits comment on any
perceived differences in treatability of POOS wastes
and U359. and whether the standards already
established for F005 (2-eihoxyethanol) are
appropriate for U359.
EPA solicits detailed comment about: the
composition of these waste streams, including both
organic and possible inorganic components, the
need for a dual set of treatment standards (i.e..
methods of treatment for organic constituents and
concentration-based standards for metals, if
present), performance data demonstrating the
treatability of these or similar waste streams by
thermal, biological or other treatment processes,
and analytical complications encountered or
anticipated in quantifying constituents of these
wastes.
3. Currently Available Capacity Data for U328.
U353. and U359"
The Agency currently does not have data on
the volumes of U328, U353. and U359 generated.,
The Agency believes that these chemicals are v *
rarely discarded due to their value, and has
assumed that these U wastes are not being
discarded in significant quantities nor are they
being discarded on a continuous basis. Based on
these assumptions, there may be sufficient
incineration or thermal destruction capacity to treat
these wastes, provided incineration is selected as
the BOAT. The Agency requests comments on
these assumptions. Specifically, the Agency
requests data on the generation and management
of these wastes as both nonwastewaters and as
wastewaters.
B. Recent Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037 and
F038)
On November 2. 1990 (55 FR 46354). EPA
expanded the list of hazardous wastes generated by
the petroleum refining industry to include wastes
identified as P037 and F038. These two newly
listed wastes are generated from waste
management units that produce primary and
secondary sedimentation sludges. These sludges
have waste characteristics similar to other
petroleum refining waste identified as 10)48 and
K031. For a more detailed description of all of
these petroleum refining wastes, please refer to the
appropriate final rules and listing background
documents.
1. Characterization Data
The Agency has two sets of waste
characterization data for untreated F037 and F038
wastes. One data set is a compilation of data
submitted by members of the regulated community
24
-------
in response to EPA's February 11. 1985. Notice of
Data Availability {30 FR 5637). The other data
set consists of waste characterization data collected
by EPA and contained in an April 13. 1985.
Notice of Data Availability (53 FR 12182).
The majority of the industry-submitted data
did not contain enough site-specific information to
determine whether each sludge would be classified
as either F037 or F038. Therefore, these data
were combined and viewed by EPA as waste
characterization data for a combination of
F037/F038 sludges. The characterization data
generated by the Agency were summarized in a
final report entitled "Summary of'Data and
Engineering Analysis Performed for PetroTet
Defining Wastewater Treatment Sludges. Fina,
m
ieport" (This document is available in the
^^^V^TT JM.A| A* £._ +lm j* A H^ll 1 ^ tftO£ KFA**^.^
;um
inal
RCRA docket for the April 13. 1985. Notice of
Data Availability (53 FR 12182).) Facility site-
specific information, such as schematics of the
waste treatment units, were provided in this report
Using this information, each F037 and F038
sludge sample is identified and the corresponding
waste characterization data is tabulated and
documented.
The characterization data for F037 and F038
indicate that the wastes have not been tested for
several organic constituents that are typically
present in K048 and K05I (e.g.. acenaphthene and
anthracene). EPA requests additional characteriza-
tion data for all organic constituents present in
F037 and F038.
2. Potential BOAT
Since F037 and F038 are generated by the
petroleum refining industry, and are generated by
units similar in design and purpose to API
separators and OAF float units generating K048
and K051. all of the applicable and demonstrated
technologies for K048 and KOS1 wastes
presumably would be applicable to P037 and
F038. EPA. therefore, is examining the feasibility
of transferring existing performance data for K048
and K05I to these wastes in order to develop
treatment standards. These wastes not only come
from similar waste generation operations, but they
result from similar aw materials and. thus, are
likely to contain aumhr treatability characteristics.
In addition, these wane are often comingled and
treated with K048 and KQ51 and are thus likely to
be amenable to the same treatment to
approximately the same levels.
EPA utilized data from solvent extraction.
thermal desorption, and incineration in order to
promulgate treatment standards for organics in the
nonwastewater forms of K048 through K051 For
the nonwastewater metals in those wastes, BOAT
was determined to be stabilization. These
technologies likely would be considered BOAT for
F037 and F038 nonwastewaters.
Treatment standards for K048 and K051
wastewater organics are based on incinerator
scrubber water data. However, for the reasons
stated earlier, the Agency is requesting comments
on the transferabiliry of multi-source leachate
wastewater performance data to F037 and F038.
See also the discussion of potential universal
treatment standards and the conversion of
wastewater treatment standards based on scrubber
waters in section III.A. and B. of today's notice.
respectively. EPA specifically requests comments
documenting the treatment of organics in
wastewater forms of F037 and F038 by biological
treatment, carbon adsorption, PACT treatment, and
wet air oxidation. Based on the multi-source
leachate data available on the constituents known
to be present in F037 and F038 wastewaters.
biological treatment 'would presumably be able to
treat the organics potentially piesent in F037 and
F038. For metals ift wastewater forms of K048
through K052. BOAT was determined to be
chemical precipitation with time and sulfide
followed by vacuum filtration.
In establishing BOAT for F037 and F038, \ \
EPA will be evaluating data and information on
the potential impact on the performance of a given
treatment technology due to expected variations in
the chemical and physical composition of F037
and F038 wastes. Tne waste characteristics being
examined include oil and grease content heat
content (BTU/pound), total suspended solids, total
dissolved solids, total organic carbon, pH.
fluorides, sulfides, chlorides, water content, and
the concentrations of the hazardous constituents.
Commenters submitting data on the effects of
these parameters should clearly indicate the
technologies used, the design and operation
parameters used to account for these constituents.
and waste characterization data for both untreated
or treated wastes.
3. Currently Available Capacity Information
Available data on the quantities of F037 and
F038 are derived from the Petroleum Refinery
Data Base (PRDB) that was compiled from
industry responses to a RCRA Section 3007
request for information. This data base contains
unit processes, wastewater treatment, and waste
generation data from 1983. for 182 of the 220
petroleum refineries listed in the 1984 Oil and Gas
Journal Refining Survey. EPA has information
that 204 refineries were operating at the beginning
of 1989: of this total. EPA estimates mat 149 of
the refineries accounted for in the PRDB are
expected to generate F037 and FD38. This data
base, however, provides limited information on
management practices.
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
the final F037 and F038 listing; the Agency
25
-------
estimated thai 40 to 75 percent of the refineries
thar generate non-K048 and non-K051 primary
waste water treatment sludge will be affected by
the new listing, and that the remaining refineries
will be affected by the Toxicity Characteristic
(TC) final rule (55 FR 11798). From the PRDB.
the Agency estimated that approximately 450.000
tons of non-K048 and K051 primary arid
secondary sedimentation wastewater treatment
sludges are generated each year. Of this quantity.
170.000 to 330.000 tons per year, as generated
(based on an average water content of 82 percent)
might be affected by the new listing, and 120.000
to 280.000 tons per year might be affected by the
TC rule. As with the number of affected
refineries, the quantities of sludges affected by the
new listing as opposed to the TC rule is uncertain.
4. Potential Overlap with the TC
The rule expanding the universe of wastes
exhibiting the toxicity characteristic (TC) was
promulgated on March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798),
and became effective on September 25, 1990. for
large quantity generators and treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. The rule became effective
on March 29, 1991. for small quantity generators.
Because a sizeable fraction of the F037 and F038
sludges and/or the wastewaters from which these
sludges are generated also may exhibit the TC
characteristic, some of these wastes will be
regulated as hazardous under the TC rule before
the F037 and F038 listing rule becomes effective.
The percentage of waste that will exhibit the TC
is. uncertain, and depends largely on die behavior
of oily waste in the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
EPA believes that some refineries may respond
to the TC rule and the F037 and F038 listing by
re-configuring their wastewater treatment process
so as to generate sludge in API separators and
DAF units. When sludge is generated in these
units, it carries the K048 or KQS1 waste code and
is subject to the LDR treatment standards for
those wastes (effective November 8, 1990). The
exact quantities of newly identified P037 and F038
sludge that will b* handled in this way is unclear.
as is the amouat of treatment capacity that will be
required by the •**"""» quantities of K048 and
K051, which wero not accounted for previously.
5. Additional Capacity Issues
EPA estimated the average water content of
the F037 and F038 sludges as generated to be 82
percent, based on the water content of DAF
sludges. Because of their high water content these
wastes could be dewatered. which would result in
significantly lower volumes requiring treatment
Some of the added dewatering capacity for K048-
K052 also may be available tor F037 and F038
wastes. Preliminary estimates suggest that
standard filter presses can reduce water content to
50 to 60 percent. Additional thermal drying could
reduce water content to as little as 4 percent.
The extent of dewatering can significantly
effect the volumes of F037 and F038 sludges
requiring treatment. For example, if EPA assumes
the RIA estimated generation volumes for F037
and F038 sludges and further assumes dewatering
to a 50 percent water content, the quantities of
newly regulated sludges annually requiring on-site
and off-site treatment could be reduced to a range
of 104.000 to 201.000 tons. EPA needs updated
data on the volumes of these sludges both as
generated and after dewatering in order to conduct
its capacity analysis.
fn addition to the quantities of sludge
generated annually, a number of refineries have
accumulated largeVquantities of primary wastewater
treatment sludge in surface impoundments. If
after the effective date of the F037 and F038
listing the accumulated sludge is removed from the
surface impoundments and re-managed by land
disposal, it will be subject to regulation as v
hazardous waste and also subject to the pertinent
LDRs after the treatment standards become
effective. The Agency estimated in the RIA that
about 474,000 tons (based on a water content of
55 percent for sludge sediments accumulated in
impoundments) were accumulated in surface
impoundments. The quantity of accumulated
sludge that will be re-managed by land disposal is
uncertain. Further analyses on timing of surface
impoundment closures ate needed to determine the
impact on treatment capacity.
In response to the LDRs for K048 and K051.
EPA has been advised that refineries are seeking
additional waste treatment alternatives. However,
it is unclear whether refineries have planned far
enough in advance to develop sufficient capacity
to account for F037 and P038 wastes as well
(which may have the same BOAT as K048 and
K051). Furthermore, EPA does not know whether
this increased demand for capacity will be
available on-site, off-site, at captive facilities, or
how much of it will be for combustion as opposed
to solvent extraction and high-temperature thermal
distillation. EPA anticipates, however, that
facilities whose industrial furnaces and boilers
comply with the new provisions finalized in the
Federal Register in the Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces (BIF) Rule. S3 FR 7134 (February 21.
1991). also will be abte to provide treatment
capacity to treat these wastes.
F037 and F038 wastes are generated in units
similar to those thai generate KQ48 and KOS1.
Therefore, the treatment technologies specified for
K048 and K051 would probably be applicable to
F037 and F038. EPA requests comments on the
issues raised in this discussion. Specifically, the
26
-------
Agency requests data on the volumes of F037,
F033. K048, and K051 that are being generated
and will be generated in the future: the volumes
of F037 and F03& which exhibit the TC: the
average water content of these wastes as generated
and as managed: on-site available or planned de-
watering capacity: the current and planned
management practices for these wastes: and the
accumulated volumes of F037 and F038 in surface
impoundments'as well as the management plans
for these sludges.
C. Wastes from the Production of Unsymmetrical
Dimethylhydrazine (K107, K108, KI09, and K110)
Four wastes generated in the production of
1.1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) salts from
carboxyiic acid hydrazides were listed as
hazardous on May 2, 1990 (55 FR 18496). For a
detailed description of wastes K107 through K110.
refer to the final rule listing these wastes as
hazardous. •
The Agency also proposed to list two
additional wastes. Ku7 and K138. generated in
the production of 1.1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
salts from carboxylic acid hydrazides as hazardous
on May 2, 1990 (55 FR 18507). These two
additional wastes were proposed for listing on the
basis of comments received in response to the
proposed listings of K107-K110 (49 FR 49556).
For a detailed description of K137 and K138. refer
to the Federal Register notice proposing to list
these wastes as hazardous (55 FR 18507).
1. Potential BOAT
EPA is considering establishing BOAT for
wastes from the production of UDMH by setting
methods of treatment as the standard consistent
with the Third Third final rule decision to regulate
U098. 1,1-dimethyIhydrazine. This decision
established incineration as the method for
nonwastewater forms of U098, and incineration or
chemical oxidation with carbon adsorption for the
wastewater form of U098. Treatment methods
may be appropriate standards for these wastes
because information developed in the Third Third
rulemaking (available m die Thud Third BOAT
Background Document for U and P Wastes and
Multi-source Teachaici, Volume B) suggests that
l.i-dimethylnvdmine. a principal organic
component or these wastes, is unstable in water
and. thus, particularly difficult to quantify.
However. EPA also is considering setting
concentration-based standards for UDMH
wastewater and nonwastewater streams if they turn
out to contain significant concentrations of other
organic components that are analyzabk and can
act as surrogates for die dunethyuiydrazine
compounds by virtue of being more difficult to
treat
In addition to comments evaluating these
possible regulatory options. EPA solicits
information and comment regarding: the
compositions of these waste streams, including
both organic and possible inorganic components:
the need for a dual set of treatment standards (i.e.
methods of treatment for organic constituents and
concentration-based standards for metals, if
present): performance data demonstrating the
treatability-of these or similar waste streams by
thermal, biological or other treatment processes:
and analytical complications encountered or
anticipated in quantifying constituents of these
wastes. EPA will incorporate these data into any
proposal to establish BOAT for these wastes.
2. Currently Available Capacity Data
Data available to the Agency suggest that
these wastes are no longer being generated (see 55
FR 18496, May 2. 1990). Wastes K107-KHO and
K137-K138 are generated when UDMH is
produced using a specific production process.
However, the only manufacturer using this process
reportedly is not producing UDMH. as of May.
1990. EPA requests additional information on \ \
whether any generation of K137 and K138
currently is occurring and. if so. what waste
volumes are generated and how the wastes are
managed.
In addition, if K107 and K108 are being
generated, some K107 waste may meet the EPA's
definition of D002 corrosive waste (40 CFR
261.22) and some K108 waste may meet the
EPA's definition of D001 ignitable waste (40 CFR
261.21). EPA promulgated treatment standards
and made capacity determinations for D002
corrosive and DOOl ignitable wastes in the Third
Third rule (55 FR 22546, 22549), and all KI07
and K108 wastes exhibiting those characteristics
are presently subject to die 0001 and 0002
treatment standards.
D. Waste from the Production of Dinifrototuene
and Toluenediamine (Kill and K112)
On October 23, 1985, six wastes (Kill
through K116) generated in the production of
dinitroioluene (DNT), toluenediamine (TDA), and
toluene dusocyanaie (TDI) were listed as
hazardous (50 FR 42936). For a detailed
description of the wastes, refer to die final rule
listing these wastes as hazardous. Treatment
standards for four of the six wastes. K113 through
K116, were promulgated in the Second Third final
rule (54 FR 26623). The Agency is planning to
develop treatment standards for the two remaining
wastes. Kill and Kill
Kill, product wash waters from the
production of dinitrotoluene via nitration of
toluene, is generated at faculties engaged in
27
-------
manufacturing inorganic chemicals, dyes and
pigments, explosives, and organic chemicals in the
course of organic synthesis operations. K112,
reaction by-product water from the drying column
in the production of toluenediamine via
hydrogenauon of dinitrotoluene. occurs in
intermediate processes at facilities engaged in
manufacturing photographic chemicals, plastics and
resins, organic chemicals, and textiles and
polyurethane. as well as in the production of
toluenediamine as an end product.
1. Potential BOAT
EPA is considering how to regulate Kill and
K112 wastewaters and nqnwastewaters. Setting
methods of treatment as standards is one approach.
given that the major organic constituents of Kill
and K112 (the dinitrotoluenes and toluidines)' are
relatively unstable in water, and SW-846 (and
equivalent) test methods cannot quantify them
reliably in order to require the regulated
community to do so on a routine basts to prove
compliance.
Characterization information indicates that
Kl 11 wastes are aqueous liquids with significant
quantities of sulfunc and nitric acids, and are
likely to be corrosive. Other organic components
that could be present and potentially used as
surrogates for concentration-based standards are
dininrotoluenes. nitrocresols. nitrophenols. and
nitrobenzoic acid Kl 12 is an aqueous liquid with
small quantities of toluenediamines. Kill and
K112 wastes also may include metals such as
nickel (from catalysts). EPA solicits comment on
all possible treatment standards, including a
treatment standard where a method such as
incineration or chemical oxidation would be
specified to ensure treatment of the organics. and
concentration-based standards would be specified
for the metals. The Agency also solicits analytical
composition data for both the organic and metal
constituents in the K111/K112 streams.
Incineration for nonwastewaters. and
incineration or chemical oxidation followed by.
activated carbon adsorption for wastewaters are
among possible treatment standards for Kill and
Kl 12 wastes. However, since information
suggests that (new wastes are currently created by
biological processes, with or without subsequent
activated carbon treatment, EPA particularly is
requesting data characterizing the trcatability of
these wastes in biological systems.
The alternative to establishing treatment
standards expressed as required methods is to
develop concentration-based standards.
Concentration-based standards for the organics in
Kill and K112 wastes would be appropriate if
the toxic organics anticipated to be present are
amenable to quantification in complex matrices. If
surrogate organics can be identified that can be
reduced significantly through wastewater treatment
systems and data demonstrate that these organics
are as difficult to treat. EPA may propose
concentration-based standards for these wastes.
EPA. therefore, solicits analytical data on the
composition of these streams, in order to
determine whether they contain constituents that
can act as analytical surrogates to verify
destruction of the organic constituents of concern.
2. Currently Available Capacity Information
The background documents for the proposed
rule for the listing of these wastes estimated the
annual generation of these wastes to be
approximately 470.000 tons of Kill wastewater
and 215.000 tons of Kl 12 wastewater. Over 70
percent of the Kill and 73 percent of the KU2
wastewaters are treated and discharged under
Clean Water Act provisions. The remaining
140.000 tons of Kill and 54.000 tons of K112
are either land disposed or undergo other
management practices that are currently
unidentified. In the absence of information on the
generation of Kill and KI12. the Agency may H
use 195,000 tons as an "upper bound" estimate of
the volumes of Kill and K112 wastewaters that
are generated annually.
EPA currently does not have information
regarding the availability of on-site treatment
capacity for these TDI wastes (Kill and K112).
In addition, the Agency currently does not have
data on the volumes or characteristics of Kill
and K112 residuals that may be generated during
the treatment of Kill and K112 wasiewaten.
However, the Agency believes that nonwastewater
residuals generated from biological treatment may
not require further treatment prior to land disposal:
EPA requests comments on this assumption.
Currently available data indicate that 195,000
tons of Kill and K112 wastewaters are generated
annually and may require treatment prior to land
disposal The Agency requests additional data on
the generation and management of Kill and K112
wastes, on available on-sue treatment capacity at
generating facilities, and on the volumes of
wastewater residuals currently generated.
E, Wastes from the Production of Ethylene
Dibnxnide (K117. K118, and K136)
Three wastes generated in the production of
ethylene dibcomide (EDB) were listed as
hazardous on February 13. 1986 (51 FR 5327).
For a detailed description of K117. K118. and
K136. refer to the final rule listing these wastes as
hazardous. Although EPA banned the use of
ethylene dflmmide (EDB) in the US. EPA
believes that EDB wastes may still be generated
28
-------
by pesticide manufacturers intending to sell EDB
overseas.
Kl 17 is a liquid stream 'containing ethylene
dibromide, bromoethane, bromochloroethane and
chloroform. KI18 is a solid waste consisting of
spent adsorbents saturated with ethylene dibromide,
I, I-2-cribromomethane, bromochloroethane.
bromomethane and bis(2-bromo)ethyl ether.
K136 is an organic liquid with high concentrations
of ethylene dibromide.
1. Potential BOAT
The EDB wastes KI17 and K118 resemble
very closely the organobromine wastes U029.
U030, U066. U067, U068 and U225 regulated in
the Third Third final rule. One standard for these
wastes could be the concentration-based standards
developed from the data used to calculate the
U029 (bromomethane), U030 (4-bromophenyl
phenyl ether), U066 (l^-dibromo-3-chloropropane).
U067 (ethylene dibromide. EDB). U068
(dibromomethane) and U225 (bromoform) Third
Third standards, since these data came from
incineration of EDB wastes performed and
monitored by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances.
Incinerating brominated organic compounds
raises the issue of preventing emissions of
molecular bromine (Br,) from the incinerator by
shifting the combustion reaction product
equilibrium to favor the formation of hydrogen
bromide (HBr). Limited data available to EPA
suggest that adding sulfur to the combustion
mixture prevents generation and subsequent
emissions of molecular bromine.
However. EPA realizes thai organobromine
wastes offer unique opportunities for recycling -
at least one facility is known to recover bromine
from brominated wastes by thermal processing.
Therefore, EPA requests documentation describing
attempts at processing discarded organobromine
compounds into commercial products. In addition,
EPA solicits information documenting attempts.
successful and otherwise, to incinerate brominated
organic compounds while controlling bromine and
bromide emissions from the incinerator stack..
In addition 19 comments evaluating these
possible regulatory options, EPA solicits comment
on the following' ornec the compositions of these
waste streams, including both organic and possible
inorganic components; performance data
demonstrating the (Testability of these or similar
waste streams by thermal, biological or other
treatment processes; and analytical complications
encountered or anticipated in quantifying
constituents of these wastes.
2. Currently Available Capacity Information
In the proposed rule for the listing of EDB
wastes, the Agency estimated the annual
generation of XI17 waste waters to be
approximately 26.000 tons, and 150 tons of K118
nonwastewater. The proposed rule does not
provide an estimate of the volume of K136
nonwastewater thai is generated. EPA's data on
the generation of KU7 and K118 reflects 1984
production levels of EDB. However, as already
indicated, in 1984, the Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) banned
the use of EDB as a rumigam. Therefore, the
production of EDB may 'have decreased since
1984.
EPA lacks information on the generation of
waste K136. However, the Agency believes that
this waste, still bottoms from the purification of
EDB. is not generated in significant quantities.
The Agency also does not have data currently on
the volumes of Id 17. K118. and KI36 residuals
that may be generated during treatment of EDB
wastes.
Data available to EPA indicate that, in 1984,\ \
26.000 tons of K117 and KI18 wastes were
generated annually. Given the low generation
volumes of these wastes, it appears that there is
likely to be sufficient capacity to treat K117 and
Kl 18. Although there is no volume data for
waste K136. the Agency believes that this waste is
not generated in large quantities, and that there
probably is sufficient capacity to treat this waste if
incineration is required EPA requests comments
on its current data and requests additional
information on the generation and management of
K117. K118. and K136 wastes.
F Wastes from the Production of
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (K123, K124.
K125. and K126)
Four wastes generated in the production and
formulation of the fungicide
ethyfenebisdithiocarbarnic acid (EBDC) and its
salts were listed as hazardous on October 24, 1986
(51 FR 37725). For a detailed description of
K123 through K126. refer to the final rule listing
these wastes as hazardous.
In general, waste characterization information
indicate thai K123 wastes are aqueous liquids.
K124 wastes are caustic aqueous liquids, K125
wastes are filtration and distillation solids, and
K126 wastes are dry dust-like solids. Ethylene
thiouea appear lobe the primary organic
component of atl four wastes.
29
-------
1. Potential BOAT
A potential means of establishing treatment
standards for K123. K124. K125. and K126 wastes
is to specify methods of treatment as BOAT.
Methods of treatment may be appropriate for these
wastes because the principal organic components
of these wastes are ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid
(EBDC) and ethylene thiourea. both of which are
relatively unstable in water and thus may be
particularly difficult to quantify. EBDC, as U114,
and ethylene thiourea, as U116, were regulated in
the Third Third ruiemaking, both with methods of
treatment as standards. The methods of treatment
which appear particularly appropriate for K123
through K126 wastes are incineration or thermal
destruction for nonwastewaters. and incineration.
thermal destruction, or chemical oxidation with
activated carbon for wastewaters.
Concentration-based standards are alternatives
to specifying treatment methods. EPA will only
set concentration-based standards for. organics in
K123 through K126 wastes provided the wastes
contain significant concentrations of the organics
that are consistently amenable to quantification in
' complex matrices (i.e.. the treatment residues) or
provided surrogate treatment parameters can be
identified. Available data suggest that none of the
hazardous organic constituents of concern in K123
through K126 wastes are easily quantified in
treatment residues from treatment of other types of
wastes. Nevertheless, to determine whether
concentration-based standards are appropriate for
the organics in these four wastes, EPA solicits
analytical data on their composition in both treated
and untreated wastes. If other constituents or
parameters can be identified that can act as
analytical surrogates (i.e.. indicators to verify
destruction of the organic constituents of the
stream that are difficult to analyze). EPA may be
able to propose concentration-based standards
using these surrogates. EPA also requests
treatment performance data from attempts to treat
these or similar wastes by thermal, biological or
other processes. Furthermore, EPA requests
composition and treatabtlity data about all metal
components of Una waste.
2. Currently Avaflabk Capacity Information
K124 may meet EPA's definition of corrosive
waste (40 CFR 261.22) and. therefore, may be a
D002 characteristic waste. The Agency
promulgated treatment standards and made capacity
determinations for D002 corrosive waste in the
Third Third rule (55 FR 22549). K124 waste that
is also a D002 waste already may undergo
neutralization or other treatment prior to land
disposal.
The proposed rule for the listing of these
wastes estimated the 1982 generation of EBDC
wastes to be approximately 35,000 tons of K123
wastewater, 1,500 tons of K124 wastewater. 500
tons of K125 non waste water, and 15 tons of K.126
nonwastewater. In the absence of more current
data on waste generation, the Agency is likely to
use the 1982 generation rates to make a
preliminary assessment of capacity. In addition, in
the absence of data on waste management
practices, the Agency may use the entire volume
of waste generated as an "upper bound" estimate
of the volume of waste that will be land disposed
and. therefore, require treatment.
Data from the proposed rule for the listing of
these wastes indicate that 35.000 tons of K123 and
1.500 tons of K124 wastewaters may require
treatment annually. In the Third Third final rule
(55 FR 22635. 22647), the Agency estimated that
approximately 190,000 tons of biological treatment
capacity and 65.000 tons of incineration capacity
for liquids was available. Therefore, it appears
that there may bi sufficient capacity to treat K123
and K124 if biological treatment or incineration is
chosen as BOAT.
Data from the proposed rule for the listing 61
these wastes indicate that 500 tons of K125 and
15 tons of K126 may require treatment annually.
The Agency believes that residuals generated from
the treatment of K123 and K124 wastewaters are
not likely to require further treatment prior to
disposal Therefore, the volume of K123 - K126
nonwastewaters requiring sludge or solid
combustion may be SIS tons. It appears that
there is sufficient capacity to treat these wastes.
The Agency requests comments on this analysis
and requests additional data on the generation and
management of EBDC wastes.
G. Wastes from the Production of Methyl
Bromide (K131 and K132)
Two wastes generated during the production of
methyl bromide were listed as hazardous on
October 6. 1989 (54 FR 41402). For a detailed
description of wastes K131 and K132. please refer
to the final rale for the listing of these wastes and
the listing background documents. K131 wastes
are acidic aqueous liquids containing methyl
bromide, dimethyl sulfate and sulfunc acid plus
other brominated ethanes and methane- and
ethane-based alcohols and ethers. K132 wastes
consist of adsorbent solids saturated with liquids
containing methyl bromide.
1. Potential BOAT
Methyl bromide and die compounds expected
to be contained in the wastes resemble the
organobromine compounds that were regulated as
U wastes in the Thud Third final rule.
Appropriate standards for these wastes may be
concentration-based standards developed from the
30
-------
data used to calculate the U029 (bromomethane).
U030 (4-bromophenyl phenyl ether). U066 {1.2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane), U067 (ethylene
dibromide. EDB). U068 (dibromomethane) and
U223 (bromoform) Third Third standards.
particularly considering that this data came from
incineration of EDB wastes.
Section V.E.. above, discusses issues
associated with incinerating and recycling
brocninated organic compounds. EPA solicits
comments on those issues for brominated methane
wastes such as these.
In addition to comments evaluating these
possible regulatory options. EPA solicits
information regarding: the composition of these
waste streams, including both organic and possible
inorganic components; performance data
demonstrating the (Testability of these or similar
waste streams by thermal, biological or other
treatment processes: and analytical complications
encountered or anticipated in quantifying
constituents of these wastes.
2. Currently Available Capacity Information
In the proposed rule for the listing of these
wastes. EPA estimated the annual generation of
methyl bromide wastes at maximum capacity to be
approximately 14,000 tons of K131 wastewater
and 150 tons of K132 nonwastewater.
K131 may meet EPA's definition of corrosive
waste (40 CFR 261.22) and. therefore, may be a
D002 characteristic waste. The Agency already
has promulgated treatment standards and made
capacity determinations for D002 corrosive waste
in the Third Third rule (55 FR 22549). K131
waste that is also a D002 waste already may
undergo neutralization or other treatment prior to
land disposal. The Agency does not have any
data indicating what fraction of K131 is also D002
characteristic or whether waste treated for
corrosivity will require further treatment for
organics.
In the absence of data on the current waste
management practices for these wastes, the Agency
is likely to use the entire volume generated as an
"upper bound" estimate of the volume of waste
requiring alternate treatment. The Agency does
not have data currently on the volumes or
characteristics of K131 residual wastes that may
be generated during treatment of this waste.
However, based on professional judgement, the
Agency believes that treatment residuals may not
require alternate treatment prior to land disposal.
Data currently available indicate that 14.000 v v
tons of K131 wastewater are generated annually
and may require treatment Data from the
proposed rule for the listing of these wastes
indicate that 150 tons of K132 is generated
annually. Given the relatively low generation
volumes, it appears that there is likely to be
sufficient capacity to treat both K131 and K132
wastewaters and nonwastewater residuals. The
Agency requests comments on this analysis and
specifically requests data on the current generation
volumes of methyl bromide wastes, and off-site
and on-site management practices for these wastes.
31
-------
.'lire volume generaced as an 'upper bound" estimate of che
volume of waste requiring alternate treatment. The Agency does
not have data currently on the volumes or characteristics of K131
residual wastes that may be generated during treatment of this
waste. However, based on professional judgement, the Agency
believes that treatment residuals may not require alternate
treatment prior to land disposal.
Data currently available indicate that 14,, 000 tons of K131
wastewater are generated annually and may require treatment.
'*
Data from the proposed rule for the listing of these wastes
indicate that 150 tons of K132 is generated annually. Given the\
relatively low generation volumes, it appears that there is
likely to be sufficient capacity to treat both K131 and K132
wastewaters and nonwastewater residuals. The Agency requests
comments on this analysis and specifically requests data on the
current generation volumes of methyl bromide wastes, and off-site
and ...-site management practices for these wastes.
HAY 20 IOQ1
William K. Reilly
Administrator
117
------- |